LRND 6820 Week 2 Readings Facilitator document
September 5, 2010
6820 elearning Here is a powerpoint document for everyone that breaks down the Week 2 readings on the Philosophies related to education from Heather Kanuka. Please review the information and answer the discussion questions at the end of the document.
9 thoughts on “LRND 6820 Week 2 Readings Facilitator document”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
1) After reading and reflecting on your own ideas concerning e-learning, how would you define your own personal philosophical orientation, and how does it affect your e-learning? Is it a “purist” acceptance of one of the philosophies outlined in the reading or is it a conglomeration of several?
I would define my own philosophical orientation on e-learning carries similar patterns from the reading where the educator will need to be open minded to new technologies, embrace utilizing such features in the classroom, and be thoughtful with the devices on how the student can most learn and benefit from its use. I think whether it be with technology or otherwise, a teacher is always evolving in the way the make connections with their students for the student to most benefit and learn. I tend to agree with the “uses determinism” in that technology is a device that can be turned off and on. We have the freedom and choice in whether or not we use it. Technology extends more options. I see this as allowing me to use technologies as I desire or need, but still with keeping boundaries in place. Not allowing the technology to consume me.
I don’t know that I would label my thought process as “purist” acceptance. I think it is likely more a conglomeration of many of the thoughts, ideas from the reading as well as personal life experiences.
2) What latest trends in e-learning or social networking do you think are more damaging to e-learning in the long run, if any?
I think implementing social networking media into a learning platform will need to depend on the age of the learner and ensure it is age appropriate, as well as parameters being in place for misuse. Students can be curious. Damaging I don’t know, but I do think as with any curriculum there should be parameters set forth. Really the teacher can make the classroom very creative and informative with several different technology modalities. I guess it is a fine line, there is so much that can be of benefit in e-learning, but also a great deal that may be abused. For example, I hear of lawsuits all the time anymore with Facebook, damaging pictures and/or posts regarding someone else which is often construed as defamation of character as they are usually posted without consent. I think the facilitator will have the daunting task of sorting through all the riff raff to ensure a positive and appropriate e-learning experience. Of course with college level students I would not foresee that as much of an issue because they are adults.
September 9th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
1) After reading and reflecting on your own ideas concerning e-learning, how would you define your own personal philosophical orientation, and how does it effect your e-learning? Is it a “purist” acceptance of one of the philosophies outlined in the reading or is it a conglomeration of several?
I would define my own personal orientation as a reflection of many of the ideas and theories discussed in the article.
I believe that the three theories that have the most effect on my orientation are that of Liberal, Progressive and Behaviorist.
In my examination of Liberalism, I feel that there is an importance in the intellectual, moral and rational growth of the learner. I feel that these are important components in the process of learning as a whole. However, where I believe this is lacking is that it is not progressive enough to meet the needs of continued learning.
In my examination of Progressivism, I feel that this is important in the respect that aim is personal growth and promotion of a better society. I believe that these values should be within an educational design. It encourages progressive thought and sees the teacher/student relationship as one of a partnership. This greatly appeals to me. Also, this philosophy leaves a lot of room for the introduction and expansion of e-learning. In conclusion, I feel that this theory not only touches on personal growth and attempts to prepare a person for societal interaction but also could easily incorporate e-learning as a device.
Finally, in my examination of Behaviorism, I find that it has two attractive components. One component is that progress is measured by observable change in behaviors. I believe that this is one good measuring stick for successful learning. Second, the focus of the learning is on content with a subject, making a more centered approach. I feel that this makes for a more personalized environment that a student can benefit from. Again, this philosophy could also integrate benefits from e-learning.
In conclusion, I feel that I am not a “purist” in my approach but rather I tend to seek that most beneficial components of all available theories to design a successful curriculum.
2) What latest trends in e-learning or social networking do you think are more damaging to e-learning in the long run, if any?
I would say I have a lot of personal thoughts on this subject.
I must first say that my position in general is that our education system needs two primary changes. First, we need to introduce technology as a staple subject just like math or history. When I mean technology as a subject I am referring to the teaching of the use of technology and also the impacts of it on society, both beneficial and non beneficial.
Second, I feel that technology has to be introduced into the educational system for it to be more effective and efficient. How this is done is probably open for lots of debate. However, I feel that it needs to be pursued more rigorously than it currently is.
So to be completely clear, I do have a deep belief that technology and e-learning will have a profound impact and benefit on education if facilitated in the correct ways. However, I do see some pitfalls.
I believe that technology should be introduced into education cautiously. I
feel that we need to put continual thought into this integration, so that it is beneficial to educators and learners alike.
However, I see some aspects of technology that are moving too quickly into the educational system. I would label one of these as Virtual Learning, especially the use of Virtual Worlds. I believe Virtual Worlds are fine for higher education, but no k-12. I believe lower education should combine many components including technology and socialization. I feel that Virtual Worlds will not properly reflect real life to a student. I believe that part of the educational process is not only to learn but to build life skills that are relevant to the real world also. Now, I do believe that some of the simulation could be beneficial. For instance a mock trial in a virtual world would assist in learning the mechanics of a trial. However, I also believe that it leaves out many important components of the legal system, such as emotion, human reaction and effective personal communications.
From some of the research I have done, it appears that there are a block of people that seem to want to convey that virtual worlds are a replacement of this world rather than an alternative. They convey virtual worlds as an “adventurous exploration of a new world and a new means of socializing.” It has been cited that you can go into a virtual world and learn all the life skills that you need to know. I disagree with this argument. I know that you can go into a chat room or virtual world and have a conversation with people from all over the world and learn about their cultures. Is this a bad thing, no. Is it the only way to experience a new culture, no. In a way it can become an analogy: we are bringing ourselves closer together, but also tearing ourselves further apart. Certainly to have conversations with those around the world brings a new way to learn culture, however I believe it also becomes a replacement for some who would have otherwise traveled to that country, and experienced it first hand. Simulation is just that, simulation. I just feel that it would be beneficial to take a second look at moving too fast with the integration of technology in that we become dis-socialized. For instance, I feel that online learning is wonderful. However, when I look back at my college days, I believe that living on campus, attending classes, working on campus, living with other students etc. encompassed what I would call a “life experience.” I believe that this life experience aided me in becoming a more well rounded individual which in turn helped me to be successful in a career. So I guess the question is, are the proponents of virtual simulation preparing learners for what is to be “real”, or are they preparing learners to falsely believe what is real? Maybe that would be a good discussion point.
On a final note, a while back I was having a discussion with a friend that I felt was relevant to my “socialization” fetish. He was talking about online dating sites. He stated that people who go onto those sites looking for a date are most likely unable to interact with people confidently enough to get a date. He added that if those people worked on their self esteem and personal skills, they would more easily find comfort in real life situations, thus leading to a healthy relationship. He also added that putting two people in the same room in which neither can navigate a relationship is like putting a mongoose and a cobra in a room. Well, i’m not sure if he is right or not, but it was in interesting analogy nonetheless.
There is a lot of evidence that users of technology have a brain that works a little differently. However, there is also evidence that humans are social creatures, and have and will always crave personal interaction, love, caring and physical contact. So lets make sure we keep this in mind as we move forward in our transformation of education.
Matthew Mieure
September 9th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Misty,
I really like your progressive point of view. It is forward thinking but yet based on good rational foundation. Nice Job!
Matthew Mieure
September 10th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I’m curious… does anyone else who works in a K-12 environment or follows K-12 school reform perceive behaviorism as the dominant “philosophy-in-practice” embodied in federal policy efforts such as “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top?” (Particularly in terms of how the role of teachers is viewed, how schools and teachers are judged, and the apparent underlying assumption that the best way to improve schools is by focusing on incentives and punishments for producing specific kinds of outcomes?)
September 12th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Absolutely Eric, it appears the ongoing K-12 environment follows behaviorism as its dominant philosophy-in-practice. Federal government funding dictates the policy even into the parochial system. Any school that accepts government funds must follow the guideline that embodies behaviorism. Representations of the learning process include stimulus-response, reinforced behavior, antecedent behavior consequence, and sequenced knowledge and skills presented in logical limited steps. Furthermore, the relevant framework entails programmed instruction (logical presentation of content, overt responses, immediate knowledge of correctness). Hence, an instructor observes learning happening when a correct response is demonstrated following the presentation of specific environmental stimulus. An emphasis is on observable and measurable behaviors. These behaviorist philosophies are from Skinner, Bandura, Thorndike, and Pavlov. Therefore, the K-12 learners are subjects of behaviorist philosophy compliments of our federal funding mandate(s).
September 10th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Philosophies focus on progressive and a blend of analytical – allow educators to reshape education with assistance of technological tools allowing the philosophical medium effecting mediation of learning.
The humanist approach is one avenue providing challenges. Another is the radical philosophical avenue. Each philosophy is extreme.
The humanist evokes self-directed learning that can be undesirable. Moreover, a focus on self challenges one’s ability to conduct discussion groups due to time constraints, organizational expectations, group size, and diverse learning environment(s). Specifically, the humanist philosophy lacks administrative accountability over what is taught, what is actually taught with assessing the student’s acquirement of knowledge.
Radical approach methodologies to achieve perspective transformation are functional in closed educational environments. Knowledge is power – power is something political entities utilize at their discretion. However, as Dr. Kanuka notes, education can be neutral and non value-laden with a knowledgeable teacher thereby becoming a paradox. Hence, an educator must perform due diligence on given learning environs to satisfy their perspective on philosophy verses private agenda(s). Then an educator can deal with their preference of method while utilizing eLearning technologies.
February 11th, 2014 at 8:11 pm
mediation are typically ready to work mutually toward a resolution. In most circumstances the mere fact that parties are willing to mediate means that they are ready to “move” their position. The parties thus are more amenable to understanding the other party’s side and work on underlying issues to the dispute.
July 21st, 2018 at 2:38 am
Heya i’m for the firѕt time here. Ӏ came across tһis board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much.
I hope to provide one thing again and aid others such as
you aided me.