Personal Reflection Paper

Over the last twelve weeks, I had been challenged to think, reflect and critique on various topics such as learning theories, informational technology and instructional design. As a teacher, you would think that I was comfortable doing all three, but I soon discovered that I was not. I guess you could say, that I found out I think too much or I analyse too deep. Some of the articles that were provided for the course were read more than once but I could not write a response. After reading other classmate's posting, there were weeks where all I needed to say was "ditto" because they had written what I had wanted to write but unfortunately couldn't find the words to do so. It was a very frustrating thing for me. Thus the reason I write this personal reflection paper, I need to revisit what I have learned, what I didn't understand and what I am now more capable of doing because of this course.

Education 5103 was a very intense course that required postings and discussions almost every week on topics that were relevant to the course. Over the thirteen weeks I read articles on the following topics.

Week 1 & 2:  Learning Theories in Context of Software Integration and Informational Design

Week 3: Learning Theories-Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibility Theory

Week 4: Comparing the theories of Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibility

Week 5: How Learning Theory affects Software Integration and Instructional Design

Week 6: Introduction to Instructional Design Concepts

Week 7: Instructional Design Model Components I

Week 8: ID Model Components II

Week 9: Inspection and Critique of Particular Information Instructional Design Model

Week 10: Group Assignment: Draft ID Model

Week 11: The Future of ID in Instructional Technology

This course began like many other online courses with a requirement of a personal introduction. I found that some names were familiar names of students that have been in other courses and there was another teacher from my town also doing the course. Most students noted their level of comfort with informational technology and some explained their anxiety. I find that in most online courses there is a mixture of students that have a varied level of experience in online learning platforms. All students looked forward to the discussions or posting, as did I. Or at least I thought I would.

Week 1& 2

After doing a degree in Education and six courses towards my Masters in IT, one would assume that I would know a lot about learning theories of Piaget, Skinner, Vygotsky and Pavlov. But being a “professional student” as my family will say, means that I am always studying, reading and thinking about teaching and learning. Revisiting learning theories confirms what I already know and also reminds me of how I teach and of how I was taught during my school days. When I was a high school student, we sat in rows and listened to a teacher read from a book or copied notes from a board. It was pretty much the same when I went to university; I sat in an even larger room, listened to a professor or watched notes from a PowerPoint. Then I started my Education degree where I sometimes listened to a professor talk from the front of the room but mostly I did assignments with fellow classmates. Direct teaching was the method of choice when I was a student and it worked. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have managed to graduate from high school with good marks or receive a degree in education and am now completing my Masters.

 In saying that, the constructivist method of teaching was being promoted or emphasized when I began my student teaching and is still the method of choice in today’s educational circles. Having students construct their own learning because “knowledge can thus not be transmitted from one person to the other; it will have to be (re)constructed by each person” is something I personally and professionally believe. That is not to say that I as a teacher do not use the direct instruction with my students because I do. When I need to explain how a specific computer program works, or where to find something on the WWW, I use the computer system (Microsoft MultiPoint) that we have to do so. This enables me to show all the students at one time how to copy and paste for example by projecting my computer screen to theirs. It saves time and requires less re-teaching on a one to one basis. Are the students learning? I know they are and I believe that there are times when direct teaching is necessary even today.

Are students more involved and motivated in their learning when they are taught using the constructivist method of teaching? Indeed they are. To sit back and watch students understand a math concept when “playing” with manipulatives and seeing the pure excitement in their eyes when grasp a concept is wonderful. These are concepts they will not forget, they will take them to the next grade and beyond.

Week 3

Are computers being used as Mindtools or are teachers just using them as a delivery method? I found this to be a very interesting topic. Being a technology person, I would like to believe that I use the computer as a Mindtool. I have introduced my students to PowerPoint, Inspiration, Kidblog, and WebQuest, all of which are tools that help students construct their learning. Learning is removed from my hands, I facilitate and help keep them on track and focused but they are the creators of their own learning when they are using these platforms. Do I think that I, as a teacher, can be replaced by a computer? I do not. Students need one to one interaction in order to succeed; they need ‘face time”. They need emotion and reactions, they need love and understanding. These are the things that a computer cannot give students. There is so much hidden curriculum to teach and computers just aren’t capable of teaching it.

It was also during this week that we were required to read the article on Cognitive Flexibility theory. According to Spiro et al (1995) cognitive flexibility “includes the ability to represent knowledge from different conceptual and case perspectives and then, when the knowledge must later be used, the ability to construct from those different conceptual and case representations a knowledge ensemble tailored to the needs of the understanding or problem-solving situation at hand.” What I think this means (as I am still in the dark, really) is that students require the ability to create their own individual knowledge based on other perspectives and use what they have learned in more than one way in real life situations or problems.

In the educational period that I teach, we have moved from teaching “reading, writing and arithmetic” to teaching critical thinking skills, analyzing, synthesising and technological skills that will help them become productive, responsible, social citizens of tomorrow. As a teacher, I have to teach them to problem solve, to evaluate situations and to care for the other people that they are interacting with. When I was in Grade 5, I didn’t have to worry about learning how to blog, how to texting, how to deal with cyber bullying or online predators. I learned how to read, write and do Math; 253 + 436 = 689. I did not have to show how I knew using pictures, numbers or words. I just had to show the algorithm. Life was good, easy, and uncomplicated.

Week 4

This week we discussed Mindtools and Cognitive Flexibility and how they are related to each other. It was during this week that I had to reflect on how I use computers in my class. Am I using them as a Mindtools/cognitive tools to help students learn or are they just another way to get information from students. In other words, are they engaging in drill and practice exercises? Are they just using technology for word processing? Are the lessons I deliver using informational technology effectively engaging students in thought provoking discussions that will lead them to higher order thinking? Honestly, I will have to say not always, no. Sometimes my kids use the computer as a word processor to publish a final draft. Sometimes they use it as a video player or CD player. But, there are times when they are engaged in WebQuest or writing independently in a blog. Other times they may be creating a PowerPoint to describe characteristics of a main character in their novel study.  Sometimes they are involved in Math challenges on Mathletics. They play games against other students from all over the world or against a computer. Are these examples of using computers as Mindtools/cognitive tools? I would like to think so.

Week 5

At this point in the course, I have to be very honest and say that the readings were becoming very confusing for me. Personally, I had to read everything over a couple of times before I could put “pen to paper” and answer the questions assigned for the week. I had to re-read articles from previous weeks in order to comprehend what I was reading.  It is very frustrating as an adult when you have difficulty writing what you are thinking in your head. Well, it is for me anyway. I thought I understood the difference between behaviorism and constructivism but applying what I know to application software and instructional software was extremely difficult. I did find that others had the same problem and after reading through the postings from my other classmates, I managed to put together an answer for the week’s questions.

Week 6, 7 & 8

Week 6 introduced me to Instructional design (ID) and the different learning theories associated with the development of instruction. Instructional design is defined as “a systematic approach to course development that ensures that specific learning goals are accomplished. It is an iterative process that requires ongoing evaluation and feedback (Margerum-Leys, 1996).” This definition brought me back to my university days of lesson planning, when we were required to take learning objectives and develop instruction around them that would be engaging for the students. Oh, did I cringe and thank God for Curriculum guides. Indeed I did, more than once.

 ID, IT, RP, if only it were that simple. Instructional design has several models; Dick and Carey, Gagne’s model and the ADDIE model, just to name a few, all accomplish the same thing but all have different steps included. The easiest one to follow that I found was the ADDIE model which included the flowing steps: analyse, design, develop, implement and evaluate. After looking at several other student’s postings, I discovered that most students in this course also found the ADDIE model least confusing. I also learned that ID models could be created using the various learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism.

In addition to learning what ID was, I gain knowledge of Rapid Prototyping (RP) which Gufaston and Branch (1997) define as “as the generalizible process now commonly used in the software application development field to create new products and interfaces (Hartson & Smith, 1991; Wasserman & Shewmake1, 985). To me, this meant, that we (teachers) continue to do what we have always done as teachers to save time and money, borrow ideas from someone else. Now this, I understand completely, yeah! I think I use rapid prototyping all the time in my classroom.  Every year I teach the same curriculum but every year I have to “tweak” my lessons to fit a new group of students. Along with that, every year there is some new technology introduced that influences how we teach and how students learn. Whenever this happens, I have to change certain aspect of a lesson plan. I do not change the entire lesson because for the most part, the lesson itself is the same but a new resource has been introduced that I can now use to make the lesson better.

The next two weeks educated me about the steps involved in the ID process which in turn, helped my group and I create our very own ID model. I am very comfortable doing group work and upon reflection, now believe that I would rather do assignments with other students than on my own. Just having someone to bounce ideas off of and to help with the editing and revising of a paper is wonderful. Time differences sometimes play havoc on getting together online but email works wonders, when you have the correct address.

Week 9

I really enjoyed the reading for this week; perhaps I am starting to finally understand and construct knowledge independently. Or perhaps it had something to do with working in a group to develop an ID model. Analysing and designing an ID model ourselves tends to aid in comprehension of aforementioned ID. The NTeQ model was especially easy to understand (I should have read it first) and the steps were easy to follow. With that being said, there were a lot of steps, in my opinion too many steps.

Week 10

Week 10 excites me as I am near the finish line; another Masters course is almost completed.  I am constructing an ID model and I am learning that I like Curriculum guides. I like that there is something already in place for me to use, to follow, to duplicate, and to instruct my students. I do not have time or resources to develop instruction. And to be perfectly honest, I am not interested in instructional design. A light bulb has come on in my brain. Perhaps the reason I have been having difficulties in this course is because I do not enjoy the topic. I always tell my students to choose a topic that they are interested in to write about because chances are they will be more knowledgeable about that topic. Interest sparks motivation and motivation leads to learning. I have realized slowly but surely that I am not motivated. As we say in Newfoundland, “how stun was I?”

Week 11

The discussion this week was about assessment and when teachers or anyone in education talks about assessment, it is a given, that we talk about standardize testing. Standardized testing has not always received a “good grade”. In my school, we take part in CRT’s in Grade 3 and Grade 6 every year in June. And every year, in October, early November we sit together as a staff and analyse the marks that our students received. We are compared to the other schools in our district, and our province.  We look at information reading, Poetry, and even Math.  We are up in this, down in that. It’s the same thing year in, year out. Other then the students, nothing changes. I wonder why there is such a colossal interest in standardized test result. In my opinion, it is not authentic assessment; it does not tell us how students are progressing on a daily basis. Students in Grade 3 are not expected to write test throughout the year but when June arrives, look out. They are bombarded for two weeks with an unfamiliar assessment and expected to do well. Talk about setting them up for failure. Constructivist tools of assessing are more beneficial for students. Having students co-construct a rubric and providing them with prior knowledge of what is expected will ensure that most students have success with learning. Then getting students to reflect and self assess will help guide them in future leaning situations. The future of Instructional design has to include assessment of informational technology because it has become such a large part of our daily lives. Students of today are “digital natives”; they do not know a world without technology.  

Conclusion

This paper was a big accomplishment for me. I reflected, I discovered, I constructed new knowledge and I learned more about myself as a student by doing this paper. Will I use the ID model that my group and I designed, probably not? Am I capable of creating an ID model after completion of this course? Yes, indeed I am. Do I know more about constructivism, behaviorism and cognitivism now? Yes. Am I still interested in Informational technology? Yes, again? That will never change. This course has awakened the constructivist in me. I have made changes in my classroom assessment practices since the course began thirteen weeks ago.  Positive changes for the students and positive changes for me. It’s all good.
 

References

Gustafson, K. and Branch, R. (1997) Revisioning Models of Instructional Development.

        EducationalTechnology Research and Development. Vol.45, No. 3, pp. 73-89. 

Margerum-Leys, J. (1996) Retrieved December 11, 2011 from

http://www.superlibrary.com/328993992721623/queet/trainers_guide/chap07.html.