Skip to main content

Home/ EDUC 300/ Group items tagged curriculum

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Diane Gusa

Bruner's Model of the Spiral Curriculum | Reference.com Answers - 0 views

  • Bruner's model of the spiral curriculum is an element of educational philosophy suggesting that students . should continually return to basic ideas as new subjects and concepts are added over the course of a curriculum.
  • The spiral curriculum theory revolves around the understanding that human cognition evolved in a step-by-step process of learning, which relied on environmental interaction and experience to form intuition and knowledge. In simpler terms, one learns best through the repeated experience of a concept.
Diane Gusa

Pedagogical Appraches for Using Technology Literature Review January 11 FINAL 1 - 0 views

  • Connectivism Individual processing of information gives way todevelopment of networks of trusted people, content andtools: the task of knowing is  offloaded onto the networkitself Siemens
  • Communities of enquiry Building on Wenger's notionof communities of practice,(higher) learning conceived interms of participation, withlearners experiencing social,cognitive and pedagogicaspects of community.Wenger, Garrison andAnderson
  • E-learning, e-pedagogy New forms of learning andteaching are enabled – andrequired – by digitaltechnologies. Typically moreconstructivist and learner-led.Mayes and Fowler, Cronje
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • onole, Dyke, Oliver and Seale (2004), have proposed a toolkit and model for mapping pedagogyand tools for effective learning design. They say "Toolkits are model-based resources that offer away of structuring users’ engagement that encourages reflection on theoretical concerns as well assupporting the development of practical plans for action (Conole & Oliver, 2002). The models thatform the heart of each toolkit consist of representations of a ‘space’, described in terms of qualities,in which theories or approaches can be described." They emphasise that "the descriptions of these
  •     Pedagogic Approaches to Using Technology for Learning - Literature Review 23 approaches reflect the beliefs of describer. These models are thus best understood as sharablerepresentations of beliefs and of practice, rather than as definitive account of the area" (p.18).The framework they propose consists of the following six components (p.22-23):  “Individual – Where the individual is the focus of learning.  Social – learning is explained through interaction with others (such as a tutor or fellowstudents), through discourse and collaboration and the wider social context within which thelearning takes place.  Reflection – Where conscious reflection on experience is the basis by which experience istransformed into learning.  Non-reflection – Where learning is explained with reference to processes such asconditioning, preconscious learning, skills learning and memorisation (Holford, Jarvis, &Griffin, 1998).  Information – Where an external body of information such as text, artefacts and bodies of knowledge form the basis of experience and the raw material for learning.  Experience – Where learning arises through direct experience, activity and practicalapplication
  • ormier proposes a ‘rhizomatic model’ of learning in which “a community can construct a model of education flexible enough for the way knowledge develops and changes today by producing a mapof contextual knowledge” (p.4). In this model, “curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs fromexperts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the
  •    Left hand side page by Lifelong Learning UK 24   24 learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, andreconstructing itself and the subject of its learning…” (p.3).
Doris Stockton

AJET 26(3) Drexler (2010) - The networked student model for construction of personal le... - 0 views

  • Personal learning suggests learner autonomy and increased self regulation (Atwell, 2007; Aviram et al., 2008). However, increased responsibility and control on the part of the learner do not necessarily equate to learner motivation (Dede, 1996). Students engaging in networked learning research must be more self-directed. Not only are they navigating a number of web-based applications for the first time, they are also required to take an active role in the learning process by making decisions about how to search, where to search, and why certain content meets a learning objective.
  • Teachers, on the other hand, are challenged to provide an appropriate balance between structure and learner autonomy in order to facilitate self-directed, personalised learning (Beaudoin, 1990; McLoughlin & Lee, 2010).
  • The role of a teacher within a student-centered approach to instruction is that of a facilitator or coach (Wang, 2006). "He or she supports the students in their search and supply of relevant material, coordinates the students' presentations of individual milestones of their projects, moderates discussions, consults in all kinds of problem-solving and seeking for solutions, lectures on topics that are selected in plenary discussions with the students and conforms to the curriculum" (Motschnig-Pitrik & Holzinger, 2002, p. 166).
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Figure 1: The Networked Teacher (Couros, 2008)
  • ouros (2008) developed a model of the networked teacher that represents an educator's professional personal learning environment (PLE). A teacher is better equipped to facilitate networked learning if he or she has experienced the construction of such a model first hand. The significant connections in Couros' view of the network include colleagues, popular media, print and digital resources, the local community, blogs, wikis, video conferencing, chat/IRC, social networking services, online communities, social bookmarking, digital photo sharing, and content development communities (Couros, 2008).
  • Networked teacher model
  • Developing a model of the networked student The Networked Student Model adapts Couros' vision for teacher professional development in a format that is applicable to the K-12 student. It includes four primary categories, each with many components evident in the networked teacher version (Figure 2).
  • Figure 2: The Networked Student
  • The networked student follows a constructivist approach to learning. He or she constructs knowledge based on experiences and social interactions (Jonassen et al., 2003). Constructivism encourages "greater participation by students in their appropriation of scholarly knowledge" (Larochelle et al., 1998).
  • Technology supports this appropriation as a collection of tools that promote knowledge construction, an information vehicle for exploring knowledge, an active learning tool, a social medium to promote conversing, and an intellectual partner to facilitate reflection (Jonassen et al., 2003)
  • In a traditional classroom setting, the teacher has primary control over the content. He or she selects or designs the curriculum. Networked learning gives students the ability and the control to connect with subject matter experts in virtually any field.
  • That connection expands to include access to resources and creative artifacts. Computers and mobile devices continue to broaden access to all types of information and learning sources. As quickly as content becomes available, web applications are released to assist in the management of that content
  • The networked student constructs a personal learning environment one node at a time. Once these connections are formed, they must be revisited and built upon to facilitate further learning. The personal learning environment lives beyond time spent in a classroom
  • With so much information to manage, it is increasingly difficult to stay abreast of changes in a given field, much less track implications arising from related fields. Really Simple Syndication (RSS) allows learners to subscribe to changing content and makes tracking changes easier.
  • Ultimately, meaningful learning occurs with knowledge construction, not reproduction; conversation, not reception; articulation, not repetition; collaboration, not competition; and reflection, not prescription (Jonassen et al., 2003).
  • Construction of a personal learning environment does not necessarily facilitate comprehension or deep understanding. Learning potential exists in what the student does with the compilation of content and how it is synthesised. The networked student model is one of inquiry, or the process of "exploring problems, asking questions, making discoveries, achieving new understanding and fulfilling personal curiosity" (National Science Foundation, as quoted by Chang & Wang, 2009, p. 169).
  • Principles of connectivism equate to fundamentals of learning in a networked world. The design of the teacher-facilitated, student-created personal learning environment in this study adheres to constructivist and connectivist principles with the goal of developing a networked student who will take more responsibility for his or her learning while navigating an increasingly complex content base.
  • Nine out of 15 students indicated that time management was the most difficult aspect of the course. Yet, of the fifteen students participating in the project, thirteen were able to manage weekly assignments per the schedule. Two students fell behind and expressed frustration at the amount of work required to catch up. Teacher intervention was required to facilitate their successful completion of the course. They were given a daily list of tasks designed to scaffold the time management aspects of the project. Time management issues were less associated with construction of the personal learning environment and more concerned with the blended format of the delivery. It was an adjustment for students to manage work outside of class even though they enjoyed the freedom of attending a formal class meeting only 3 out of 5 days a week.
  • Achieving the delicate balance between teacher control and student autonomy is an ongoing challenge when facilitating student use of new technologies for self-regulated learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2010). Motivation, self direction, and technical aptitude are key considerations for implementing a networked student design. The students constructing personal learning environments in this test case were successful in the contemporary issues course.
  • spite of the challenges highlighted above, the Networked Student Model offers a design and framework through which teachers can explore a student-centered, 21st century approach to learning. It further provides a foundation for constructing a personal learning environment with potential to expand as new learning avenues emerge. The student is challenged to synthesise diverse and extensive digital materials, connect to others interacting in respectful and meaningful ways, self-regulate an active approach to learning, and develop an option for life long learning that applies to virtually any curricular area. Once a student has learned how to construct a personal learning environment, he or she is left with a model of learning that extends beyond the classroom walls, one in which the learner assumes full control. Regardless of teacher control, the students' success will depend on how well they have been prepared in the processes that support learning in an ever changing, increasingly networked world.
  •  
    I have highlighted many sections that pertain to student centered online learning.
Doris Stockton

JOLT - Journal of Online Learning and Teaching - 0 views

  • The Barriers to Online Teaching and Learning
  • Similarly, inadequate hardware and software, slow internet connections, learners’ procrastination, lack of technical expertise among the instructors, insufficient orientation for learners, and a lack of release time for instructors to develop and design their online courses have been cited as barriers to faculty participation in developing and teaching online courses (Nkonge & Gueldenzoph, 2006). The researchers recommended training and support for instructors. Supporting faculty becomes significant because of the number of faculty who begin the online teaching experience with little knowledge of the process of designing, developing, and instructing an online course (Cuellar, 2002).
  • Nelson and Thompson (2005) cited faculty time, rewards, workload, lack of administrative support, cost, course quality, student contact, and equipment concerns as barriers to online teaching practices. The researchers recommended that program leaders keep abreast of the technology issues; courses integrate more collaboration between instructors and learners; training be provided to faculty to overcome negative dispositions; leaders attempt to incorporate the need for distance education courses in institutions’ missions, and that a reconsideration of tenure and promotion decisions should be examined in an attempt to support faculty workloads.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Although instruction provided through the Internet offers a viable alternative to the need for “physical” space, the need for faculty involvement in online learning remains a prevalent issue for those institutions that plan to continue offering instruction at a distance (Matsom, 2006; Nelson & Thompson, 2005; Schifter, 2004). In many institutions, faculty members are expected to participate in online distance education as a part of their regular duties as faculty (Kim & Bonk, 2006). However, many faculty members are hesitant to convert their traditional courses to an online format. This resistance is attributed to a lack of support, assistance, as well as training by institutions of higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009).
  • Both novice faculty, who may have been reluctant to participate, and expert faculty play a significant role in guiding the types of support, assistance, and training provided by institutions of higher education. Rockwell et al., (1999) evaluated the types of education, assistance, and support that faculty felt were needed to be successful in online teaching and learning. Faculty responded with the assertions that assistance and support for developing instructional materials, developing interaction, and for applying certain technologies were critical to their success in online environments. Faculty regarded teaching online as more difficult than teaching traditional courses (Gerlich, 2005) as well as complain that online delivery were more labor intensive because of the amount of time required to grade papers and respond to questions (Lao, & Gonzales, 2005; Wegmann, & McCauley, 2008; Sellani & Harrington, 2002). In other studies, faculty felt that additional instructional and technical support were needed because faculty were genuinely concerned about the quality of their online courses and the amount of technical assistance and training available to them at their institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009).
  • Surveys conducted by Brogden and Couros (2002), Grosse, (2004), and Lorenzetti, (2004) suggest that the time and effort demands to develop online courses and to learn new technologies are also causes for faculty member’s frustrations. Additionally, some faculty members may resist online teaching because they are concerned that those courses may require more time for advanced planning (Matsom, 2006). Further, faculty members may be hesitant about this shift due to the fact that they may lose autonomy and control of the curriculum, lack of technical training and support, and lack of release time for planning. Generally, understanding the differences between traditional face-to-face learning environment and online learning environment, and the process of being able to shift from one modality to the other, will give faculty members the ability to design better online courses and focus more on course delivery (Conrad, 2004; Harlow, 2007; Marfoglio, 2006, Sugar, Martindale, & Crawley, 2007). Faculty members may also need to rethink (a) the nature of the content to be taught (b) their role as faculty members and (c) the needs and requirements of the students (Ben-Jacob, Levin & Ben-Jacob, 2000; Lee & Busch, 2005; Jones, Kollof, & Kolloff, 2008).
  •  
    This is the article that I used for response to Kelly's Speak out discussion post.
Diane Gusa

Learning-Centered Syllabi - 0 views

  • Learning-Centered Syllabi Workshop
  • Creating and using a learner-centered syllabus is integral to the process of creating learning communities.
  • students should progress from a primarily instructor-led approach to a primarily student-initiated approach to learning.
  • ...22 more annotations...
  • students and their ability to learn are at the center of what we do
  • facilitate student learning rather than to act as "gatekeepers" of knowledge
  • A necessary first step in creating a learning-centered syllabus, according to most sources, is to spend some time thinking about the "big questions" related to why, what, who and how we teach.
  • thoughtful discussions with ourselves and our colleagues about our teaching philosophy and what it means to be an educated person in our discipline
  • We also need to think about how we encourage responsibility for learning in our students.
  • we focus on the process of learning rather than the content, that the content and the teacher adapt to the students rather than expecting the students to adapt to the content, that responsibility is placed on students to learn rather than on professors to teach.
  • participate in planning the course content and activities; clarify their own goals and objectives for the course; monitor and assess their own progress; and establish criteria for judging their own performance within the goals that they have set for themselves, certification or licensing requirements, time constraints, etc.
  • Your first objective is to facilitate learning, not cover a certain block of materia
  • According to Johnson, "course objectives should consist of explicit statements about the ways in which students are expected to change as a result of your teaching and the course activities. These should include changes in thinking skills, feelings, and actions" (p. 3)
  • An effective learning-centered syllabus should accomplish certain basic goals (Diamond, p. ix): define students' responsibilities; define instructor's role and responsibility to students; provide a clear statement of intended goals and student outcomes; establish standards and procedures for evaluation; acquaint students with course logistics; establish a pattern of communication between instructor and students; and include difficult-to-obtain materials such as readings, complex charts, and graphs.
  • here are three primary domains of development for students in a course
  • The Cognitive Domain is associated with knowledge and intellectual skills. The Affective Domain is associated with changes in interests, attitudes, values, applications, and adjustments. And the Psychomotor Domain is associated with manipulative and motor skills
  • "A learning-centered syllabus requires that you shift from what you, the instructor, are going to cover in your course to a concern for what information and tools you can provide for your students to promote learning and intellectual development" (Diamond, p. xi).
  • Don't use words that are open to many interpretations and which are difficult to measure. Make sure that all students understand the same interpretation.
  • Clarify the conceptual structure used to organize the course.
  • Students need to know why topics are arranged in a given order and the logic of the themes and concepts as they relate to the course structure
  • Does the course involve mostly inductive or deductive reasoning? Is it oriented to problem-solving or theory building? Is it mostly analytical or applied? In answering these questions, acknowledge that they reflect predominant modes in most cases rather than either/or dichotomies.
  • Use a variety of methods.
  • "Any student who feels s/he may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact me privately to discuss your specific needs. Please contact the Disability Resources Office at 515-294-6624 or TTY 515-294-6635 in Room 1076 of the Student Services Building to submit your documentation and coordinate necessary and reasonable accommodation."
  • Identify additional equipment or materials needed and sources.
  • Critical Thinking
  • Critical thinking is a learned skill. The instructor, fellow students, and possibly others are resources. Problems, questions, issues, values, beliefs are the point of entry to a subject and source of motivation for sustained inquiry. Successful courses balance the challenge of critical thinking with the supportive foundation of core principles, theories, etc., tailored to students' developmental needs. Courses are focused on assignments using processes that apply content rather than on lectures and simply acquiring content. Students are required to express ideas in a non-judgmental environment which encourages synthesis and creative applications. Students collaborate to learn and stretch their thinking. Problem-solving exercises nurture students' metacognitive abilities. The development needs of students are acknowledged and used in designing courses. Standards are made explicit and students are helped to learn how to achieve them.
Doris Stockton

Student-centred learning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 0 views

  • Student-centered learning (or student-centered learning; also called child-centered learning) is an approach to education focusing on the needs of the students, rather than those of others involved in the educational process, such as teachers and administrators.
  • Student-centered learning, that is, putting students needs first, is in contrast to traditional education, by proponents of "student-centered learning" also dubbed "teacher-centred learning". Student-centred learning is focused on each student's needs, abilities, interests, and learning styles, placing the teacher as a facilitator of learning.
  • some educators have largely replaced traditional curriculum approaches with "hands-on" activities and "group work", in which a child determines on their own what they want to do in class.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Student-centred learning allows students to actively participate in discovery learning processes from an autonomous viewpoint.
  • Strengthens student motivation Promotes peer communication Reduces disruptive behaviour Builds student-teacher relationships Promotes discovery/active learning Responsibility for one’s own learning
  • Assessment of student-centred learning
  • One of the most critical differences between student-centred learning and teacher-centred learning is in assessment. In student-centred learning, students participate in the evaluation of their learning.
  • Application to Higher-Education
  • The student-centred learning environment has been shown to be effective in higher education. A certain university sought to promote student-centred learning across the entire university by employing the following methods: Analysis of good practice by award-winning teachers, in all faculties, to show that, they made use of active forms of student learning. Subsequent use the analysis to promote wider use of good practice. A compulsory teacher training course for new junior teachers, which encouraged student-centred learning. Projects funded through teaching development grants, of which 16 were concerned with the introduction of active learning experiences. A programme-level quality enhancement initiative which utilised a student survey to identify strengths and potential areas for improvement. Development of a model of a broadly based teaching and learning environment influencing the development of generic capabilities, to provide evidence of the need for an interactive learning environment. The introduction of programme reviews as a quality assurance measure (Kember, 2009).
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20 items per page