Module 6, Learning in a Digital Age: My Philosophy of Education

It is inevitable that technology will one day rule the world.  We will all be subjects of a mechanical regime and forced to be subjects to the machinery we created.  Some would say that we are already ruled by the technology we have created.  I wish I could disagree, but sit down to dinner one night in a public place and count the number of people engaged in technology.  In fact, it would be hard not to access your own technology as you absent-mindedly counted the “others” that are so digitally connected yet personally disconnected.

While I am a bit cynical of technology use in such settings, I am however avid about the use of technology in the classroom.  Technology holds such wild implications for the teaching and learning process.  First, students enjoy the journey away from traditional methods, and secondly they are participating in something that they feel they know something about.  If teachers can harness this excitement and ride the wave, then student motivation will increase and teacher design and instruction can have the maximum effect.

My philosophy has evolved every year and as my knowledge of teaching and learning has deepened, my philosophy on education has become much simpler.  Education is tailoring activities and instruction to the specific needs of the students.  Whether it be by means of likes and dislikes, or whether it be through their preferential way of learning.  Education is not a one-size fits all business.

Within my philosophy, there exists constructs that I feel are essential to the process.  First of all I am a huge supporter of the social constructivist theory in which students use interactions with others as a means of developing an understanding of their environment.  Although students learn in different ways, I feel that students, when given the opportunity, flourish in this environment where they can constantly assess their own learning against the learning of others.  Because of this there has to be interactions in education.  This can be face-to-face, it can be held in the classroom or on the Internet.  In my classroom, social interaction is a must.

In our lives we hold certain pieces of information as truths based on our life up until that point.  However, when that truth is challenged or criticized, we are forced to examine our set of ideas and adjust our thinking according to the information that we find to support or invalidate what we thought was the truth.  To me, this is learning.  Technology has afforded teachers the opportunity to give students access to social environments that would normally be inaccessible.  Because of this, technology plays a huge part of my teaching and learning philosophy. 

Module 4: Responded to the Following

Responded to the following:
 Rob Rector: http://robrector.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/jedi-mind-map-tricks/comment-page-1/#comment-12

Brian Emsley: http://emsleyeduc8845.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-has-your-network-changed-theway-you.html

and responses to those in my own blog.

Connectivism and My Networks (Module 4)

Connectivism
Is there a portion of society that technology has not changed?  According to Siemans (2004) the progression of technology has ushered in a new form of learning in which the networks we associate with allow us to learn.  This learning happens through our connectedness with the individuals we groups into certain areas of our life.  His theory has merit and is a valid assessment if communal learning.  Because of the vast amounts of information, it is impossible for someone to learn in isolation.  Our networks are instrumental in our learning, but we also learn to use our groups in different ways to meet our learning needs.


Network Reflection
As I look at my mind map, it seems rather simplistic.  I have this primal fear that anything so simplistic must be wrong or done incorrectly.  However, the more I think, it is probably that my networks have slowly changed to reflect my simplistic lifestyle.

Although simplistic, my networks to allow me to share knowledge and, at the same time, learn from others.  Again, I point to the simplicity of my networks, but warn you that they are more complicated than first thought.  Maybe the simplicity of my life leads to complexity in my networks as many of the same people, if I named everyone in my network, would be present in each grouping.

Digital Tools and Learning
I must admit that I have always learned best through face-to-face contact and conversation.  Although I am a hands on learner, I generally learn best when I can interact with others as I "play with" whatever I am trying to learn.  Because of this, Skype has been one of my favorite digital tools for learning.  This allows me to see the person I am interacting with and gives me the face-to-face contact that I enjoy so much.  To many, learning can be void of emotion as texting and typing lose meaning through translation.  However, face-to-face interaction gives learning an emotion and a feeling.

New Knowledge
As I have mentioned, learning happens best for me when I am able to work with something in my own way and in my own pace.  When I first have questions I contact the people in my networks that would have the most relevant information.  For example, if I have a question about something that deals with my spirituality then I would contact someone in my church circle.  However, this is only to give me guidance in my personal search for meaning.  By contacting someone about a question, it gives me a starting point and information for which I will use to measure my own findings.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from   http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Module 3

Responded to:
Brian Emsley http://emsleyeduc8845.blogspot.com/2013/10/module-3-blog-post-collaboration.html?showComment=1381627456320#c121992979376708734

Troy Gordon http://troygordonsite.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/educ-7105-module-3-blog-post-collaboration/comment-page-1/#comment-25

and the replies to my own blog

Working as a Group, Module 3

Rheingold (2008) makes the assertion that humans have an inherent instinct to work in groups to accomplish a task. While it seems logical and evidence suggests that collaboration has increased over the past few decades, I believe that this is a learned trait and not something that is a basic instinct as Rheingold suggests.  


Today's problems, regardless of area or profession, are so complex that it requires the brain power of multiple people working together on a common task.  However, it would seem that this is a means to an end and not something that is entrenched in the psyche of the individuals.  In fact, I would say that many individuals prefer independent work based on previous experiences working as a group or in a collaborative setting.  Let's be honest, we have all been involved in a negative group experience where we thought "I could just do this myself" and it turn out a whole lot better.  

Looking specifically at Wikipedia as an example of collaboration, I would contend that Wikipedia stretches the definition of collaboration.  On the surface, Wikipedia is the hub of information that people are able to edit based on their findings.  However, is true collaboration possible without real interaction between those participating?  While there are multiple editors of information, they are working independently to manage and edit information.  This site is the house of information edited independently.

While I may be in the minority in my thinking, collaboration and working together is a learned behavior and not something that is ingrained in all individuals.