Social Learning Theory and Technology (Voicethread url included)

This week at Walden University, the focus is on social learning theories, in particular, social constructivism. According to Orey (n.d.), social learning theories describe learning as the result of artifact creation through social interactions (Laureate Education Inc. ).

The instructional strategy examined this week, was cooperative learning. By its very nature, cooperative learning is clearly grounded in social learning theories.  Since students in well-constructed cooperative learning settings are engaged with others as a product is created, Orey (2001) claims that meaningful learning will occur (Assumptions of Social Constructivism Section, para. 4).  Piter, Hubbell, & Kuhn (2012) describe cooperative learning as an environment focusing on student interactions that facilitate their learning (p.73). This sounds remarkably similar to the primary philosophy of social learning theory that was previously described.

Pitler et al (2012) go on to describe a number of technological settings in which cooperative learning can occur. Student multimedia projects, in which students work together to create video or animated films, can be designed so that a group of students can each have a role in the finished product (p. 75). Technology also enables cooperative learning even when it is difficult for students to meet in groups during school hours to work on their projects. Students can use platforms such as Skype, Facetime, (p.80) or even multiplayer simulations such as The Sims (p. 85) in order to interact outside of the classroom.

Thank you for reading my post this week. You can access my VoiceThread for the coming application at:   https://voicethread.com/new/share/6104418/

 

 

 

References:

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Social learning theories [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

 

 

Contructivist/Constructionist Learning Theories and Technologies

 

According to Constructionist theory, optimal learning takes place when a student creates an artifact that can be shared with others. The basis for Constructivist theories, on the other hand is that individuals actively construct their own meaning of things (Laureate Education Inc. n.d.).  The important point both theories make is that the learner is an active creator of something that is their own. A project-based learning (PBL) environment is one where these two similar theories of learning come to life.

In this week’s learning resources at Walden University, I explored a higher-order instructional strategy known as generating and testing hypotheses. For students in a PBL environment, this will be a key skill students will need to possess since inquiry is such a critical component of PBL (Orey, 2012), and therefore, Constructionist learning. Any science teacher understands that inquiry is intimately connected to hypothesis formulation and experiments designed to test them.

Pitler et al (2012) describes several instructional technologies conducive to Constructionist theories and hypothesis generation and testing including premade spreadsheets, data collection probes, and web-based interactives. All of these strategies allow students to experiment in controlled environments and test the validity of their hypotheses. Spreadsheets allow students to manipulate large amounts of data and make predictions based on the data (Pitler et al, 2012, p. 208). Probes can obviously be used to gather data quickly, safely, and efficiently and allow students to easily verify or refute a given hypotheses. Similarly, web-based interactives, including one of my favorites, explore learning gizmos, allow students to run physics and chemistry simulations to test their conjectures as well (Pitler et al, 2012, p. 219).  Needless to say, such technologies fit into a PBL environment nicely.

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Main_Page

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Cognitive Instructional Strategies

 

In this week’s course resources, Dr. Michael Orey describes four components of various cognitive learning theories including limited short term memory, elaboration, Pavio’s dual coding hypothesis, and a network model of memory (Laureate Education Inc., n.d.). In this post, I will be discussing how the instructional strategies studied this week in Pitler, Hubbel, and Kuhn’s Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works align with cognitive learning theory.

The first instructional strategy studied was the use of cues, questions, and advance organizers. According to Pitler et al (2012), all three of these strategies focus on “enhancing students’ ability to retrieve, use, and organize information”. According to cognitive learning theory, elaboration builds connections to stored information, and the more connections that are made to a piece of information, the less likely it is to be forgotten (Laureate Education Inc., n.d.). Since advance organizers, questions, and cues are often framed around essential questions that attempt to make connections between prior knowledge and the knowledge to come, they are basically elaboration tools. It should also be noted that many of the organizing technologies, such as Inspiration, also mimic the nodal, or network model of memory described by cognitive learning theory.

The second strategy, summarizing and note taking, is certainly a cognitive tool. One of the clear purposes of note taking is to provide students with a visual reference to the information discussed in class. Since the information learned in class typically exceeds the seven or so items the brain can store into short term memory (Laureate Education Inc., n.d.), notes provide a way to access the information that is lost following instruction. Pitler et al (2012) also claim that combination notes consisting of “outlining, webbing, and pictographs, in addition to words” (p. 151) is a particularly strong note taking method. Cognitive learning theory explains why this is so. Pavio’s dual learning hypothesis states that information is stored in multiple ways, usually as images and text (Laureate Education Inc., n.d.); it therefore makes sense that that combination notes are so powerful since they include a representation of pictures and texts thereby making the information more likely to be stored into long term memory.

 

References

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Cognitive learning theories [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Welcome students and colleagues!

Hello all!

If you are a LHS student, this is the home page of my blog. If you would like to access your course content, choose either the “Geometry” page or the “AP Calc BC” page. Welcome back!

If you are one of my peers or are a professor from Walden University, you can view my recent posts using the “Walden Blogs” page.