What images are evoked in most people’s minds upon hearing the word “school”?

Raising one’s hand before answering questions, listening to teachers and taking notes, taking tests, lugging textbooks from class to class, writing book reports, standing in straight lines, seeking permission to visit the restroom. They are images of control, not learning. A new set of images, reflective of new practices, is needed—images that portray the student as a thinker, a creator, and a constructor. (Brooks & Brooks, 1999, p. 126)

My name is Miriam and I am a social constructivist with connectivist tendencies.

I believe that knowledge is not passively received, but actively built within a learner-centered environment, where students draw on their own experiences while collaborating with others and make interpretations to make sense of the world (Bates, 2015). “A core assumption of constructivist theory is that learners actively construct knowledge through activity, and the goal of the learning experiences designed by teachers is to promote a deep understanding rather than superficial (and short lived) memorization” (Hernandez-Ramos & De La Paz, 2009). In my time as a classroom teacher, my goal was always to design instruction not to teach students to give only the correct answers, but to also teach them real world skills and competencies so they have ability to find quality answers when they need them. Along my teaching path, I quickly realized the power that technology integration had, if used effectively and with purpose. I embraced the idea that technology connects students to each other, to experts in their fields of passion and to a knowledge base that can be found in seconds. I agree with Siemens, as cited in Ertmer and Newby (2013), “The ability to access people and information has changed the way people learn….Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find knowledge needed).”

My work focuses on curriculum, innovation and technology integration. 

I have the unique position of teaching young students and planning development for faculty, but my approach tries to mirror one another by having faculty learn in much the same way that we would like our students to learn, in a social constructivist environment with technology integration leading to connectivist  experiences. In my specific workplace, faculty teach across the learning theory continuum, using behavioural, cognitive and constructivist approaches and in all different degrees and proportions. I believe that the best way for teachers to learn, and continue to learn throughout their careers, is via apprenticeships, peer driven professional learning communities, and authentic growth opportunities.

Apprenticeship

As defined by Bates (2015), apprenticeship is a particular way of empowering students. In this teaching approach, students learn by doing. Learning is achieved through experience and the teacher acts as the facilitator of this learning. For example, I remember when I was a teacher candidate and working with expert teachers. These teachers allowed me to observe their teaching, and then slowly gave me the opportunity to stand in front of 28 wide-eyed students and deliver a lesson that fulfilled the outcomes we set out together. As an observer, teaching appeared easy and effortless. However, doing it myself was neither of these things. It was difficult to think quickly and problem solve when the lesson did not go exactly as planned, and my delivery seemed contrived and laborious. However, with increased exposure, constructive feedback, and personal reflection, I felt more comfortable and began to develop a teaching style that reflected a hybrid of my cooperating teacher’s strengths, my own personality and my beliefs on learning theory.

Peer-Driven Professional Learning Communities (PLC)

Effective professional development must involve the teacher as both the learner and the teacher. A PLC is one of the best ways for teachers to learn because this is a group of people who are motivated by a shared vision and who support one another.  “…the most important mechanism we have for professional growth is to leverage the brainpower in the room. Innovative schools are finding time in their annual schedule for teachers and administrators to do what they do best: share and teach each other” (Lichtman, 2014, pp. 18-19) This is a social constructivist approach because it involves teachers learning from each other and using their personal experiences as leverage and as a starting point for their individual growth. It can be difficult for the instructional designer, but done with purpose and intent can provide engaging and enriching learning opportunities.

Authentic growth opportunities

…we should educate, assess, and reward our teachers on the basis of demonstrated mastery of new competencies, leveraging new resources and peer driven forums. The benefits of this change would be twofold. Teachers would receive superior, more cost effective professional development. And they’d be exposed to a different learning model – a model they could in turn use in their classes (Wagner & Dintersmith, 2015. p. 232).

Within a constructivist approach, learning would be part of the teacher’s daily routine, learning and reflecting through experience. I think that these learning experiences can be highly contextualized, personal and collaborative, which according to Herrington and Herrington (2007), as cited in Ertmer and Newby (2013) is what learning designs for today’s students must include.

So there is it, why I believe that I am a social constructivist with connectivist tendencies and some of the teaching and learning practices that exemplify how I learn, teach and design within this framework.

References:

Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. BC: Campus.

Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms, with a new introduction by the authors. Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development (ASCD). Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Ertmer, P. A. & Newby, T. J. (Eds.). (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. [Special Issue]. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26: 43–71. doi: 10.1002/piq.21143

Hernández-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning History in Middle School by Designing Multimedia in a Project-Based Learning Experience. Journal of Research On Technology In Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 42(2), 151-173.

Lichman, G. (2014). #EdJourney: A roadmap to the future of education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wagner, T. & Dintersmith, T. (2015). Most likely to succeed: Preparing our kids for the innovation era. Simon and Shuster: New York.

HI Miriam,

Thank you for your post this week.  You and I have similarities in both jobs and beliefs in education.  I was curious though that you say you have connectivist tendencies.  My question is that do you believe that connectivism is a learning theory and if so, why do you believe that?  I look forward to your response.

Hi Karen,

Interesting question and one that we debated in Residency. Due to needing to finish assignment #3 I am going to refer this question to Tony Bates who wrote a blog post after being a part of out debate audience.

http://www.tonybates.ca/2015/07/29/thinking-about-theory-and-practice-in-online-learning/

I don’t think Connectivism is a learning theory yet but I don’t think it can be discounted anymore.