Are we chameleons?

Awesome question from the discussion board of my Theory class:

As I look at the learning in this class (referring to Learning Theory class), I want one end result.  I want to be able to become an ID professional who creates materials for other businesses, schools, organizations.

So, do you think since we are following the ADDIE process, that different groups may have differing philosophies?  That as we are analyzing the group we will be working with, that we should see if they are constructivist, interpretivist, or behaviorist?  Will their philosophy of life determine our approach to the ID process?  Is this context specific or do we as ID professionals try to go with one theory of learning?  Or are we like chameleons when we actually find employment?

*******************************************************************************************************************

My original response to this post was to say let’s talk about it in class, which never happened. But I am so impressed with this question because of its implications for application!! I get rather caught up in the head games when I think about theory and sometimes have to force myself to apply! apply! apply! I’ve worked really hard at doing that because I know it’s a weakness (might be a strength by now).

An article we read last week by Duffy and Jonassen (1991) might help answer this question. The authors say “our theory of learning is implicit in our design and hence one can come to a reasonable understanding of our beliefs about learning from an analysis of that instruction.” They also say,

“Theories of learning and prescriptions for practice must go hand in hand. Indeed, instructional designers often report that they have difficulty getting the teacher to follow the instructional plan. We would suggest that one of the reasons for this is that the teacher very likely will have different goals for learning and a different concept of what it means to “understand” the subject matter. That is,  the teacher will have a different theory of learning and will modify the instructional prescriptions to accommodate that theory. Hence, the teacher will seek to supplement or replace content and strategies with approaches that he or she feels will lead to the ‘appropriate’ understanding of the subject matter by students.”

It’s a long quote but it’s all applicable to this question. I do not yet know how to answer it. But I am pretty sure the answer is Yes. Kind of….

In actually doing some ID for another class I used the Collins Model (Collins & Berge, 2006) to guide the application of the theory that I had learned. One of the model’s substantive contributions is the “Course blueprint.” This is essentially a table for the ID and the instructor to fill in together to determine outcomes, resources, activities and evaluation, etc. If what Duffy and Jonassen say above applies, I believe IDs need to use their knowledge of theory to first understand the SME’s theoretical basis (sometimes when they don’t tell you or don’t know themselves) and then to steer him or her towards strategies that align with their epistemic stance. This makes IDs chameleons because we are helping others apply theory to instruction regardless of our personal epistemologies.

Maybe this why we are working so hard to become experts in this stuff!!

Works Cited:

Collins, M. P., & Berge, Z.L. (2006). Helping faculty help themselves: Design consulting for online teaching. In S. Garg., S. Panda, C.R.K. Murthy & S. Mishra (Eds.) Open and distance education in global environment: Opportunities for collaboration. New Delhi, India: viva Books Private Ltd.

Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology v31 pp. 7-9.

 

suspending reality

I think that virtual reality merely allows people to transcend the rules, laws and constraints of our physical work. We are based in the physical world, like you stated “Truth is Truth and reality is reality”, but VR allows us to suspend those realities and explore and learn without those limitations that may be placed on us. Many years ago I went to a VR conference. On company was working on a system where they would take people with a fear of heights and with a helmet and a controller and would have them walk across a bridge to a bar or something. I tried it out, and I tell you even though it was very crude computer generated graphics it felt very real. When your visualand auditory were controlled by the helmet, it felt very real. In my mind I knew it, but my body and senses told me something way different.

***************************************************************************************************************

The author of this response makes an excellent point about suspending realities to explore and learn. This option (to suspend) is certainly one of the huge advantages of using virtual environments for education, training, support groups, etc.

As an objectivist I would ask: does suspending reality for a while change reality? No. The constructivist in me would say; suspending reality allows us to us the virtual environment to support the construction of meaning on a topic.

 

Online discussion topic 1 – responses

Some of the responses to my post:

I think that virtual reality merely allows people to transcend the rules, laws and constraints of our physical work. We are based in the physical world, like you stated “Truth is Truth and reality is reality”, but VR allows us to suspend those realities and explore and learn without those limitations that may be placed on us. Many years ago I went to a VR conference. On company was working on a system where they would take people with a fear of heights and with a helmet and a controller and would have them walk across a bridge to a bar or something. I tried it out, and I tell you even though it was very crude computer generated graphics it felt very real. When your visualand auditory were controlled by the helmet, it felt very real. In my mind I knew it, but my body and senses told me something way different.

***********************************************************************************************************

The part of your learning definition in regards to demonstrating performance when needed is key. As other theorists expect a somewhat immediate response. Intelligence levels and comparisons among earthly species is difficult to measure. Your analogy on “context” is good, context provides focus. I believe the social environment (cultures) plays a very important role in learning philosophies, countless variables, such as religion and government affect philosophies.

*************************************************************************************************************

As  I look at the learning in this class, I want one end result.  I want to be able to become an ID professional who creates materials for other businesses, schools, organizations.

So, do you think since we are following the ADDIE process, that different groups may have differing philosophies?  That as we are analyzing the group we will be working with, that we should see if they are constructivist, interpretivist, or behaviorist?  Will their philosophy of life determine our approach to the ID process?  Is this context specific or do we as ID professionals try to go with one theory of learning?  Or are we like chameleons when we actually find employment?

**************************************************************************************************************

I like the analogy that you used about truth being like the earth.  How we view the Earth depends on where we are.  If we are at the surface we see it very different then if we are in the space shuttle orbiting it.  Either way, we only see part of the Earth.  The earth is the truth in this analogy.  I would like to add a little bit to that.  I see it this way.  There is only one truth.  It never changes.  Each of us, have different experiences in life, and therefore see things differently.  To me how we see and interpret the truth is our reality.  Everyone therefore can have their own different reality because of the way that they see the truth.  Learning to me is the gaining of knowledge to help us understand the reality around us, and come closer to the truth.

************************************************************************************************************

Someone else’s post and my response:
I totally agree with you that learning happens intentially and unintentially.  I teach computer classes, and one of the things that I find, is that students come into class with a lot of knowledge.  Where does that knowlege come from?  Is it unitential learning from playing on the computer or the internet?  I still am not totally sure that I understand exactly what unitential learning is.  When a student plays a game on the computer and learns something, is that intential or unintential learning.  No one directly was there teaching them, the learning came about by the game play.  I will have to think more about this one a little more.

My response:

I think it’s probably a little of both. In order to move forward in a typical game, there are things that need to be learned and most players will intentionally do that if they have to. They are motivated by the desire to level up (or get more gear or whatever). This type of learning, I think, is situated learning, as it is surrounded by context. An example of non situated learning might be learning a list of vocabulary words for a test with little or no context, like words from a book being read. To stick with the game idea, an example of non situated learning might be to memorize aspects of characters or  their gear (thinking WoW) before picking up the mouse.

I still think there will also be things learned without conscious effort (unintentionally) during the game play. For example, in Second Life, you may learn to hold your PageUp key down when you want to fly because you’ve experienced that tapping the PageUp key makes you jump, not fly. This is still situated learning of course, but it’s not something you looked up or made a specific effort to learn.

To jump up on the soapbox for a sec, this situated learning and motivation is a big part of why games are being incorporated into education more and more.

 

Online discussion topic 1

Since there is so little discussion happening in this class, I’m going to record it here for easier reference and for further reflection:

Online discussion topic 1

We have talked about and questioned “What is learning?” during our class discussions, but I am sure that you have had more insightful thoughts after the class discussions were over and that you want to share these with others. How do you describe your own philosophy of knowledge and learning? Take a position of objectivism, interpretivism, both, or neither on the issue of knowledge and learning. State your understanding and interpretation of knowledge and learning, give explanations, rationale, evidence, or examples to support your claims. Be ready to defend your position. Respond to your fellow students’ postings with meaningful and insightful comments. Remember, there is no right or wrong answer.

My response:

My definition of learning was “information that is stored in Long Term Memory which can be retrieved and demonstrated when needed.” That is a distinctly cognitivist perspective (with a little behaviorism thrown in there – thank you Gagne).

After pondering our discussion and my own responses to it, I realized that I must have said, “depends on your definition of….whatever the word was….reality, truth, knowledge” several times…. I’m trying to decide if this makes me wishy-washy or wise ….lol. I do, however, think it implies something about my position on this discussion…the answer to the question of where I fit on the continuum is ..it depends.

Another conclusion that I’ve come to is that I think a key to this discussion is context – just like instructional design. We analyze the environment, the learner and the content. Why? To establish context. Without context we would be driving blind.

This is how I see things:

The truth (or reality) is like the Earth. When we look at it from space we see only one side of it (as in Interpretivism which says reality is internal, relative to a frame of reference p. 14). But it exists, in its entirety, whether we see it all or not (as in Objectivism which says reality is external, objective). We have to go on faith that it is all there. As the world turns (ok, i couldn’t resist), or as we move, we see other portions of the Earth (reality or truth) and therefore it depends upon our perspective what portion of the whole we see (Intepretivism again). 

As I mentioned in class, I also believe that as humans we are subject to certain limitations. We are born entirely egocentric and as we develop our mental and emotional world expands to include others. But how we interact with those others depends greatly upon our environments – we do not live in a vacuum – our thoughts feelings and experiences are influenced by others (as in Pragamatism which says that knowledge is negotiated from experience and reason). For me, this demonstrates that I subscribe to a more holistic approach to this puzzle – each epistemology holds merit and can be used to help us more fully understand ….well…everything.

Back to context – Context grounds us and gives a place to begin. Context, sometimes in the form of objectives, gives an idea of where we want to end (the performance gap). So, although it IS important to understand our own beliefs with regard to the three epistemological traditions, we must also be keenly aware that our learners may hold a different paradigm and be able to design instruction that includes each.

OK, since people are nudging me, I must add that I don’t think virtual reality changes any of this – including Second Life. Truth is truth, reality is reality, and experience is experience no matter whether in RL or via a network of computers. Virutal reality just allows people to see things from a different perspective and experiment with presenting different perspectives..imho.

 

What is learning? what is knowledge?

Funny how these questions still intimidate me. They’ve been asking this question from Day 1 and I’m not sure I can answer it any better now than I could back then. Woei asked us to write our definitions of learning on a piece of paper and turn them in. I would have felt less concerned if he didn’t want our names on them. Bah.

My definition of learning was “information that is stored in Long Term Memory which can be retrieved and demonstrated when needed.” That is a distinctly cognitivist perspective (with a little behaviorism thrown in there – thank you Gagne).

Since I have been indoctrinated, I mean taught, using Gagne’s theory of learning, I tend to measure everything else against that. (Of course, this proves the theory that we use our pre-existing knowledge to assimilate new ideas.) My definition above came from a combination of what I learned about CIP and an article written by Kirschner et al on minimal guidance. I guess it just makes sense to me. I wonder if I had learned Bloom’s first if I would see things differently. Seems I would.

 

Driscoll again

Well, this Theory class is using the Driscoll book and I’m both excited and disappointed. I was hoping for the new edition; hoping that it would be written a bit less abstractly, but we’re stickin with the one I have. At least I don’t have to buy a new one. I’m glad her work is being supplemented by Ohmron; not required but will buy (eventually).

My goal is to do all or most of the reading prior to class. It’s such a great learning strategy, and I know the repetition helps me. It also helps me contribute more intelligently to class, which is good deepening my understanding (and for the participation grade).