UPLOADING instructions.
- Go to here and make a new post entry
- Upload by clicking on the “add Media” icon which below the title box.
- Choose “upload files” and choose your file from your computer
- Click “Insert into Post”
- KEY STEP: Under categories (on the right) check Concept Map Drop Box and choose where you want it to post (e.g. final Cmap, or Final HDLT)
- Add a title to your post
- Click “publish” (on the top right)
20 Responses to Cognitive Views of Learning
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Chen et al designed a Kinect game where students could participate in two scenarios: counter assistant and trainee in a fast food restaurant, and a cook in a kitchen responding to orders from a guest. The game was projected onto a vertical screen. In the experimental group, the player’s movements could be displayed as a virtual avatar in response to a virtual guest. A horizontal screen was used by the teacher to explain the game and allowed a small group of 5 to plan their responses to the game and type in words. The purpose of this experiment was to show the difference in engagement and collaboration between a game that had a student responding to a character on the vertical screen (control) and a game where a student’s responses were also displayed on the screen as a virtual avatar. Chen et al use cognitive learning theory to argue that this system promotes active learning because the students move their bodies while using the target vocabulary in the game in addition to collaborating with other students. They also suggest that enactive learning, or learning through self-observation also takes place.
This appears to be a case of adding a layer of technology where it may not be warranted. It seems to remove the learner from interacting directly with their environment. The whole setup seems cumbersome for the purpose of learning. While two 30 student classes were involved, only 5 students could play at a time. The photo does show many more students around the gaming table, so the setup seems unclear to me. The experiment was conducted over only two 80 minute sessions, of which 20 minutes were used for interviews and questionnaires. This does not seem to be a sample that can be extrapolated to a year-long classroom situation. Would the results be valid if the restaurant game was used over a term?
The statement that jumped out at me was “these positive learning behaviors may result in strong learning outcomes, but those outcomes were not measured in this study” (p. 23). The researchers were looking at whether the students were paying attention, but didn’t determine whether there was any significant change in learning outcomes. Does enjoyment equate with learning? What is the point if learning outcomes are not considered? This needs further investigation if any conclusion can be made that technology integration in this way is useful in the classroom.
I agree that the Kinect device and setup seemed unnecessarily cumbersome and limited student interaction (5 max./time).
This week I read both the Ertmer and Newby article, as well as the assigned Chen et al reading. I’m not going to lie, I found the Chen et al reading really scattered, at least from a methodological standpoint. The major objective of the article is to present their background research, predictions, outcomes, and conclusions from their high tech self-observation model. Their self-observation model was an interesting adaptation of the Kinect type technology where the user, as well as their peers, could see themselves interacting with the virtual environment. The researchers certainly make a strong case that self-observation affects learning, and that active learning is more meaningful than passive learning. Although this article is listed as our reading for a cognitivist methodology, I struggle to find anywhere that the article strongly supports cognitivism. In fact, the article seems to focus primarily on constructivism and behaviorism, in that their active learning processes are constructivist, and their methods of evaluation are behaviourist. I feel that the link to cognitivism is weak, especially as depicted in this quote: “Learning in behaviorism and cognitivism tends to be passive learning in a sense that it is more instructor-centered, while learning in constructivism promotes active learning…Active learning facilitates knowledge acquisition, critical thinking skills, problem solving, and independent thinking”. Although critical thinking and problem solving are strong cognitive skills, the focus of the praise is regarding the physical, or constructivist aspect.
I understand that there is some overlap in methodologies, where each methodology may share attributes of another, however, I do not feel that this article’s main focus is cognition. In fact, in the conclusion the researchers mention that their “concern was to explore the learner’s behavior in relation to [their] design, [they] did not quantitatively show the learning gains regarding language learning achievement in [their] system”. They go on to suggest that future studies could measure learning outcomes and learning gains from the setting. In this situation it is clear that the behavior is being observed as an indication that the student is learning. In cognitivist methodology, “learning is concerned not so much with learners do, but with what they know and how they come to acquire it”. Cognitive theories stress the acquisition of knowledge and internal mental structures and the learner is considered an active participant in the learning process. However, I feel that this article is more strongly favoring the physically active aspect as the key to learning, rather than the mentally active aspect.
In the paper written by Chen et al (2014) they “propose a self-observation model that comprises an instinctive interface for active learning, facilitating engagement, collaboration, and physical activity” (p. 15) The model involves attaching a Kinect device to a projector in order for students to be able to observe their own learning. One aspect of the article that stood out to me was the three assumptions that motivate the creation of a learning environment.
– embodied learning relied on the role of the body in knowledge construction to produce deep, experiential learning
– multimodal (using various sensory modes) learning optimizes knowledge
construction and thus improves learning, works because cognitive processing is multimodal
– observing the live actions of a person while learning should be beneficial
The authors believe that the Kinect game that they describe meets all three of these assumptions.
I believe that Chen et al make some extremely valid points in regards to cognitive views of learning. Using body movements and multimodal learning in the classroom can certainly improve how students’ receive, organize, store, and retrieve information. I often observe my students recalling facts immediately because of a song or a movement they were taught to help them remember. This article made me evaluate my own teaching and classroom. Sometimes I worry that my students spend too much time sitting in their seats. I can get overly worried about making sure they stay quiet and still while they work since that type of atmosphere makes it easier for me to maintain order. I’m hoping to find a balance in my classroom of movement and order!
I appreciated the example of the Kinect device. It’s certainly a unique way of using multimodal learning, self-observation, and active learning all at once. However, it was also an overwhelming example for me as I couldn’t imagine being able to have this set up in my classroom. I think there are other more realistic methods of teaching that would still promote these three modes of learning. Additionally, I felt frustration when reading the article because of the lack of technology or support for technology I already experience in my district. I’m currently struggling to have my class of 30 students all have access to a computer (while at school) which makes facilitating a research project difficult.
Another statement written by the authors that stood out to me was “we can conclude that students are impressed when they have the opportunity to use learned knowledge actively in a relevant context” (p. 24). Firstly, my initial reaction was that I found the use of the word ‘impressed’ awkward here. I’m not sure that the fourth graders involved in this study are able to acknowledge when they’ve learned knowledge actively in a relevant context. Secondly, this quote combines two aspects of teaching that I believe can lead to development and learning. These two aspects are active learning and relevant contexts. When students are given opportunities like this, I think it can lead to student’s being actively involved in their learning. This type of learning is exactly what’s being promoted in the new curriculum that my school is beginning to implement this year.
What I appreciate about Chen and al’s article is that it makes us reflect on what cognition and how knowledge can be processed. As Cognitivism focuses on the mind and the mental processes such as thinking, knowing, memory, and problem-solving the first thing that comes to my mind is that “In a typical classroom setting, students can learn by passively sitting on their chairs and using minimal body movement.” (Jensen, 2000). I think of the teaching methods such as flashcards, puzzles, sorting rules, etc. Brief, I always felt cognitivism worked at its best when the classroom environment had a behaviourist setting. But, as the learning is explained as a recall of stored information, it would make total sense that movement or active learning should be used to recall pas experiences and that and that to a certain extend, an emotional connection can be made to an activity to help store the mind, as it is our “black box”. “When an individual can see himself or herself while learning, it may positively affect corrective feedback, introspection, and the sense of self-assessment resulting in learning gains.” (Chen & al.)
I do feel that the text gets lost between constructivism and cognitivism at times. Multimodal learning works because cognitive processing is multimodal (Atkinson, 2010). I feel what really understand from it on a cognitivist point if view is that technology allows students to capture moments such as oral presentations, games, etc where students can see where they did “good or wrong” and that it helps make sense of the information so it can be stored more readily stored (learned) later for recall. An example of that in my classroom is when I film my student’s oral presentations and that I upload them to FreshGrade to accompany my evaluation, or when my students record their literature circles in French to listen to their pronunciation or word choices in French. This is what I feel the active learning would be using a cognitivist stand compare to a more passive approach where you do not witness your learning and that feedback only comes from the instructor.
I do not agree with the authors when they say that “Technology should no longer be used to transmit knowledge or teach. Instead, it should be used to engage students and promote critical thinking.” Despite agreeing with the fact that it does support critical learning, I do find it an efficient way to support students in learning facts. For example, we have the websites Brain Pop or Flocabulary that makes interactive lessons by creating short movies or songs to support the acquisition of facts. I often catch my students singing along to the Flocabulary raps therefore indirectly learning information about what we are currently studying. Is this the only way to learn? No. But sometimes, I do feel there are some things in life that we do need to memorize suck as Times tables or basic spelling despite being more at ease with a constructivist philosophy myself.
Implementing body movements,rather than simply sitting for extended periods benefits learning, facilitating effective memory, fun, and activity (Jensen, 2000). I totally agree with Chen and al. here but I have to see more examples using a cognitivist point of view. Technology and cognitivism can work when students are engaged in realistic experiences, discussing content, and experimenting with the curriculum but not much is said about the role of the teacher be truly cognitivist. From Ertmer’s text, I would think that cognitivism is at its true form when the teacher has control over what students are learning. Technology in this case should only be aiding the learning process and not replace the teacher’s role. ( Here as writing the activities on Word, providing music, videos, applications to use, etc.)
Brief, I feel that this week’s reading made me reflect that cognition doesn’t need a behaviourist environment for it to work and that it was ok for students to use body movement in a cognitivist setting. I feel that to have students standing up or walk in the classroom or even talk is seen like the teacher is doing something bad or that the teacher is automatically bad according to colleagues it his students are not responsible to a strict behaviourist approach for classroom management when engaging in a textbook learning environment but I do feel this text is too vague about the teacher’s role to be truly cognitivist and that without the word cognitivism in there, some elements could me misinterpreted for constructivism or even situativity.
I found the Ertmer and Newby article very easy to process and appreciated the definitions and examples given for cognitivism. On the other hand, I had a hard time reading the Chen et al (2014) article because of the disjointed writing as some introductory sentences were missing; however, I could relate to the foreign language learning content. I found the end result confusing, are they observing behavior or how information is learned?
Active learning in foreign language acquisition is effective and it’s great to include new games, activities, and technologies which engage students but I find it’s a short-term strategy. Role-play is part of current pedagogy but active learning encourages and includes many more activities as indicated in the articles listed below. Plus, in order for cognitive processes to be activated, Ertmer and Newby describe “Specific instructional or real-world events will trigger particular responses, but the learner must believe that the knowledge is useful in a given situation before he or she will activate it.” (p.52)
https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/resources/learning-resources/promoting-active-learning
http://www.lookstein.org/online_journal.php?id=260
Through the lens of a high school teacher, this specific device would not be as successful. This would work for one lesson and then student engagement would be lost. First, the primary examples given (board games and piano) can be done with the actual object. In fact, you would need multiple game boards, but this item would be easier to set up than several Kinect games. Second, in order to keep a high school French class engaged with the example of the supermarket, I would use role-play or multiple Kinect environments. You want all kids engaged and participating otherwise students are off-task. Third, I agree with Chen et al (2014) “When the learning context is provided onscreen during role-playing, it combines real-world learning and the traditional classroom, engaging students as if in real locations without requiring that they travel to experience the learning context.” Still, I see this instructional strategy as a lot of work for teachers to set up. How does one evaluate or keep thirty students engaged at a time with one Kinect? In Chen et al’s article, the kids seem happier and engaged but are they more interested because it’s new technology (created in 2010) or because they are actually motivated and learning?’ Regardless of your lesson/scenario in foreign language learning, students need to be engaged or they do not and will not retain the information.
The conclusion suggests future research implementing these systems, and I looked up KinectEDucation. It appears to be similar to newer virtual reality games that we were introduced to in EDCP 473 such as Google cardboard, HoloLens, and Oculus. I see this system being more effective for individual or small group learning.
The mere mention of John Dewey in Chen et al’s reading captivates my attention. Dewey coined the phrase learning is doing. When I think of students (as small children) and learning by doing I think of PLAY. I had the privilege of visiting the Opal School in Portland, Oregon this past June and the school’s philosophy is based around PLAY. This school has embraced all of what John Dewey has suggested as well as what Chen et. al is referring to in this reading. Most, if not all, of the activities that the students participate in at the Opal School involve play. Whether they are creating stories using loose parts during Story Workshop or designing, creating and inventing in their maker spaces or in their art studios with India Ink or clay or cardboard, there is an emphasis on play. Students also have opportunities to learn in the outdoor learning environment (their arboretum). Students are active learners in their classrooms as well as outdoors. There is caring, communication, collaboration, problem solving, community and more. The emphasis is placed on the learner and is best for the learner. There is emphasis placed on selecting Just Right texts, and Just Right provocations, and Just Right activities. The students are nurtured and challenged. Obviously I have been heavily impacted by my experience at the Opal School and hope to be able to share the possibilities in our school district (especially in supporting French teachers).
Chen et. al suggests that using gestures to understand concepts can improve learning. A wonderful example of active learning and the use of gestures can be seen in the AIM Language Learning program. While AIM can be applied to various languages, in my experience, AIM is suitable for Core French learners and can also be useful in Late French Immersion. The program involves teaching the students gestures that go along with the French vocabulary. For example, ouvre le cerveau would have students using their hands to show their brains opening. C’est le temps pour le français would have students making an F with their fingers (and we don’t encourage the use of the middle finger!).
Chen et. al describes the learning environment that encourages active learning. While I understand the purpose of the study I’m not sure that this type of technology is a possibility in most classrooms. Another way that we can provide students with opportunities for self-observation is through the use of iPad technology. Students are able to create screencasts using apps such as Explain Everything, Show Me, and Doceri. Students could be given a question such as what is the relationship between area and perimeter. The students would then use the app to show their understanding of this relationship using images, text, and voice. Even though the students are not able to see themselves directly on the screen students are still able to self-observe as they listen and watch the screencast they have created to be able to reflect on whether they have answered the question effectively. I believe providing a student with this type of opportunity is very powerful for their learning.
Chen argues that three assumptions motivate the learning environment: direct embodied experiences, multimodal learning (i.e. sensory modes such as sight, sound, movement, touch) and self-observing live actions complimented by instant feedback. Observing self-action is called “enactive learning” whereas “observing the actions of others while they learn is called vicarious learning” (p.15). He uses a kinetic learning interface for the experimental group of students and concludes that they were more engaged in the activity than the control group, which demonstrated less interest in role-playing.
I feel that Chen’s article adds another layer to the complexities of the behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism models by attempting to outline the similarities and differences between the paradigms. Chen epistemologically groups behaviourism with cognitivism since they are both of the “objectivism perspective assuming the absoluteness of knowledge based on reality” whereas constructivism is a subjective paradigm which assumes knowledge is constructed (p.14). I feel that most educators equate constructivism with active learning, but Chen reinforces the literal meaning of this phrase which requires actual body movement to induce learning. In Chen’s discussion about horizontal and vertical screens, I found the comparison of the traditional layout of a classroom with the blackboard, projector or smartboard facing the classroom at the center of attention to the vertical screens on our devices to be very interesting.
At times, Chen moves away from cognitivist paradigm and shifts more to a behaviorism one. The lines between the two are often blurred within his research model. Chen mentions the phrases “learning is doing” (Dewey) and “knowing is doing,” yet Ertmer and Newby state that within the cognitivism paradigm, “learning is concerned not so much with what learners do but with what they know and how they come to acquire it” (p.51). In this article, Chen solely focuses on kinetic technology to engage students, but it is important to note that educators can create many different learning environments, that do not require technology, in which students can still be active in the learning process. I do agree with Chen’s conclusions in which he states students should be able to apply “learned knowledge actively in relevant contexts” and that active learning should include elements of multimodal learning and self-observation.
Drawing from last week’s class activities and discussions and this week’s reading on cognitivism by Ertmer and Newby I have been able to reflect and realize that I employ aspects from both theories in my grade three French immersion classroom. I use behaviourist strategies such as gamification and positive feedback to encourage good behaviours such as promoting students to speak French at all times in the classroom or being a respectful listener during a class discussion. As well, I also incorporate cognitivist strategies to ensure my students are acquiring the French language by using the power of song, poetry and rhyme to help them understand specific phonetic sounds or verb tenses. We sing a song to remember how to conjugate the verbs “avoir” and “etre” in present tense using familiar tunes such as “Row, Row, Row Your Boat” or “Un Éléphant”, which plays off of their previous knowledge to help process and make a new connection in their memory to the grammatical concept. I have often heard my students humming the song to themselves later in the day to recall the proper verb when writing in their journal.
Chen et al. argue that behaviourist and cognitivist approaches are passive ways for students to be learning as they are much more instructor-centred. Ertmer and Newby also point this out by stating that the ultimate goal of both behaviourist and cognitivism theories is “to communicate or transfer knowledge to students in the most efficient, effective manner possible” (p. 52). However, they also go on to emphasize the importance of the learner in in the learning process (p. 53) and that students’ previous experiences can impact the learning outcomes (p. 54).
I felt like Chen et al.’s article was supportive of a constructivist model rather than behaviourist or cognitivist approaches as they believed that these were not engaging the students in their own learning. They argue that students’ involvement with the Kinect program would help them construct new knowledge. However, the study ultimately had a behaviourist objective as they wanted to see if the interactions with the Kinect would alter the students’ learning behaviours. They implemented a stimulus (the Kinect) to measure a specific change in behaviour. As well, Chen et al. critique the cognitivist approach for being too instructor-centred, however they used the cognitivist strategy of having the teacher deliver specific objectives that needed to be obtained by the students. As well, the students were expected to connect new knowledge with previous knowledge, which was the information drawn from the traditional English textbook that was used as a basis for the activity.
I was intrigued by Chen et al.’s proposal that the implementation of the Kintec allows students to be more engaged and aware of their own learning and be active participants. I really like how they talked about the importance of movement and the role the body can play in cognition and making meaning and that it isn’t an isolated process that occurs in the brain. The point out Kirsch’s idea that “physical activities can enable learners to acquire more knowledge…doing may result in more effective learning than watching”. I have seen this happen with a technology that was introduced to me by a previous instructor during our master’s program called Osmo. I use this interactive program on my iPad in my classroom and it requires students to engage not only with the screen, but also with physical manipulatives that are picked up by a mirror that reflects back onto the iPad screen. The students can work individually or in a group to make new words with letters, make equations with the numbers and draw angles or images on paper to solve problems that are presented on the screen. Their movements affect what happens on the screen and they then build new understandings about language, numeracy, physics, art and design.
In last weeks discussion we discovered that we use many different learning strategies with our students. The information that we teach our students is so varied that we cannot help but use all learning methods. As long as we make sure that we do not focus on a single method of delivery with a lack of consideration of the others, we will provide a balance experiences for our students.
“A behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession (knowing what); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action.” (Ertner and Newby, 2013, p. 60)
A makerspace infused education would fit under the constructionist view of learning as each experience will build upon a previous one. This will give the learner a collection of experiences, each of which may be applied to a future project that the student may encounter. Even though these experiences are key to the learning, students must learn simple things about the uses and effects of basic tools and technologies. These may be delivered through a simpler behavioural approach.
In my mind, the combined use of different strategies throughout the student’s learning experience will create a greater motivation to learn and experience new or challenging concepts.
I read the backgrounder article by Ertmer and Newbie first and found it to be a very clear, direct and succinct read on cognitivism. Aside from clearly defining what cognitive theory focuses on, it is useful in an educational context to be given examples of the instructional design strategies that are most reliably used to implement learning strategies in a cognitivist approach (more on this in our facilitation this week).
The article by Chen et al. was awkwardly written. I found it really difficult to understand the description of cognitive theory. In fact, I found the discussion of behaviourist theory and constructivist theory to be more clearly written than cognitivism. Chen et al. were using active learning strategies and self-observation to promote language acquisition. Ertmer and Newbie discuss language acquisition as one of the complex, cognitive process falling into cognitive theory (p. 50). While the idea of using self-observation and active learning strategies to increase student engagement is interesting, I don’t know that it adheres to the cognitive theory:
– Learning is equated with discrete changes between states of knowledge rather than with changes in the probability of response. Cognitive theories focus on the conceptualization of students’ learning processes and address the issues of how information is received, organized, stored, and retrieved by the mind. Learning is concerned not so much with what learners do but with what they know and how they come to acquire it (Jonassen, 1991b). Knowledge acquisition is described as a mental activity that entails internal coding and structuring by the learner. The learner is viewed as a very active participant in the learning process. (p. 51).
The instructional and learning activities designed by Chen et al. promoted an active learning scenario which falls constructivist theory. The results of the study, the way in which the data was collected, the types of data collected, and the presentation of the findings followed behaviourist theory:
This shift from a behavioral orientation (where the emphasis is on promoting a student’s overt performance by the manipulation of stimulus material) to a cognitive orientation (where the emphasis is on promoting mental processing) has created a similar shift from procedures for manipulating the materials to be presented by an instructional system to procedures for directing student processing and interaction with the instructional design system (Merrill, Kowalis, & Wilson, 1981).
Chen et al. argue that behaviourism and cognitivism are considered passive learning: Passive learning is disadvantageous, allowing teachers to become “the sage on stage,” and the lack of interactivity between teachers and students engenders quiet students (Wang, Shen, Novak, & Pan, 2009). Wouldn’t you have to interact with your students if you employ cognitivist theory, given that you need to find out existing mental structures and how the learner activates, maintains and directs learning (Ertmer and Newbie, p. 53)? I find Chen’s statement that cognitivism is a passive learning and teaching philosophy flawed.
Overall, Chen et al.’s study was a confusing article that I felt did not exemplify cognitivism clearly.
*Newby
Chen, Wang, Yang and Chao in the article Self-Observation Model Employing an Instinctive Interface for Classroom Active Learning define active learning as being actively involved in the learning process and being engaged in learning. Over the past decade there has been a lot of focus on cognitive learning, one of the themes in the article. While studying to become a teacher I studied how students acquire knowledge and how they store and retrieve information. During my practicum and over the past twenty years I have tried to encourage my students to become active participants in their learning with the goal of increasing student engagement. Chen et al argue that we need to take active learning one step further by incorporating body movement in learning. Students need to be physically active in their learning.
The authors also discuss the need to use the self-observation model to further engage students and to further promote learning. The self-observation model involves students observing the actions of others while they are learning. This model also involves students seeing themselves in action while learning. Chen et al quote Harasim (2011) in their article learning by stating behaviourism and cognitivism tends to be passive learning while active learning is more constructivist (p.15) The constructivist approach seems to take center stage throughout this article as the authors repeatedly talk about active learning.
The authors introduced the use of technology to promote their model of learning. I wonder if the technology they described may be shortly out of date as our world is changing rapidly. What is important to retain from this article is not that the type of technology they are promoting is important but that the technology and goals of the lessons need to be suitable for classroom learning where both the student and their peers are involved in the learning. In addition, the knowledge obtained needs to be relevant to real world situations. I would argue that we do not need to be held to real world situations. Given the challenge I am sure students could develop many learning scenarios that are futuristic or fantastical.
Active learning with technology has many possibilities. In the past I was a facilitator supporting teachers in how to use the interactive Smartboard for learning. Interactive Smartboards allow students to manipulate objects and allow for what Chen et al describe as multimodal learning. According to David Rose, from the National Center on Universal Design for Learning, “Learning is most effective when it is multimodal – when material is presented in multiple forms” (http://www.udlcenter.org/). Recently, I have begun exploring virtual reality and how we could use this technology. Virtual reality could allow students to engage with learners around the world. Using the authors’ experiment as an example, students could practice their English skills by serving students who are in a class in North America using VR. In the meanwhile, teachers can take advantage of the apps available on iPads where they can connect with students around the world and can learn by doing using such as apps as App Inventor, Lego Movie Creator, and Book Creator. The concept of incorporating body movement in learning is important when we as teachers approach our learning. The more opportunities students have to move, self-observe, and use more of their senses the better their learning will be.
Chen et al’s article examines using technology to facilitate active learning. In their study, they use an interactive display to provide the opportunity for fourth grade students in a classroom in Taiwan to collaborate with others, be engaged in their learning, while also physically moving. The objective of the activity is to teach English to the Chinese students in this elementary class; specifically, students learn about food names and how to order the food.
According to the cognitive theories, learning takes place when information is processed and stored in a meaningful manner (Etermer & Newby, 2013). The learner needs to be active in the learning process in order for learning to occur. Then, the learner is also able to apply what he or she has learned to different contexts. Although this study examines active learning, I believe the focus is primarily on having students being physically active in the lesson, as opposed to being mentally active to process information. Although the purpose of the activity is for students to learn about food names and how to order food, there is no follow up provided on whether or not these learning objectives were met. The activity is fun and is enjoyed by most of the students, however, there seems to be no purposeful integration of technology for meaningful learning. The variables used to measure active learning of the performers are: active responding and calling for support from teammates. Furthermore, the variables used to measure active learning of the non-performing students are the extent to which they supported their performing classmates. The study only “explore[s] the learners’ behavior in relation to [the] design, [it] did not quantitatively show the learning gains regarding language learning achievement in [the] system.” (p. 24). Active learning is measured by physical gestures; the learning of the content was unaccounted for in the measurements. In this study, technology seems to be used for the sake of using it in this study. The cost of purchasing the equipment, and the amount of time and effort it takes to set the equipment up do not seem like they are worth it to carry out this activity. I enrolled in this Masters program to learn how to meaningfully integrate technology into my teaching practice in order to decrease the digital gap between by students and I. Although this study examines using technology for active learning, I feel that the emphasis placed on the active component of the learning was placed upon students physically moving around. Also, only a small number of students were actually performing at one time, while the others observed as members of the audience.
Chen et al’s article focuses on creating an active learning environment with the use of technology. A study was implemented with sixty students from Taiwan who were learning English as a second language. The active learning environment was created with the use of Kinect from Xbox. As Chen et al has highlighted, “active learning facilitates knowledge acquisition, critical thinking skills, problem solving, and independent thinking” (p. 15). We could question if the students from Taiwaan had ever used or seen Xbox before, which could create results showing more interest than others who use it on a regular basis. Also the fact that the same active learning environment may also be created without the use of Kinect. If the experimental and control groups activities were implemented with the students face-to-face instead of using Kinect, then self-observation could still be implemented at the end of an actual ‘real-world’ scenario in the classroom. When I wrote my literature review in the summer, I read a quote in an article that asked: “Does the (digital) tool enhance literacy instruction and promote progress toward a literacy learning goal, or is it only being used as an add-on to instruction?” (Hutchison, Beschorner, and Schmidt-Crawford, 2012, p. 23). I would ask this question of the study implemented in Chen et al’s article as the real-world scenario created in the classroom may be just as active without the use of Kinect when using activities such as role-play or interviewing. Therefore, does it enhance literacy instruction or is it used as an extra resource.
Considering the ‘real-world’ scenario created in the study in Chen et al’s article, I thought about my inquiry project and how I included the use of technology to integrate and motivate students. My inquiry is about how to motivate vulnerable students to learn English as a second language with the integration of technology. Whilst implementing the activities for my inquiry, I noticed the increase in interaction, discussions, questions, depth of inquiry, enjoyment, and satisfaction in a small group of students who faced social and emotional needs. Learning a new language was challenging enough on top of all the other needs they had. However, after reading the Chen et al article, I am reconsidering the evaluation of my inquiry. I now have new questions, such as: Did I create a meaningful and interactive environment that the students were comfortable with and enjoyed working in before technology was even integrated? Did the integration of technology alone intrigue the students or was it the environment that they were working in? Were they comfortable with the other students in their group due to the activities implemented prior to the technology activity? There are more questions that arise as I evaluate my inquiry from a new angle. Did I use a behaviourist, cognitivist, or constructivist approach in the implementation and evaluation of the activities in my inquiry?
I understand the emphasis made of using technology as an interactive tool rather than a teaching tool. In this study, technology is not being used to transmit knowledge or teach, but is used to enhance student engagement and promote critical thinking. As stated in the article: behaviourism and cognitivism learning is often passive as it is more instructor-centered, whereas constructivism promotes active learning. After considering last week’s discussion and this week’s reading, it is becoming clear that an integration of more than one approach is required within the classroom for effective and balanced outcomes.
Forgot to add the reference for the quote:
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
The Chen article focused on a self-observation model to promote both cognitively and physically active learning in a classroom setting. According to Dewey, “learning is doing” and this article attempts to address this philosophy in a 21st Century context by using technology to promote active learning. A key term that I continually reflected on as I read the article was body movement. Chen states that, ”when body movement is considered as an integral part of the cognition process, properly designed physically active learning experiences should contribute to cognition and learning” (p. 14). In my experience, it is important for teachers to implement movement within their daily instruction to enhance learning. For example, when I teach financial literacy I turn my class into a grocery store and have students “actually” shop considering things like prices, sale items, necessities, and taxes. I agree with Chen that students retain more knowledge when they are actively involved in the learning process as opposed to watching others or completing worksheets.
The section describing the instinctive interface for performing physical activity was particularly interesting. By using the Microsoft Kinect for the Xbox console students were able to intuitively interact in their learning environment. According to Chen, “the Kinect device provides this type of interface, enabling users to perform physical activity by using embodied interaction” (p.16). The ability for students to interact with their environment and receive real time feedback from their peers through the use of technology like the Kinect creates much more of an authentic learning environment compared to traditional classroom settings.
Based on the results of Chen’s study, there is evidence that creating a self-observational and active classroom learning environment does promote cognitive learning however the article raised a couple of questions. I wonder if the researchers considered the cost associated with developing this type of learning environment in classrooms. Also, when I think of my own classroom and the diverse learning needs that exist I wonder if using technology like Kinect would be suitable for all learners.
The Chen et al article resonated deeply with me and my beliefs about learning. Students need to be actively engaged in their learning by doing. Previously in this course we discussed how little information was retained from listening and seeing, but rather knowledge and understanding was much more powerful when the learner was an active participant and engaged in what they are doing. As teachers, we see this in our classrooms everyday. Lessons which engage and interest the learner, where they are active in the construction of knowledge are far more effective than lessons where students take the role of passive learner. I was at a TEDx event today, and listened to a passionate Gr. 9 student talk about how humans learn through stories and storytelling. She recounted how wonderful her learning experiences were in elementary school because she was engaged in her learning, and felt there were many opportunities in which she could learn by doing. In contrast, to her, high school focus on “book learning”, rather than telling a human story. She is not engaged, and therefore her learning is impacted.
I found the quote that “teachers tend to imitate the way they were taught, and most were taught as passive learners” interesting. From my experience this is very true, especially in higher education. Rarely have I found a university course that models instruction the way we want our students to be educated. As well, I find many teachers believe that teaching practices need to change, but more often than not, teachers still employ traditional practices.
The research developed in this article, using the Kinect device, also resonated with me for the philosophical reasons of what they were trying to accomplish. Essentially through the use of role-playing and self-observation, the researchers were hoping to use technology to engage students in a contextually meaningful way, in which students were active participants in their learning. This makes me think about existing technologies that are becoming more prevalent in the classroom – like Nintendo Wii and FreshGrade. Nintendo Wii combines the physical body movements in an engaging way. I have personally used FreshGrade as a platform for students to do self-observation. In my PE class, I have classmates videotape students performing a specific skill, such as volleying a ball. The video is uploaded to their FreshGrade account where they have to watch themselves, and provide a reflection about how they performed the skill. By doing this, I hope that students have a meaningful way, in which they are engaged and learning by doing, to experience and reflect on their learning. Chen notes that “self-assessment facilitates autonomy and lifelong learning skills (p. 16)”. I think this integrated use of technology is an example of how FreshGrade can be a useful technology to encourage active learning.
When I began this week’s readings by Ertmer and Newby on Cognitivism I thought my practice wasn’t following Cognitivism because as a primary teacher I often follow a Behaviourist approach when I focus on creating the right learning environment, while introducing knowledge and the mastery of early skills. I look for observable and measurable skills when I give positive reinforcement or rewards for a particular behaviour and like many teachers I give stickers on papers for correct answers. Currently I am giving pre-assessments in Math and Language Arts to determine where my student’s knowledge is in these subject areas. I am giving feedback to modify behavior. As I read about Cognitivism I could see that I also use many of these ideas I my classroom. I use feedback to guide and support learning and try to encourage the student to be an active participant in their learning. With the Cognitivist approach the focus on the mental activities of the learner. “Learning is concerned not so much with what learners do but what they know and how they come to acquire it (Ertmer & Newby, 2014, p.51)”. The learning environment has instructional examples, demonstrations, illustrative examples, matched with non-examples and corrective feedback. Attention is also paid to memory. As the teacher I need to help my students use their minds to organize and sort information in a meaningful way so that they learn and can retrieve the information they have learned. Learning is also and active process where our students “learn by doing, actively participating in constructing knowledge, resulting in deeper and more persistent knowledge – and are being engaged in learning (Chen et al., 2014, p.14)”. As I teach about the Geography of local Communities in Canada I can do a KWL or have my students brainstorm all the places they know in Metro Vancouver. We can then sort and organize places into different areas/groups and place them on a map. We can then look at a map and add the locations of other places that they have missed out. In Math we can review Math Facts we know and demonstrate the answers in pictures and equations. I can have students explain how they got their answers. Strategies and examples can also be shown on posters or anchor charts. Both Behaviourism and Cognitivism are still quite teacher directed, but in in the 21st century we are moving away from passive or traditional teaching methods to more active learning teaching and learning.
Chen et al. describes how technology can be used to engage students and critical thinking. How self-observation in learning has a positive impact when students see themselves as actor or performer or audience. I agree self observation and active learning are important to learning. In todays classroom students can demonstrate their understanding and explain their thinking when they use applications like explain everything or the camera on the iPad to explain or describe what they have learned. Some students also share their knowledge with the class using the document camera. As I reflect on this weeks reading, I recognize in my classroom Behaviourism, Cognitivism are both present in my practice.
Like last week, the Ertmer and Newby article provided an informative summary of the theoretical approach examined. Their stated intent is to provide clear guidelines on how to apply theory to practice, and they are successful in this endeavor. A clear picture is provided of what cognitivism is, and how it looks applied in a teaching/learning setting.
I found the Chen et al. article to be very interesting. The term embodied cognition is something that is new to me. I have often considered active learning as important for student engagement, but have not extensively considered how the body itself becomes an actual part of cognitive processes. It surprises me to realize this, as I engage in a number of personal pastimes in which kinesthetic memories and awareness are important. What surprises me is that I haven’t thought of developing kinesthetic memories as a cognitive process.
Reflecting on it now, I realize that I have unconsciously been applying embodied cognition in my own learning endeavors as well as in my classroom. I say unconsciously, because I was creating active and embodied learning situations, but I was thinking of these more as creating an authentic environment, where students could construct relevant knowledge, as opposed to creating contexts where the body would engage in cognitive processes.
One thing I am not fully sure about is whether Chen’s approach reflected a cognitivist or constructivist ideology. My initial reaction was that by attempting to create a more authentic learning environment, the researchers were promoting the construction of learning in meaningful contexts. They talk about the difference between objectivism and subjectivism, and about the importance of active learning. They seem to connect active learning with subjectivism, and therefore with constructivism. However, by focusing on the importance of the physically active body and the embodied cognition, I feel like they bring the focus back from constructivism to cognitivism. It seems that the lesson taught was more objective than subjective (students were intended to learn a vocabulary set), which would also reflect cognitivism. My conclusion would be that it stands on a continuum somewhere between the two. I find the question of whether the authentic environment or the physically active nature of the activity is more important to be an interesting one.