Skip to main content

Home/ Classroom 2.0/ Group items tagged constructivist

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Carlos Quintero

Innovate: Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software - 0 views

innovateonline.info/index.php

article artículo education innovate learning pedagogia2.0 pedagogy teaching

shared by Carlos Quintero on 11 Sep 08 - Cached
  • Web 2.0 has inspired intense and growing interest, particularly as wikis, weblogs (blogs), really simple syndication (RSS) feeds, social networking sites, tag-based folksonomies, and peer-to-peer media-sharing applications have gained traction in all sectors of the education industry (Allen 2004; Alexander 2006)
  • Web 2.0 allows customization, personalization, and rich opportunities for networking and collaboration, all of which offer considerable potential for addressing the needs of today's diverse student body (Bryant 2006).
  • In contrast to earlier e-learning approaches that simply replicated traditional models, the Web 2.0 movement with its associated array of social software tools offers opportunities to move away from the last century's highly centralized, industrial model of learning and toward individual learner empowerment through designs that focus on collaborative, networked interaction (Rogers et al. 2007; Sims 2006; Sheely 2006)
  • ...19 more annotations...
  • learning management systems (Exhibit 1).
  • The reality, however, is that today's students demand greater control of their own learning and the inclusion of technologies in ways that meet their needs and preferences (Prensky 2005)
  • Tools like blogs, wikis, media-sharing applications, and social networking sites can support and encourage informal conversation, dialogue, collaborative content generation, and knowledge sharing, giving learners access to a wide range of ideas and representations. Used appropriately, they promise to make truly learner-centered education a reality by promoting learner agency, autonomy, and engagement in social networks that straddle multiple real and virtual communities by reaching across physical, geographic, institutional, and organizational boundaries.
  • "I have always imagined the information space as something to which everyone has immediate and intuitive access, and not just to browse, but to create” (2000, 216). Social software tools make it easy to contribute ideas and content, placing the power of media creation and distribution into the hands of "the people formerly known as the audience" (Rosen 2006).
  • the most promising settings for a pedagogy that capitalizes on the capabilities of these tools are fully online or blended so that students can engage with peers, instructors, and the community in creating and sharing ideas. In this model, some learners engage in creative authorship, producing and manipulating digital images and video clips, tagging them with chosen keywords, and making this content available to peers worldwide through Flickr, MySpace, and YouTube
  • Student-centered tasks designed by constructivist teachers reach toward this ideal, but they too often lack the dimension of real-world interactivity and community engagement that social software can contribute.
  • Pedagogy 2.0: Teaching and Learning for the Knowledge Age In striving to achieve these goals, educators need to revisit their conceptualization of teaching and learning (Exhibit 2).
  • Pedagogy 2.0: Teaching and Learning for the Knowledge Age In striving to achieve these goals, educators need to revisit their conceptualization of teaching and learning
  • Pedagogy 2.0 is defined by: Content: Microunits that augment thinking and cognition by offering diverse perspectives and representations to learners and learner-generated resources that accrue from students creating, sharing, and revising ideas; Curriculum: Syllabi that are not fixed but dynamic, open to negotiation and learner input, consisting of bite-sized modules that are interdisciplinary in focus and that blend formal and informal learning;Communication: Open, peer-to-peer, multifaceted communication using multiple media types to achieve relevance and clarity;Process: Situated, reflective, integrated thinking processes that are iterative, dynamic, and performance and inquiry based;Resources: Multiple informal and formal sources that are rich in media and global in reach;Scaffolds: Support for students from a network of peers, teachers, experts, and communities; andLearning tasks: Authentic, personalized, learner-driven and learner-designed, experiential tasks that enable learners to create content.
  • Instructors implementing Pedagogy 2.0 principles will need to work collaboratively with learners to review, edit, and apply quality assurance mechanisms to student work while also drawing on input from the wider community outside the classroom or institution (making use of the "wisdom of crowds” [Surowiecki 2004]).
  • A small portion of student performance content—if it is new knowledge—will be useful to keep. Most of the student performance content will be generated, then used, and will become stored in places that will never again see the light of day. Yet . . . it is still important to understand that the role of this student content in learning is critical.
  • This understanding of student-generated content is also consistent with the constructivist view that acknowledges the learner as the chief architect of knowledge building. From this perspective, learners build or negotiate meaning for a concept by being exposed to, analyzing, and critiquing multiple perspectives and by interpreting these perspectives in one or more observed or experienced contexts
  • This understanding of student-generated content is also consistent with the constructivist view that acknowledges the learner as the chief architect of knowledge building. From this perspective, learners build or negotiate meaning for a concept by being exposed to, analyzing, and critiquing multiple perspectives and by interpreting these perspectives in one or more observed or experienced contexts. In so doing, learners generate their own personal rules and knowledge structures, using them to make sense of their experiences and refining them through interaction and dialogue with others.
  • Other divides are evident. For example, the social networking site Facebook is now the most heavily trafficked Web site in the United States with over 8 million university students connected across academic communities and institutions worldwide. The majority of Facebook participants are students, and teachers may not feel welcome in these communities. Moreover, recent research has shown that many students perceive teaching staff who use Facebook as lacking credibility as they may present different self-images online than they do in face-to-face situations (Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds 2007). Further, students may perceive instructors' attempts to coopt such social technologies for educational purposes as intrusions into their space. Innovative teachers who wish to adopt social software tools must do so with these attitudes in mind.
  • "students want to be able to take content from other people. They want to mix it, in new creative ways—to produce it, to publish it, and to distribute it"
  • Furthermore, although the advent of Web 2.0 and the open-content movement significantly increase the volume of information available to students, many higher education students lack the competencies necessary to navigate and use the overabundance of information available, including the skills required to locate quality sources and assess them for objectivity, reliability, and currency
  • In combination with appropriate learning strategies, Pedagogy 2.0 can assist students in developing such critical thinking and metacognitive skills (Sener 2007; McLoughlin, Lee, and Chan 2006).
  • We envision that social technologies coupled with a paradigm of learning focused on knowledge creation and community participation offer the potential for radical and transformational shifts in teaching and learning practices, allowing learners to access peers, experts, and the wider community in ways that enable reflective, self-directed learning.
  • . By capitalizing on personalization, participation, and content creation, existing and future Pedagogy 2.0 practices can result in educational experiences that are productive, engaging, and community based and that extend the learning landscape far beyond the boundaries of classrooms and educational institutions.
  • Carlos Quintero on 11 Sep 08
     
    About pedagogic 2.0
  • Carlos Quintero on 11 Sep 08
     
    Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software Catherine McLoughlin and Mark J. W. Lee
David McGavock

CITE Journal - Editorial - 21 views

www.citejournal.org/...article1.cfm

technology integration Judi Harris editorial journal technocentrism

shared by David McGavock on 28 Aug 10 - Cached
  • A classroom that has successfully integrated technology into the curriculum would be one where you would not really notice it because it would be so second nature. The teacher would not have to think up ways to use whatever tools were available, but would seamlessly use them to enhance the learning of whatever content was being covered. Technology [would be] used to assist in acquiring content knowledge, and the acquisition of technology skills [would be] secondary. Contrast this depiction with what the International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S; ISTE, 2002) say about technology integration: Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting….Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions—as accessible as all other classroom tools.
  • his urging to shift the focus from the learning tools to what is being learned and how that learning happens still needs to be heeded—almost 20 years later.
  • Integration is defined not by the amount or type of technology used, but by how and why it is used.
  • ...15 more annotations...
  • many of these technology-specific studies did not explore more fundamental issues in technology and education
  • what needs to be further developed, examined, and shared
  • particular curriculum standards-based instructional strategies that are appropriately matched to students’ learning needs and preferences
  • understanding the processes and interim results of how and why specific tools can and should be appropriated
  • help students with distinct needs and preferences to achieve identified learning goals.
  • the STaR Chart
  • According to the national StaR Chart, then, technology use in what is typically described as “constructivist” learning is preferable to technology used to “reinforce basic academic skills.”
  • Constructivists view people as constructive agents and view the phenomenon of interest (meaning or knowledge) as built instead of passively “received”
  • curriculum-based integration of educational technologies – defined in Education and Technology: An Encyclopedia (Kovalchick & Dawson, 2004) as “the effective integration of technology throughout the curriculum to help students meet the standards and outcomes of each lesson, unit, or activity”
  • As discerning educators and researchers, we should question why teachers’ roles “must” change to integrate technology effectively into K-12 curricula.
  • the technologies themselves do not require this shift
  • Though teachers in the nationally representative sample they studied acknowledged that computers helped them to change instructional practice over time, they cited experience, organized professional learning, and school culture as the primary factors provoking instructional changes.
  • In districts in which teachers’ academic freedom is preserved—at least in part—aren’t the pedagogical approaches to be used the result of decisions that each teacher makes, preferably rooted in a well-informed knowledge base of both students’ learning needs and preferences and corresponding methodological alternatives?
  • Can it really be assumed that a particular approach “works best” in all teaching, learning, school, district, and community contexts?
  • perhaps a new approach is warranted at this point in time—one that genuinely respects pedagogical plurality and honors teachers’ academic freedom.
  • David McGavock on 28 Aug 10
     
    A classroom that has successfully integrated technology into the curriculum would be one where you would not really notice it because it would be so second nature. The teacher would not have to think up ways to use whatever tools were available, but would seamlessly use them to enhance the learning of whatever content was being covered. Technology [would be] used to assist in acquiring content knowledge, and the acquisition of technology skills [would be] secondary. Contrast this depiction with what the International Society for Technology in Education's (ISTE) National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S; ISTE, 2002) say about technology integration: Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting….Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions-as accessible as all other classroom tools.
David Peter

MIT Press Journals - International Journal of Learning and Media - Full Text - 0 views

www.mitpressjournals.org/...ijlm.2009.0005

shared by David Peter on 23 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Now, with study becoming a lifelong enterprise, and with the advent of a galaxy of new media, “learning” seems once again poised to become all things to all people, be they lay or scholarly.
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      So, since we are all lifelong learners with access to transparent, pervasive and ubiquitous technology ... not sure NEW media is all that NEW.
  • learning that do not occur automatically, readily, naturally, or by dint of simply living in a certain place at a certain time
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      Almost seems to be speaking of PROGRAMMED learning, and not the new learning environment/commons. Isn't all learning contextual?
  • we may well have reached a set of tipping points: Going forward, learning may be far more individualized, far more in the hands (and the minds) of the learner, and far more interactive than ever before
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      Barr and Tagg mentioned this SHIFT earlier.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • advent of a galaxy of new media
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      What NEW media are they speaking of? The NEW media is always changing and may be difficult to specifically link to lifelong learners. Prensky speaks of digital natives and digital immigrants. Does all media work for all readers/users?
  • we may well have reached a set of tipping points
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      We are BEYOND the tipping point. More likely to be a GROUNDSWELL and it's up to us to ride the wave or not.
  • learning may be at once more individual
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      Thanks to technology, or inspite of technology?
  • Both the demands of the workplace and the demands of education have changed profoundly and promise to do so for the foreseeable future.
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      And, in addition, the focus has shifted to global learning, and not localized learning. The advent of 21st century skills, the reemergence of liberal education ... all are continuing to change and demand change.
  • technology is often cited as a primary driver of cultural change
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      Interesting thought. Is this an anthropological conclusion? A social conclusion? Who has cited this?
  • One could argue that a strictly formal learning experience is characterized by classroom-based instruction featuring an explicit curriculum and traditional pedagogical goals, and scaffolding implemented by a single educator; a pure informal learning experience lacks all of these characteristics
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      This would imply that informal learnnig, without structure, is somehow inferior. Isn't the tone of learning set by the classroom, the teacher and other variables?
  • A successful informal learning practice depends upon an independent, constructivistically oriented learner who can identify, locate, process, and synthesize the information he or she is lacking
    • David Peter
      David Peter on 23 Mar 09
       
      Hard to imagine that this can ONLY occur with a constructivist paradigm?
Nigel Coutts

Learning to learn with a MakerSpace - The Learner's Way - 15 views

thelearnersway.net/...ing-to-learn-with-a-makerspace

education collaboration teaching making maker STEAM

shared by Nigel Coutts on 08 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • Nigel Coutts on 08 Jan 17
     
    Making, Maker Centred Learning and STEAM fit neatly alongside Inquiry Based Learning (IBL) for many schools. Commonly this approach includes a constructivist view of knowledge and teachers seek to establish conditions which allow students to explore questions and ideas with greater independence than may occur in the traditional classroom.  Learning becomes a collaborative partnership between teachers and students with a clear focus on a learner centric approach.
Tero Toivanen

The Flipped Class: Myths vs. Reality - THE DAILY RIFF - Be Smarter. About Education. - 52 views

www.thedailyriff.com/...ped-class-conversation-689.php

flipped classroom flipped teaching classroom flip myth education learning

shared by Tero Toivanen on 02 May 12 - No Cached
  • The Flipped Classroom is NOT:A synonym for online videos. When most people hear about the flipped class all they think about are the videos.  It is the the interaction and the meaningful learning activities that occur during the face-to-face time that is most important.About replacing teachers with videos.An online course. Students working without structure.Students spending the entire class staring at a computer screen.Students working in isolation. 
  • The Flipped Classroom IS:A means to INCREASE interaction and personalized contact time between students and teachers.An environment where students take responsibility for their own learning.  A classroom where the teacher is not the "sage on the stage", but the "guide on the side".A blending of direct instruction with constructivist learning.A classroom where students who are absent due to illness or extra-curricular activities such as athletics or field-trips, don't get left behind.A class where content is permanently archived  for review or remediation.A class where all students are engaged in their learning.A place where all students can get a personalized education.
Nigel Coutts

An Introduction to Design Thinking (Part Two) - 20 views

thelearnersway.net/...on-to-design-thinking-part-two

education technology resources learning teaching collaboration

shared by Nigel Coutts on 07 Jun 15 - No Cached
  • Nigel Coutts on 07 Jun 15
     
    In the constructivist-learning model, engagement and experience combine with immersive environments and self-organisation of knowledge to establish a context in which learning occurs naturally. Constructivism has since the time of Dewey become closely affiliated with Project Based Learning and yet despite years of efforts to refine the process the result does not always match the promise. Design Thinking might be the answer.
Danielle Klaus

NoodleTools: The Ethical Researcher: A Proactive Constructivist Approach - 0 views

www.noodletools.com/...ethical

21st_century_skills acceptable_use all_teachers bestpractices bibliography copyright fair_use information_literacy k12 media_literacy plagiarism resources

shared by Danielle Klaus on 09 Jul 08 - Cached
  • Danielle Klaus on 09 Jul 08
     
    .pdf Resources: "No More Cat and Mouse" - plagiarism and citation in context - 4 Phases of notemaking/notetaking - Beyond Cut&Paste - How to Assess a Biblio. for Understanding - Plagiarism Policy Template - Beyond Acceptable Use: Ethical/Academic Use
Dennis OConnor

E-Learning Graduate Certificate Program: Problem solving in an online constructivist cl... - 22 views

elearning-certificate.blogspot.com/...problem-solving-in-online.html

e-learning constructivism problem solving

shared by Dennis OConnor on 12 Jan 11 - No Cached
  • If you come across a question you can't answer, be honest. Don't bluff or portray yourself as an expert when you aren't. Instead model the collaborative skills you've developed and work together with the student to solve problems.
  • By sharing power you enhance the learning community. 
  • Here are some problem solving tips.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • 1. Wait time.
  • 2. Admit when you're uncertain.
  • 3. Practicum Interns should consult with your cooperating instructor on anything that might get sticky.
  • In an internship,  go to your cooperating cooperating instructor first.  
  • When you're teaching online for a company or university use the chain of command.
  • 4. Use your search skills.
  • Problem solving is an ongoing process. 
  • See our NEW Checklist for Online Instructors for a comprehensive guide to best practices in e-learning! 
smitts02

SAMR as a Framework for Moving Towards Education 3.0 | User Generated Education - 1 views

usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/...r-moving-towards-education-3-0

SAMR technology

shared by smitts02 on 26 May 14 - No Cached
  • Briefly, Education 1.0, 2.0. and 3.0 is explained as: Education 1.0 can be likened to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student.  It is a type of essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking standardized tests which in reality is all students taking the same test. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics.  All are viewed as the same.  It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education. Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert.  Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves.  Education 2.0 has progressive roots where the human element is important to learning.  The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process.  It focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating. Education 3.0 is based on the belief that content is freely and readily available as is characteristic of Web 3.0. It is self-directed, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation and creativity drive education. Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists.  These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0.  Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-directed learner rather than doing learning as facilitated by the educator. Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20▼ items per page