Reflections on Blog Readings
How learning communities are built? Sure, constructivism-oriented teachers can create learning communities (Brewer, 2002). It takes a greater collective and participative effort to advocate and maintain sustainable learning communities inside and outside the classrooms wherein teachers and learners co-exist and technology is integral (Jonassen et al, 2007) particularly in aspect of e-learning. From a personal standpoint, this is the message that the readings are conveying, but this is not without difficulties. Whether meaningful learning is aligned with technology and constructivist-based teaching practices could not be easily reconciled. This means that constructivist teachers, no matter how they are deeply engaged in the teacher-student relationship and to everything that comes between them, cannot accomplish the objective of creating an e-learning environment, especially inside the classroom, minus the help of equally important roles, that of the learner and effective instruction.
With its unique features, e-learning had emerged to be one of the most effective modern teaching methods. E-learning is an umbrella term used to describe learning by means of computer. The term is used interchangeably with online learning, online education, distance education, distance learning and technology-based, web-based or computer-based training; though some argue that e-learning is broader that online learning and/or online education. E-learning is usually connected to a network making leaning a convenient endeavor. Contextually, such learning is an actual experience that could lead to comprehension and acquisition of new skills and knowledge. The experience gained in virtual learning environment is as wealthy and valuable as the traditional classroom experience.
One of the most essential elements of meaningful learning is its processual nature. I should take note that teachers were once students hence they should be well aware of the needs, requirements and expectations in the classroom as students. Embedded on constructivism philosophies, as teachers, they are more obliged to respond to such even if this means (Brewer, 2002), for instance, the utilization of technology in the instructional activities. To wit, meaningful learning is not a panacea. Achieving the ultimate goal of learning is by itself a virtue that guides the academic workforce in continually developing effective instructional learning that is tied with real-life approach. The question now is: Could constructivist teachers deeply engaged learners in meaningful learning through the use of technology?
Meaningful learning is a developmental process wherein effective functioning of the involved is the key. Technology, on the other hand, is a vital element to empower students as lifelong learners (Jonassen et al, 2007). The problem, however, is technology changes the teaching schema from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction. There is the question of how technology fits with constructivist-teacher context especially when the belief is that learning is an active and constructive process. Thereby, although technology is regarded as a valuable and powerful instructional tool (Jonassen et al, 2007), it challenges the core values and principles of teaching. Ertmer (2005) argues that the promotion of technological change affects not just the beliefs or the practices per se of the teachers but processes and systems of teaching unique to their individuality as a teacher.
Narrowing the gap between teachers and computers should be of highest priority then (Marcinkiewicz, 1993). An assumption of this view is that teachers have inherent assertion that their inadequacies could jeopardize their profession and the value of education they could provide for their students. Hence, the question would be the level of competence of [constructivist] teachers in integrating technology on instructional decisions (Jonassen et al, 2007). The main point to consider is that teachers, in general, have lower confidence and negative beliefs on their technological capabilities and proficiency. Realizing this, it could be safe to suppose that in the realms of effective teaching toward the end of meaningful learning, the goal is to advance the knowledge, skills, competencies and expertise, not necessarily to completely change them or abandon previous know-how and capabilities.
Ertmer (2005) advanced the idea that acquiring the adeptness in using technology takes more than three years, making the constructivist approaches of utilizing technology for teachers somewhat obscure while also limiting teachers’ motivation to do so. As such, teachers will continually used teaching styles and methods that they grown accustomed with, and they won’t trade it if it means to sacrifice their pedagogical beliefs that prove to be effective even before technology were introduced. Niederhauser and Stoddart (2001) stated that the use of technology must be consistent with the pedagogical beliefs of the teachers (as cited in Ertmer, 2005). The challenge now is to transform the current pedagogical beliefs into objective pedagogical beliefs and practices while protecting meaningful learning on the part of the students, and also of the teachers.
Another question is that of the fit of technology in meaningful-learning context particularly when social interaction is necessary for knowledge construction and active learning. Hirsch and Walshe (1998) asserted that determining to what extent of quality of what had been is responsible for student achievement and attributing e-learning quality to meaningful learning would be complicated. As such, technological integration is more on the concern of the quality of the knowledge being learnt (Jonassen et al, 2007). With respect to student learning, technology should not be a primary choice simply because, according to Hohman (1998), computers do not match their learning style, and also that children of this age make learning using their five senses and therefore, computers are not a good choice for children’s developmental skills.
Muir (1994) states that the “students learn by constructing their own knowledge through using information in meaningful ways. This new knowledge must be built directly on what each student already knows, and the students must see the connection between the new ideas and their world. Further, students need to be actively involved in their own learning and the decisions about e-learning. To achieve this, we decide to make computers a part of the school infrastructure.” Bowers (2000) suggests that the problem is not commercialism but rather understanding the “transformative quality of computers”, and that the question is not on various forms of knowledge that computers cannot process instead on critical orders of thinking.
It would be critical to argue that computer integration on learning, either at home or in schools, interferes with the natural development of students. In addition, these learners are being exposed to computer-based content that otherwise lack depth compared to the learning that could be provided by the trained, dedicated and experienced teachers. Josephson (2002) also argues that most digital content is overly simplistic in its structure compared to that of the teachers whom can offer “essential logic reasoning”. On the other hand, albeit the rapid changes in technological development, the real gain of computers is not on understanding what computers can and cannot do but rather building on how children should interact with today’s computers. In simpler terms, the teaching and learning process shall devote its energy on incremental adaptation to dynamic systems. Where comparative learning systems fail to deliver, computer-based contents allow children significant levels of individual engagement and interactivity.
Further, this highly-individualized process of learning could be expounded into collaborative learning making possible the optimization of acquired knowledge and competencies while minimizing the risks of utilization of technology specifically that its effect on meaningful learning is being questioned. The premise is that computer utilization meant the differing levels of e-learning experiences of the learners. The need to modify and to control such is central to the idea providing them the most relevant activities that will embrace the degree of engagement of these learners. When it comes to the constructivist teachers, a key would be to align technology-based education with learner’s level of cognition and to provide programs that support how learners could control their meaningful learning experiences; autonomy, that is.
This means that developing meaningful learning is a mutual-helping and self-helping endeavor both on the sides of teachers and learners whether in the presence of technological instructional decisions or not. Anyhow, there shall be the strike of balance on constructing and recognizing processes in encourage equal distribution of knowledge and experience between teachers and learners where the strategic fit of constructivism pedagogical practices and meaningful learning is apparent (Brewer, 2002). The role of constructivism is to make learners understand that learning is an imperative in their lives (Brewer, 2002) if this could be achieved by means of technological integration in the learning process then so be it. Important is that learners, through teachers, would receive meaningful learning experiences.
References
Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let Them Eat Data: How Computers Affect Education, Cultural Diversity and Ecological Sustainability. US: University of Georgia Press.
Brewer, J. (2002). Translating Constructivist Theory into Practice in Primary-Grade Mathematics. Education, 123(2): 416-426.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Hirsch, D. and Walshe, J. (1998). Staying Ahead: In-Service Training and Teacher Professional Development. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation: OECD Publishing.
Hohman, C. (1998). Evaluating and selecting software for children. Child Care Information Exchange 123: 60-62.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M. and Crismond, D. P. (2007). What is Meaningful Learning? In Meaningful Learning with Technology, 3rd ed., 1-12.
Josephson, J. H. (2004). Do we introduce computers to children? http://www.kindersite.org/PDF/Do%20we%20introduce%20computers%20to%20children.pdf (accessed May 20, 2008).
Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1993/1994, Winter). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(2), 220-237.
Muir, M. 1994. Putting Computer Projects at the Heart of the Curriculum. Educational Leadership 51(7): 30-32.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment