In his article Kirschner (2016) argues that there is no scientific basis for the argument that; a learner has no optimal learning style; there is no valid mechanism to measure one’s learning style; individuals are not aware of their own learning style; instruction should not be built around learning styles.  One of his main arguments is that self-reporting using instruments to assess one’s learning style is not a reliable way to actually determine a learning style.  He claims (and cites many other studies) that learners are not always willing to be truthful when taking a learning styles assessment.  Another key point he makes is that even if the learner was to be truthful in their assessment, this does not mean the learning style they have selected is necessarily the best one for them to learn with.  For example, just because they prefer an auditory learning style, it does not mean that is how they will gain the most knowledge, they may benefit more from a kinesthetic learning approach.

 

When I finished reading this article I was torn, on one hand I have in the past been a big supporter of teaching to your students individual learning styles and have even administered a couple of workshops on learning styles.  On the other hand, Kirschner makes some compelling arguments that have caused me to rethink my position.  I dug a little deeper and read a few of the articles that Kirschner had referenced and one caught my eye.  Massa and Mayer (2006) conducted a study in which they studied aptitude-treatment interaction (the idea that depending on a learner’s specific abilities, some instructional strategies are more effective).  After conducting experimental research on visual versus verbal learners they concluded that there was no significant difference in their performance and suggested that learners need not be exposed to different learning methods based on their perceived learning styles.

 

After further investigation I am now on the fence in regards to the validity of teaching to one’s learning styles, I do however feel that their is still validity in recognizing learning styles.  Whatever side of this argument one is on there is still a strong argument to be made that understanding that people learn in different ways can only strengthen your teaching practices.

 

Resources

Kirschner, P.A.  (2016).  Stop propagating the learning styles myth.  Computers and Education 106(2017), 166-171.

Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E.  (2006).  Testing the ATI hypothesis:  Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style?  Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321-336.

By: Mary Ellis, Krista Frate, Marshall Hartlen, Steve Minten, and Nicolette Young

How people learn is constantly up for discussion, and debate. And every few years a new theory is advanced often identifying previous theories as flawed. In a similar vein, the influence of media on learning has also been debated. Academics like Clark (1994) maintain that media will never have a significant impact on learning, while contemporaries like Kozma (1994) argue that with the continued advancement of technology, it is time to revisit the argument. The following post explores four articles that explore the scope of the debate, and add to the continuing discussion.

Five Ways to Teach Students to be Future Ready

Article Link

Matt Miller’s (2017) article entitled “5 Ways to Teach Students to Be Future-Ready” provides five changes that a teacher can make to their classroom that will help students learn better and be more prepared for the workforce. Miller claims that the students of today will enter a workforce that is technology infused and filled with innovation. He encourages them to use a medium that suits their learning in order to communicate their ideas in a more succinct fashion. He also encourages educational institutions to ensure that students are creating content that matches their unique skills and notes that the medium they choose is not as important as the actual creation process itself.

Miller’s article contrasts Kozma’s (1994) position that the medium can influence learning as long as it is linked to the instructional method. Firstly, Miller (2017) makes no connection between the medium and the method, Within the article, he does not once link any one medium to being required to achieve the goals of creativity, collaboration and creation. . Secondly, in several instances he states that many mediums may be selected to encourage learning for the students. If learning happens for the students no matter which medium is used, as Miller suggests, then one can infer that the medium is not the primary factor in learning.

How has Technology Changed Education?

Article Link

In an article published on the Purdue University Online website, the author (unknown) claims technology has profoundly impacted education and enabled new ways of learning (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). This contradicts Clark’s assertions that media has “…differential economic benefits but no learning benefits.” (Clark, 1994). Clark (1994) suggests asking whether or not a similar set of attributes as those under scrutiny would lead to similar results. In the article linked, the authors give an example of students in rural U.S. following blogs and connecting in video conference with scientists in the arctic. The article states “The walls of the classrooms are no longer a barrier as technology enables new ways of learning, communicating, and working collaboratively.” Clark might suggest the impacts of the technologies enabling learning are economic; that learning is more accessible and cost effective, but could have taken place without the aid of these specific technologies.

The Purdue University article also claims roles of teacher and learner have been changed by modern technology, suggesting access to abundant content has given students more responsibility over their learning and changed the role of teacher from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side” (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). This claim aligns with Kozma’s view that media and method have an integral relationship; a medium’s capabilities enable methods and must be confounded (Kozma 1994). Clark suggests that, because various attributes of various media can accomplish similar learning (see studies cited by Clark, 1985; Clark & Sugrue, 1988, as cited by Clark, 1994) the “attributes must be proxies for some other variables that are instrumental in learning gains.” (Clark 1994)

Though the article states clearly that today’s technology “enables forms of communication and collaboration undreamt of in the past,” (para. 3) it does not clearly identify specific attributes as unique to particular technologies (How has Technology Changed Education, 2015). Therefore, the article could be interpreted to be aligned with Clark’s view. However, it is implied by reference to abundant content and video conferencing that the arrival of the internet has changed learning. It is hard to imagine a world with the same learning results afforded by the communication and collaboration taking place online, but Clark insists we do imagine it, or ask ourselves “if another (similar) set of attributes would lead to the same learning result” (1994). By separating medium and method, Clark insists, we can better focus on various methods which adequately meet learning requirements and choose the most economic option (1994).

Teaching in the Digital Age: How Educators use Technology to improve Student Learning

Article Link

In Teaching in a digital age: how educators use technology to improve student learning, authors McKnight et al. (2016) discuss the findings of their case-study exploring how teachers’ perception of technology in the classroom has helped their methods. In interviewing teachers and administrators, issuing an online survey, and observing classrooms, the authors determined that teachers use technology in a variety of contexts, including: providing instantaneous feedback to students, and creating interactive and self-paced lessons. Despite the creativity using technology can inspire, teachers from low socioeconomic schools indicated that the lack of a computer at home and inadequate access at school impeded their ability to take advantage of the options technology-enabled learning provides. McKnight et al. also indicate that technology improves learning when it helps change “learning routines, cognitive processes, problem-solving, and teacher roles” (p. 5), they argue that it is effective when it enables course content to be delivered more efficiently. However, technology should not be a distraction from the course content being delivered .

McKnight et al.’s case-study neither contradicts nor affirms arguments regarding the influence or lack of influence media has on education made by Kozma (1994), nor Clark (1994) respectively. McKnight et al.’s case-study neither contradicts nor affirms Kozma’s argument that media changes the way we learn (1994), nor Clark’s argument that media will never change how we learn (1994).

Although their research indicates that teachers appreciate using technology in the classroom, and feel fairly comfortable developing their technological skills, which indicates a willingness to integrate technology in the classroom. McKnight et al. caution that the technology, or medium, used to deliver courses ought never take the focus away from the content. Until such time that technology reshapes “learning routines, cognitive processes, problem solving, and teacher roles” (p. 5), they claim technology will not change how we learn .

Teachers Explain why VR is more than a Buzzword

Article Link

According to several educators in Gallagher’s (2017)’s column “Teachers explain why VR is more than just a buzzword”, technology may have caught up to what Kozma was waiting for in the great “media debate”. Kozma(1994) argued that “if there is no relationship between media and learning it may be because we have not yet made one” ( p. 2). In 2017, the VR experiences for three instructors (Gallagher, 2017) claim that a relationship between VR and learning may now exist.

In Gallagher’s (2017) column, the first teacher’s experience is that virtual reality movies are more immersive than other media and aids students to “learn with all the senses” (para. 4). She observes that virtual reality movies allow the content to be experienced, rather than just watched. The second instructor piloted Google Expeditions (Link) – interactive field trips using VR. She corroborates Gallagher’s observation of the first instructor’s experience, stating that VR’s power is in the quality of the experience, not the content..

These statements contrast with Clark (1994)’s view that there is no evidence that “media or media attributes influence learning in any essential and structural way” (p.5). In allowing a student to experience their learning in a separate, realistic and reactive environment where they can use multiple senses, the educators give evidence that VR is influencing learning in a essential and structural way – in terms of the experience it enables. This differentiates it from other media as the instructors describe the VR itself as the experience that impacts learning, not the content.

Another of Clark (1994)’s assertions is contradicted by these experiences – that learner benefits are derived from content and instructional strategy, not the media itself. After using a graffiti art VR simulation with her students, a third instructor discusses the higher motivation and engagement that VR enables. This is in direct contrast to Clark’s (1994) view that media is not “directly responsible for motivating learning” (p. 2).

Instead of the truck just delivering our groceries, Clark’s metaphorizses that media is solely the deliverer of instruction (groceries) and not achievement. In this way, the VR truck is bringing us directly to the farm where the meat and vegetables grow – letting us walk around, smell, listen and experience where these groceries came from, but does not necessarily help us to understand how they grow.

Not considered in either Clark (1994), or Kozma’s (1994) arguments is the fact that both were writing at the dawn of the internet age. Clark may be correct in identifying that no specific research has accurately concluded the successful influence of media on learning, but the media he wrote of in 1994 is vastly different than what exists today. Constructivist learning theory, was likewise starting to gain popularity at the publication of both author’s work. As Kozma (1994) observes “learning is an active, constructive, cognitive and social process by which the learner manages resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment, and associating it with previous knowledge. Here too, further inquiry is required as to the specific information is required to effect of 21st century media on learning.

References

Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta analyses. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(4).

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Clark, R. E. and Sugrue B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media, 1978-1988. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational Media Yearbook 1987-88. Littletown, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Gallagher, K.. (2017, April 12). Teachers explain why VR is more than just a buzzword. [Online column within information resource site and community]. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-04-12-teachers-explain-why-vr-is-more-than-just-a-buzzword

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of research on technology in education, 48(3), 194-211. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1143/6d1f5dd47529b666a1c4bfdd720d681305b8.pdf.

Miller, M. (2017, August 10). 5 ways to teach students to be future ready. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2017/08/5-ways-teach-students-be-future-ready

Purdue University Online. (2017). How has technology changed education? Retrieved from: http://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology/resources/how-has-technology-changed-education

For activity 5 we were asked to reflect upon the Ertmer & Newby (2013) and Merrill (2002) readings and investigate how they apply to our work.  After selecting a theoretical position we were asked to explain why we felt it resonated with us and describe how it applies to our work.  

I found this task challenging as I think it is hard to completely align with only one theoretical position.  I believe it is not only human nature to have various thought processes that include many theoretical positions, but it makes for a better and more well rounded teacher (and learner).  Ertmer & Newby (2013) describe in detail behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism from an instructional design perspective and as I read through the author’s descriptions of each, I found myself thinking that I could relate my teaching to behaviourism and constructivism.  Merrill (2002) describes several instructional theories and again I found myself connecting to Jonassen’s Constructivist Learning Environments and Schanks Learning by Doing (pp. 55-56).

In behaviourism I can relate to doing an assessment of a learner before starting a task, making sure that they master each step before moving on to the next, and providing constant feedback to ensure that their performance improves (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 49).  This sequence is very similar to how I teach a lesson in our carpentry lab.  First I would do an assessment of the learners safety and skills on the tools, then provide detailed step by step instructions of the task ensuring that they check in with me at each critical point, all the while providing feedback to ensure that they maximize their potential.  

Learning by doing is an important part in any trades training.  Learners are constantly encountering new situations in carpentry as no two jobs are exactly the same.  As such, we teach them to draw on past lessons (cases) that resemble the new one and apply their existing knowledge to the new lesson (Merrill, 2002, pp. 56-57).

Ok, time to stop dithering…if I had to pick a camp I would place myself in the area of constructivism as I believe that creating meaning in your learning is essential to one’s growth.  In my classroom, the best learning experiences are when I can equate the content to a real life situation that the students have experienced.  Having others share how their previous life experiences relate to the content also helps the students to interpret ideas and apply them to their own experiences (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 55) creating a deep learning environment.  I constantly set up assignments that maximize the student’s opportunity to experience learning (often physically rather than only mentally) and provide them with time to reflect on that learning.  For example, rather than lecturing to them about concrete columns, I put them into teams and have them do a scavenger hunt around the college searching for four different types of columns (and have them take pictures with their phones or iPads).  Upon return to the class they make a quick presentation describing the characteristics and functions of the columns and share it with the class.  Before finishing the lesson we have a group discussion on the subject as a whole.  This type of lesson could easily be taken from on-ground to blended or online format.

Although I find myself favouring constructivism, I can honestly say that I can find elements of my teaching in most, if not all, of the theories in these readings.  

References

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

 

 

The relevant resource that I would like to share is a program called ‘Quizlet’.  Those of you in the MALAT online cohort may have had contact with Quizlet during our theoretical frameworks presentations in LRNT 522.  For those of you not familiar with it, Quizlet provides study tools for teachers and students.  It works on the freemium (Weller, 2011) pricing strategy however the tools that have no charge are very useful.  Quizlet provides several options for teaching and learning:

• Flip Cards allow the learner to self-pace through the study set and also provides them with an option to hear the answer by clicking on the speaker on the card  https://quizlet.com/84067184/flashcards
• The Write study mode allows the learner to type the answer, the only drawback is it requires the exact spelling and capitalization https://quizlet.com/84067184/write 
• The Spell study mode simply asks the learner to spell what they hear https://quizlet.com/84067184/spell
• The test study mode combines written questions, multiple choice, and true/ false question in a test format https://quizlet.com/84067184/test
• The Match study mode allows the learner to drag corresponding items onto each other and make them disappear.  It is timed and your classes scores can be kept adding an element of gamification to the learning https://quizlet.com/84067184/match
• The Gravity study mode asks you to type in the answer before the asteroid crashes into the planet, this is a fun game but similar to the Write study mode it requires the exact spelling and capitalization.  This mode would be good for math questions https://quizlet.com/77484184/gravity
• The Learn study mode progressively gets harder and customizes your learning using fill in the blanks, true/false, multiple choice, and flashcards https://quizlet.com/84067184/learn
• As you may have noticed, all the previous study modes are designed for the students to move through at their own pace, but with Quizlet Live, you can create a gamified element to your classroom by randomly grouping the students in teams and having them compete in real time

Quizlets are easy to create and provide a variety of options to meet different learning styles.  They provide immediate feedback and also can incorporate gamification in your classroom (online or on-ground).  These study sets can be implemented by a course designer or teacher in a behaviorist, cognitivist, or constructivist course design and delivery environment (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Resources

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223–236.

 

Something was bothering me about our unit 1 readings and I couldn’t put my finger on it until just now, the readings from Watters (2014) didn’t sit well with me.  It’s not because I don’t agree with her, in actual fact I think she is probably 100% correct in her assertions.  What bothered me is the retrospective critique of past online edtech failures.  As I mentioned, I agree with her and the author knows way more that I ever will on the subject, but I just think it’s too easy to pick off this low hanging fruit without being someone who was directly involved with these projects.  Watters  writes about failures of OpenCourseWare, Fathom, and AllLearn as monumental disasters and seems to insinuate that this could have been avoided with proper planning, design, and organization.  The problem I have with this is that she has no way of knowing all of the circumstances in which each of these projects were built (maybe they were government funded and were pushed through for political reasons?).

This reminds me of situations I used to run into all the time as a contractor, people would have a project completed by another contractor (not myself) and be unhappy with the results.  They would then ask me to come over and comment on all of the perceived problems with their work.  I always resisted the urge to comment on things because I had no way of knowing the conditions that the project was built in..they could have  rushed by the owner, advised that it was ‘good enough’, or perhaps they just got what they paid for and shouldn’t have ‘cheaped out’ in the first place.  Unless you have actually been part of the project, your retrospective observations are biased.

Sorry for the rant…

Hi All,

Here is a brief history of social media…