Still Eclectic After All These Months

I began this term with the belief that I took a very pragmatic and eclectic approach to integrating learning theory into my practice. In fact, I contended that, “. . . given a certain set of circumstances, most [learning theories] if not all, can be correctly applied to various opportunities for learning.” Furthermore, I ended my initial reflection with the following,

“I have to say that I am currently struggling with the idea that all learning is the result of social interaction in the absence of original thought. This idea has been brought to the forefront in one of the discussion threads in Gary’s class and I hope to gain some clarification of this distinction throughout the remainder of this course and others. Perhaps my eclectic approach to teaching and learning prevent me from conceding to any idea that is completely and universally exclusive.”

Soon after writing my initial reflection on learning theory I became familiar with the work of Vygotsky, in particular, his zone of proximal development. What I took away from my reading on Vygotsky is that whether or not learning is the result of social interaction in the absence of original thought is not important. What is important is the interplay between an individual’s attempts to assimilate and accommodate new information and in turn contribute to the social construction of knowledge.

As a result of reading “The Theory and Practice of Online Learning” I have come to the realization that an eclectic and pragmatic approach to learning is in fact an excellent approach but there are several theories that deserve a greater amount of attention/emphasis when designing a learning environment. These deserving theories and the key theorists most aligned to my current understanding are Communities-of-Practice (Wenger), Social Development (Vygotsky), Constructionism (Papert), and Genetic Epistemology (Piaget).

One might ask how I could possibly subscribe to theories and theorists that are so diametrically opposed in fundamental ways. For instance, Piaget’s Genetic Epistemology versus Vygotsky’s social development. As pointed out above, I feel that both individual processes (internal) and social processes (external) contribute to the creation of knowledge and, much like the chicken and the egg, neither can exist without the other and exactly which comes first is a topic better suited for philosophical debate or ivory tower discussions not praxis.

So how have I moved from an emphasis on cognitive learning theories to a much more social constructivist bent in such a short period of time? First I must state that I have always intuitively felt that schools should focus on teaching students how to learn (a skill I didn’t really develop until college) rather than rote memorization. I have also always seen the inherent value in the creation of tangible learning artifacts although I only thought of this as a function of authentic assessment and not as a learning strategy. These predispositions in conjunction to the readings, activities and reliance on our learning community this term have afforded me the luxury of finally being able to place labels on things I have always known but didn’t know how to articulate as they relate to my practice.

I may never know if our three courses were coordinated in any way but from where I am sitting I feel as though my learning has been part of a symphony and each of us in the community were merely instruments being played to produce a beautiful melody. Whether we were doing the work of composers or mathematicians, working collaboratively to produce an artifact that conveyed our understanding of a particular book or learning theory, or journaling our reflections in a weblog we were in fact painting a landscape of learning – each slightly different from others but containing many of the same elements.

If I were to identify two key changes I have made in my teaching/learning practice with others I would have to say 1) I have begun to value the fostering of community to further learning; and, 2) I have realized the need to evangelize what Smith calls the “classical theory of learning” and all that it implies. Despite my lifelong association with clubs and other types of communities and my understanding of their inherent power in shaping what we learn I never placed importance in such structures in formal learning environments because, like most of us, I was not taught in such an environment so I simply ignored this critical component. Obviously learning has taken place in spite of this neglect; however, I can’t help but imagine “what could have been” if I had fostered community and carefully designed the learning environment to take advantage its affordances. I posit that others are doomed to repeat my actions unless the more enlightened among us take it upon themselves to affect change.

Cuban effectively demonstrates why efforts at reform often fail due the acts of assimilation and accommodation. For this very reason, Papert says that we must not seek to reform but to evolve. In order to evolve an organism must be subjected to a relentless, unwavering force that remains constant until evolution takes place. Enter evangelization. Rather than attempting to assimilate or accommodate constructivist approaches to learning within the context of the current system (reform) we need to provide a steady, unwavering voice for such approaches and demand that they be applied to a new system of education. In my practice I am beginning to do just this one teacher, one class, one administrator at a time. My goal is not to threaten but to enlighten by demonstrating the possibilities and creating enthusiasm for doing things differently. Of course, this means that I need to be prepared to support this newfound enthusiasm as it arises and hopefully the next term will provide me with pedagogical strategies that fit within my new epistemological philosophy.

This term has been the beginning of a fantastic journey that has left both me and my cadre mates wondering what treasures await us in the terms ahead!

Learning Theory and Me

What do I know about learning theory and how has it impacted my daily practice with teaching and learning? I have been exposed to, at one time or another, many different learning theories. Most of these theories have been rooted in the behavioral, cognitive, or social sciences. What I have observed about the various theories is that given a certain set of circumstances, most if not all, can be correctly applied to various opportunities for learning. As such I take a very eclectic and pragmatic view to the application of learning theories in my daily practice with teaching and learning.

I rarely, if ever, find the need to apply S-R theory based upon Thorndike, the use of operant conditioning as developed by Skinner, or any other behavioral approach for that matter. The reason for this is that in my daily practice I do not attempt to shape behavior. I attempt to promote understanding and the use of higher order thinking and reasoning. Behavioral approaches simply are not conducive to these goals.

Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory, Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory, and Elaboration Theory by Reigeluth have had a far greater influence on my daily practice than any other theories. I also have always had great respect for Bandura and his Social Learning Theory because of it’s reliance on modeling. I have also always held that experience and context are tantamount to any learning taking place (constructivism) although I have always done so intuitively rather than as a constructionist. From Cognitive Dissonance Theory I have always tried to “challenge” the thoughts and beliefs I, and others, hold dear. Dual Coding Theory simply tells us that memory, or more specifically recall, is enhanced when information is presented both verbally and non-verbally. Elaboration Theory teaches us that ideas are best learned when presented sequentially. I think I originally gravitated toward this theory because of my love for mathematics and science and the way in which I was instructed in those areas (for better or worse). I do find that most (not all) concepts are more easily understood when there is a context with which to build upon. This is especially true in the applications training that my staff is often charged with delivering. In simple terms, build upon prior knowledge. Of course the importance of modeling has not been lost on my practice as described by Social Learning Theory. Needless to say I take a very eclectic approach to teaching and learning!

I have to say that I am currently struggling with the idea that all learning is the result of social interaction in the absence of original thought. This idea has been brought to the forefront in one of the discussion threads in Gary’s class and I hope to gain some clarification of this distinction throughout the remainder of this course and others. Perhaps my eclectic approach to teaching and learning prevent me from conceding to any idea that is completely and universally exclusive.

Soul cleansing in Alaska

Learning, Leadership, and Me

How do people learn? There is no simple answer to this question as there are different schools of thought. Depending upon one’s orientation, learning may be described as a behavioral response, a cognitive process, the result of constructivist activities, or as the result of social structures such as those found in communities of practice. In my estimation, each of the aforementioned theories have their merits, however, the communities of practice approach to learning extends the definition of learning beyond acquisition to application which appeals to me as an educator and lifelong learner.
 
How should teaching happen? This depends largely on the learning objective(s). There are times where behavioral approaches are appropriate. In the context of academic learning, I feel that the communities of practice approach, whereby, the “expert,” a.k.a. teacher, acts as a guide (the responsibility of an expert in a community) who assists the individuals of the community on their journey to become contributing members of the community, is an effective approach with mature learners such as in the OMAET program here at Pepperdine.
 
What is the nature of leadership? Leadership is all about providing vision and direction with the objective of helping the entire organization achieve, and ultimately exceed, their stated goals. I strive to be a bold, socially responsible leader that genuinely cares about the individuals within my organization.
 
Over the past year how have my ideas about the three previous prompts changed? My ideas have changed with my introduction to communities of practice in preparation for Virt Camp. I have always been heavily aligned with cognitive theories of learning and have applied such principles in curricular design and in pedagogical approaches. At this early stage of my understanding of communities of practice I feel that I have been remiss in my approach to education and professional growth and look forward to learning and doing more.
 
What are the skills you bring to the workplace, and how have they changed in the past year? I believe I bring a good mixture of technical know-how, theoretical understanding, leadership/management expertise, and excellent soft skills to the workplace. With that said, I have much more to learn and to apply and look forward to continued growth, especially in a leadership capacity.
 
How would you characterize your identity within your workplace, and how has it changed in the last year? I am commonly looked upon as the source for leadership and guidance in helping bridge technology and learning in a way that fosters improved student outcomes, enriched environments, and administrative efficiencies. With that said, I believe I am also looked at as somewhat of an enigma because I am younger than most persons in my position and therefore sometimes not seen as someone to provide organizational level leadership as an Assistant Superintendent, especially in the absence of a doctorate degree. I am hoping that in the coming year I will continue to grow professionally and prove my abilities as not just an educational technology leader, but as a catalyst of change and a beacon of leadership.