Group items tagged

I, the one who is into Social Learning Theory, believe that there are three important factors influencing each other; these are Person, Environment and Behavior like the theory says and like this experiment talks about. Apart from this, according to Albert Bandura, who is the owner of the theory, people set their own goals, monitor themselves (self-observation), evaluate their own behavior (judgment), and then have self-response. It's like a cycle and in the end learning occurs. In addition to that, in order to reach the biggest goal people can set sub-goals and flexibility about immediate tasks. Moreover, in this theory to learn something from our failures and not to give up because of our failures are some of the major points. So as you said, this theory might be an alternative view on teaching and learning in the class, which means students may set their own sub-goals going straight to their own biggest goal (learning and performance).

Hocam, I think this guy has an introvert personality. If he doesn't, perhaps he took a course from a teacher who made him feel fed up with pair and group work activities :-)) I have read the comments of other people under the article and I liked the one made by Doug. As Doug stated, Donald Clark compares different perspectives in a linear manner, but these thinkers represent different developmental periods of the theory. So he should have made comparisons considering the development of the theory to be more plausible. For his overall comments at the end of his article, I can say that what he mentions ("Those with good digital literacy, literacy, numeracy and other skills will have the social support, especially at home") is not something peculiar to the results of this theory. We used to have more segragations in the societies when former theories were dominant. So his comment doesn't seem logical to me. He also mentions that some learners like studying alone, which is not supported by this theory. Of course sometimes we need some isolation to think, analyze and synthesize, but this doesn't make us forget about the advantages of peer learning. There is a saying, "two heads are better than one". As we discussed in the classroom, we learn better when we are cognitively engaged and in my opinion, "engagement" requires contradictory or contributory comments made by other members of the society. It doesn't take place without interactions. To sum up, the theory may have some limitations, but I prefer it to the older ones :-)

I deeply believe the power of motivation to learn and classroom technology can be used to enhance students' motivation in learning of the specific content. Still, it is open to debate effective use of technology in classrooms, especially in our country. To deal with this inefficiency of classroom technology, we need to focus on teachers' technology literacy and try to develop this literacy.

Hi Özlem Hoca, BBC news you shared with us is very advisable to our friends. (1) I agree that computers may have the possibility to be distractors for learning and they may be abused by some students. Students may prefer to use computers for activities other than for school activities. When I was an intern teacher, I wanted to show how a literature search is performed to my 20, 9th grade "Project" (noncredit course) students in 2006, I ended up running from one student to another because as I leave him/her with his/her search, s/he began to sign in facebook and their emails. (2) I also agree that plagiarism may occur in homeworks due to internet resources. (3) Another interesting opinion in this news is that "We're training the students to use technology which hasn't yet been invented." We are training the students to the future that is not defined, not yet clear.

I think integrating technology in classrooms is inevitable as computers have been being used in lots of areas in the world and it is a little bit optimistic to assume that education will escape from this "invasion". Today's students live with technology and indeed, technology can enhance the representation of a topic, communication among learners, eliminate time and space limitations in reaching information, etc. The article says that "frequent" use of computers in schools is more likely to be associated with lower results. Instead of frequent use, one should know how one can healthily get benefit from computers, when to use it, how to use it, when not to use it, etc. Those questions are still major questions in modern educational science research. Findings from such research can enhance the positive impact of technology in classrooms.

Having read this week's reading assignment, a part of which focuses on this particular result, I felt the need to comment on your share Özlem hocam. It is mentioned in Chapter 1: Introduction that "in the 1980s, cognitive scientists like Roger Schank and Seymour Papert made claims that computers would transform the schools and learning. This was a rather radical claim and it helped form a strong consensus among parents, bussiness community, politicians that getting computers into schools was a must. During 1990s, installing computers and the Internet in schools was a major trend. By 2003, 95% of all the schools in the US had their computers and were connected to the Internet. However, the impact of this huge investment was highly disappointing. Studies had shown computer use was not correlated with improved student performance. When the reserachers began to study to find the reason, they found out that the computer use in schools was not based on learning sciences; instead, they were being used as an extension of instructional classroom. By this I mean, bringing technology to the classrooms was not enough without changing the structure of instruction. Educational software has been based on instructionist theories, with the computer performing roles that are traditionally performed by the teacher. Teachers and students were not aware of how to use those computers efficiently. Students read the texts on the computers instead of reading them on books.Learning scientists continue to emphasize the powerful role that computers can play in transforming all learning. But they reject instructionalism and behaviorism. Instead, they present a new vision of computers in schools. They suggest that computer should take on a more facilitating role, helping learners have the kind of experiences that lead to deep learning."

I liked this source too much. As the role of the teacher: "The instructor's role moves from providing and structuring the information and knowledge through lectures and presentations to modeling, coaching, and scaffolding learners as they use information and create knowledge to solve contextual real-life problems". I ask myself: To what extent, I create such authentic environments in my classes.

That is such an inevitable and reasonable concern; the extent we imply authentic environments in our classrooms. Sometimes it is for the sake of applying without including the essential elements of authentic learning. Time concerns or motivation and knowledge levels of teachers might be some issues related.

I also believe that the power of emotions in the learning. I think that if we can situmulate the emotions in lesson, we can make lessons more intesting, enjoable and the knowledge gathered through this lesson will be long lasting. Threfore, as it is stated in the article, teachers should create situations that situmalte students' emotions.

Hi Yasin, thanks for sharing the research study. It is a good example for DBR, like you said, as it includes a theory driven iterative process which is one of the most fundamental characteristics of DBR.