From Last Week’s Discussion
During the discussion last week, our group had a lively exchange about the value of narrative in online learning, but I left the discussion feeling like we might have missed something. So I decided to go back and read the chapter more carefully. We definitely nailed the concept that narrative or storytelling makes learning more powerful or personal. There were a lot of great ideas and rationales brought forth for the use of storytelling. What seemed to be missing was the connection between narrative and design.
As I reread the text, I decided what we missed in our analysis was the association between narrative and context. In the constructivist view, context and learning are intertwined. The book points out that stories are a simple way to make context “portable.” This analogy gave me a grasp on the purpose of narrative in the design process. Instead of the designer creating the learning context, storytelling is a way to put control of context into the hands of the learners, which is where it should actually be. It occurs to me that an online setting is actually an ideal place for utilizing this design tool as a way to enrich the learning context. In a virtual environment there are no physical constraints on perception. The “weaving together of words” creates the context for the learning environment and can be interpreted individually by each learner in the way that allows them to construct and negotiate meaning in a personal way. The role of the designer is to set up opportunities for the use of narrative in the learning environment as a way to enhance contextual learning. Additionally, the instructor should be encouraged to model, encourage, and respond positively to storytelling so that the learners feel comfortable immersing themselves in this learning method.
The summary at the end of the chapter did a great job of listing some concrete design tools for creating narrative contexts. They used the framework of community, practice, and domain and gave examples of ways to utilize narrative to draw out each of these areas of a learning community model. For example, telling stories of how a learning event is related to some external community context can act as scaffolding for learners to consider possible future identities they might take on in which current learning concepts might be utilized. Another example is utilizing individual interpretations of a “reading” to show different levels at which an idea can be explain which, in turn, allows the group to negotiate collective meaning.
Our discussion prompted me to go back to the reading and delve more deeply in to this design element. I am really glad that I did because I now have a little better understanding of the relationship between design and context. I guess you could say that telling each other stories about telling stories allowed me to negotiate meaning in the area of context management.
What I Have Learned
I began this class with the notion that the internet should be an ideal place to allow learners to transcend the limitations of the classroom and develop authentic contexts for learning but I had absolutely no idea how that might be accomplished. Most of my experience with online learning to this point has been less than impressive and basically no different than a traditional classroom except that you don’t actually see your classmates. Using this paradigm I was unable to develop a vision for authentic learning in an online environment.
Learning about the creation of virtual communities through online tools and constructivist designs has given me a new outlook on this genre of instruction. I am now able to see the advantages and disadvantages of virtual learning and I am beginning to think about this as part of the instructional decision-making process. Tools such as blogging, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, and social networking websites can be used in the creation of virtual communities of learning and are part of the designer’s arsenal in planning instruction that meshes with the front-end analysis in the design process. I am beginning to get a feel for what learning objectives can and cannot successfully be realized in an on-line environment. As it turns out, I see many more ways to utilize this delivery system than I originally thought.
The information we have learned about the management of context has been particularly valuable to me. As I attempt to design my project I will keep the importance of context at the forefront of my plan. I want my learners to meaningfully interact with one another and I see how this is pivotal in the design of effective learning environments. I am anxious to begin exploring ways that I can make this happen as I attempt to structure my project to meet the learning goals I have chosen.
I have especially enjoyed the opportunity to experience a wide variety of online methods and tools as a learner. Immersing myself in these experiences has given me a better understanding of their potential use. The class models the principals that we are learning. Experiencing this content matter in the context of a student has enriched my experience and will hopefully allow me to have a better grasp on the design process as I move forward into my project in my identity as a designer.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Blog 3
Since my area of study is instructional design, I decided to focus on chapters 9 and 10 in the assigned text for this week. My goal was to make a connection between the two chapters in order to synthesize what I read in some meaningful way. In past reading I have done (including these chapters), constructivism and the internet are often talked about together. This has always puzzled me a little bit because I don’t see an overt connection between the two. In my mind, the internet is not necessary for constructivist designs. It seems to me that constraining the two elements together flies in the face of the concept of context as the driving force in knowledge construction. It makes it sound as though the internet is the preferred way to manipulate context. As I struggled with trying to solve this perceived inconsistency, I decided to frame my discussion prompt for this blog from that perspective.
What is the connection between the internet and constructivist learning that causes many experts to link the two together?
After I read and digested chapters 9 and 10, I found a common link that gave me some insight into this question.
Activity theory links consciousness and activity by working through four basic assumptions. The first is that consciousness and activity are interdependent. The second is that all actions or behaviors are intentional (directed at some goal). The third is that higher cognitive functioning within a system of activity is mediated by tools (technical and mental). The last is that activities evolve over time within a culture. Using these underlying assumptions, the theory proposes the central unit of analysis to be the activity (or activity system). This system has four components; subjects, objects, actions, and operations. The subjects are the people participating in the activity. The objects are the intentions of the activity (goals or objectives). The actions are goal-directed activities that are carried out in order to achieve the objective. The operations are plans and procedures that relate to how the actions are carried out. In this model the subjects transform the objects (construct learning) using tools such as computers, techniques, or theories. Community is related to the subjects that play a role in the transformation of the object and is defined by the rules, norms, and leadership structure by which the task is divided among group members. This process is dynamic and is unique to each community. Using the constructivist paradigm, the context is the whole activity system and it defines the learning process.
In describing e-learning communities, chapter 10 refers to Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) who propose a five stage model of community evolution which resembles the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development discussed in chapter 6. At each stage, Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) identify a pattern to community evolution and note that “the pattern is influenced by a dynamic balance of people, process, and technology elements.” They refer to the people as users of technology, the process as the support structures used to create a common experience, and the technology as the tools which promote the community formation process. When I read this section, the obvious connection to activity theory jumped out at me. It is an ideal fit.
What this says to me is that e-learning community formation is a good fit for the constructivist model for contextual learning. This doesn’t mean that on-line learning is the only way that activity theory can be utilized; it just says that e-learning is a good fit for constructivist learning. The tools of e-learning (blogs, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, webquests, etc.) can be used to carry out the operations and actions that allow the subjects in a learning community to negotiate or achieve learning objectives. Activity theory adds another dimension to the process of e-learning community formation. To me it suggests that mental tools and operations such as theories, cognitive processing, and concept mapping should be incorporated into each learning system in order to fully utilize the learning context. From a designer’s point of view, it seems to me that this is the factor that is often missing from e-learning environments. The tools are only a means through which we apply the elements of design.
Looking at the process of creating context in this way has helped me to get a better handle on the “fuzzy” nature of constructivist learning design. In my quest for a method for structuring inquiry learning environments, this gives me some concrete tools to use in integrating the nature of inquiry into lesson construction in the classroom.
What is the connection between the internet and constructivist learning that causes many experts to link the two together?
After I read and digested chapters 9 and 10, I found a common link that gave me some insight into this question.
Activity theory links consciousness and activity by working through four basic assumptions. The first is that consciousness and activity are interdependent. The second is that all actions or behaviors are intentional (directed at some goal). The third is that higher cognitive functioning within a system of activity is mediated by tools (technical and mental). The last is that activities evolve over time within a culture. Using these underlying assumptions, the theory proposes the central unit of analysis to be the activity (or activity system). This system has four components; subjects, objects, actions, and operations. The subjects are the people participating in the activity. The objects are the intentions of the activity (goals or objectives). The actions are goal-directed activities that are carried out in order to achieve the objective. The operations are plans and procedures that relate to how the actions are carried out. In this model the subjects transform the objects (construct learning) using tools such as computers, techniques, or theories. Community is related to the subjects that play a role in the transformation of the object and is defined by the rules, norms, and leadership structure by which the task is divided among group members. This process is dynamic and is unique to each community. Using the constructivist paradigm, the context is the whole activity system and it defines the learning process.
In describing e-learning communities, chapter 10 refers to Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) who propose a five stage model of community evolution which resembles the forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development discussed in chapter 6. At each stage, Gongla and Rizzuto (2001) identify a pattern to community evolution and note that “the pattern is influenced by a dynamic balance of people, process, and technology elements.” They refer to the people as users of technology, the process as the support structures used to create a common experience, and the technology as the tools which promote the community formation process. When I read this section, the obvious connection to activity theory jumped out at me. It is an ideal fit.
What this says to me is that e-learning community formation is a good fit for the constructivist model for contextual learning. This doesn’t mean that on-line learning is the only way that activity theory can be utilized; it just says that e-learning is a good fit for constructivist learning. The tools of e-learning (blogs, synchronous and asynchronous discussions, webquests, etc.) can be used to carry out the operations and actions that allow the subjects in a learning community to negotiate or achieve learning objectives. Activity theory adds another dimension to the process of e-learning community formation. To me it suggests that mental tools and operations such as theories, cognitive processing, and concept mapping should be incorporated into each learning system in order to fully utilize the learning context. From a designer’s point of view, it seems to me that this is the factor that is often missing from e-learning environments. The tools are only a means through which we apply the elements of design.
Looking at the process of creating context in this way has helped me to get a better handle on the “fuzzy” nature of constructivist learning design. In my quest for a method for structuring inquiry learning environments, this gives me some concrete tools to use in integrating the nature of inquiry into lesson construction in the classroom.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Blog 2 - Learning community dynamics and structure
I read Chapter 9 in Renninger and Shumar. I found the idea of collective expertise discussed in the chapter extremely thought-provoking. It seems to me that the sharing of ideas and opinions in a particular area of expertise by so-called non-experts is similar to what used to take place among neighbors and social groups in the community or family. I don't see it as an attempt to ignore expert opinion so much as it is a process of looking critically at existing information and standards. When used wisely and thoughtfully, this type of discourse can expand the knowledge base and push the envelope in current thinking and study. This is a way for the "common man" to influence current technology in fields such as medicine, engineering, and social science. If experts are questioned collectively it forces them to defend the quality of the information they are disseminating and it allows the lay public to provide input into scientific work. This type of discourse can be a type of public forum as in the case of the MMR debate described in the chapter. It also allows people to share personal expertise in areas that are unpublished and/or unstudied.
Having declared the virtues of this type of discourse, it is also necessary to point out the inherent danger in this type of community development. Misinformation can be perpetuated and legitimate scientific knowledge could be circumvented in a case where a large amount of public ignorance or bias is introduced into a discussion. It seems to me that this could be particularly true in areas where moral and political values can be easily integrated into the discussion. It occurred to me that this is all part of what we see as the democratic process. In a democracy, ideas are exchanged and encouraged and the collective public is a force in shaping the community. In this type of open system there is a trade-off. In this case the trade-off is the danger that the majority opinion could be influenced by factors not based on empirical evidence due to moral or political bias. This is not unlike the struggle that we face as a democratic society.
A connection can be made between the self-help communities discussed in Chapter 9 and the life cycle of a learning community discussed in Chapter 10. Part of the success of the perpetuation of a learning community lies in what the book describes as essential elements of mediation. This is also mentioned as an element of the projects described in many chapters of the book such as the Zero-g Project in Chapter 10. In the case of the self-help groups described in Chapter 9, I see the mediation element as the experts in the field. They keep such discussions grounded in reality and fact while still encouraging the kind of valuable discourse and information exchange that promotes forward movement. Without this mediation element a group can get mired in an emotional or moral quagmire that is not conducive to accuracy or progress. The same thing can be said about virtual learning communities in general. The element of mediation is critical to the vibrancy and value of a learning community. It should not dominate the structure of the community but rather guide and stabilize the learning process. Mediation should be interactive and fluid. The mediator or mediation element should be open to change and new learning as much as the community members are. In synthesizing all of the material I read, this is the main idea I drew from my study. I see this as the key element in the success and perpetuation of a virtual learning community.
I see the wired self-help group as a task-based learning community in the terminology of Riel and Polin. This puts it at the ‘lower end’ of the learning community continuum. In a way this is a good thing. This community is at the level of knowledge sharing or identifying a common problem and possible solutions. As long as users see this for what it is, misinformation can be dealt with and expected. It seems to me that the thing to do is take this type of community to another level where information can be truly internalized and placed into a common body of knowledge. It may be that the community itself does not evolve because it has completed its life cycle but that it informs the practice and sharing in communities at the practice-based and knowledge-based end of the continuum. This is what I think Riel and Polin are talking about when they refer to these different types of communities within the same system such as a school or a medical community as a culture of systems. As long as members within the system all have access to the same information and the freedom to participate in the various levels within the system, this is an powerful way to promote learning and increase knowledge within the larger group. Everybody participates at their own level of comfort and expertise and everybody benefits.
Having declared the virtues of this type of discourse, it is also necessary to point out the inherent danger in this type of community development. Misinformation can be perpetuated and legitimate scientific knowledge could be circumvented in a case where a large amount of public ignorance or bias is introduced into a discussion. It seems to me that this could be particularly true in areas where moral and political values can be easily integrated into the discussion. It occurred to me that this is all part of what we see as the democratic process. In a democracy, ideas are exchanged and encouraged and the collective public is a force in shaping the community. In this type of open system there is a trade-off. In this case the trade-off is the danger that the majority opinion could be influenced by factors not based on empirical evidence due to moral or political bias. This is not unlike the struggle that we face as a democratic society.
A connection can be made between the self-help communities discussed in Chapter 9 and the life cycle of a learning community discussed in Chapter 10. Part of the success of the perpetuation of a learning community lies in what the book describes as essential elements of mediation. This is also mentioned as an element of the projects described in many chapters of the book such as the Zero-g Project in Chapter 10. In the case of the self-help groups described in Chapter 9, I see the mediation element as the experts in the field. They keep such discussions grounded in reality and fact while still encouraging the kind of valuable discourse and information exchange that promotes forward movement. Without this mediation element a group can get mired in an emotional or moral quagmire that is not conducive to accuracy or progress. The same thing can be said about virtual learning communities in general. The element of mediation is critical to the vibrancy and value of a learning community. It should not dominate the structure of the community but rather guide and stabilize the learning process. Mediation should be interactive and fluid. The mediator or mediation element should be open to change and new learning as much as the community members are. In synthesizing all of the material I read, this is the main idea I drew from my study. I see this as the key element in the success and perpetuation of a virtual learning community.
I see the wired self-help group as a task-based learning community in the terminology of Riel and Polin. This puts it at the ‘lower end’ of the learning community continuum. In a way this is a good thing. This community is at the level of knowledge sharing or identifying a common problem and possible solutions. As long as users see this for what it is, misinformation can be dealt with and expected. It seems to me that the thing to do is take this type of community to another level where information can be truly internalized and placed into a common body of knowledge. It may be that the community itself does not evolve because it has completed its life cycle but that it informs the practice and sharing in communities at the practice-based and knowledge-based end of the continuum. This is what I think Riel and Polin are talking about when they refer to these different types of communities within the same system such as a school or a medical community as a culture of systems. As long as members within the system all have access to the same information and the freedom to participate in the various levels within the system, this is an powerful way to promote learning and increase knowledge within the larger group. Everybody participates at their own level of comfort and expertise and everybody benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)