ETEC Blog P Collins

A few thoughts regarding the intricacies of CMC.
Even before I had finished the assigned reading this week, I had some conflicting thoughts about the success of a CMC learning environment. Specifically, how successful it would be for a group of learners that I have had the opportunity to work with for the majority of my career – First Nations students.
The reading does identify some “must haves” for a successful CMC but is quick to also admit that the research about the success of CMC is in the fledgling stages. The authors identify the three essential elements and further surmise that there has to be a strong, dynamic relationship between the three for it to be a successful combination. However I can’t help but still wonder, does it work for every student of every age category/computer experience level, or is it really only truly affective for digital natives or those extremely well versed in virtualism?
The authors further posit that spoken and written language have different impacts on our thinking. Which leads me to question if this is a blanket statement that applies to all cultures – again specifically to groups that have not had a traditional written language? And is there any further research to identify the differences between marginalized and non-marginalized peoples in a CMC environment? My question would be is the emotional experience which so often accompanies a traditional First Nation learning environment (and is often absent as well in mainstream education) even more distant/silent in a CMC learning situation?
So putting aside my thoughts about the group of students to find the most success with CMC, when I reflect on the type of activity that would best be supported by CMC I feel that project-based learning would find the most achievement with CMC learning. This would be due to the ability for strong, active participation by members in a group project that is conducted in a virtual, asynchronous manner.
I keep coming back to the same thought – that a highly effective CMC environment can only be constructed with a specific subsect of learners. Those that have a strong background in the material, are mature, have experience in a relevant discipline and some previous experience with working in a virtual environment. And the research should direct some effort to looking at which type of learner finds the most success in a CMC environment.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Co-operative versus group learning
Initially, I had thoughts about identifying the similarities/differences between group and co-operative learning. Then as I finished the readings and remembered all the activities in my classroom that I had thought were legitimate co-operative learning experiences and it turns out they probably were not, I changed my mind and decided to go with the What-Cooperative-Learning-Is-Not approach vs. the What-Group-Learning-Is-Not approach to my reflection.
Co-operative learning is not
• A learning experience where students are in a group to complete any old task
• A day when the teacher still lectures on the topic and then puts the students into groups to answer questions till the end of class
• A competition amongst students in a group format
• An activity where kids pick their own groups to work in to complete the activity during a class
• An activity where there is only a group mark assigned and no individual accountability
• An endeavour that has insignificant student interaction (like the divide the task and conquer approach)
• Just having a class discussion on a topic
• Completing any task with a well-defined problem – such as a chemistry lab
• A class based activity where students share ideas in a group and report back to the teacher
• The completion of a learning task without significant use of social/mediated/community skills by the students
As to what group learning encompasses, flip any of these statements into a “What does group learning involve” and almost all of them will become affirmation points. I am slightly humbled by my ignorance as to what legitimate co-operative learning is in actuality. And it makes me smile a little bit because earlier this week, on National Aboriginal Day, I learned that in the Nlaka’pamux language instead of saying “I don’t know that”…. they say “that is not in my knowledge yet.” A saying that applies quite well to my new understanding of co-operative vs. group-learning experiences.

Guanghai, Hou. The Relationship between co-operative learning and academic achievement in English.
Retrieved June 22,2012 from http://bit.ly/NoGR1q

What is radical constructivism and what has been my experience with it?
From several accounts, radical constructivism, appears to be the evil twin of a rather benign philosophy. And truth be told, that also sums up my first experience with a formal introduction to constructivism as pedagogy. I can still remember sitting in my science education class and watching the instructor take a clear fluid and pouring it into a black box. Seconds later a blue fluid emerged from the box and we were told to theorize an explanation for events. Well, I was just coming from three years of field research and could not for the life of me wrap my mind around this being the new process for teaching science. How could you develop a sound hypothesis for experimentation with zero back ground knowledge? What had happened to labs, text resources and lectures from experts? I found it a bit irritating and irrational.
It was something of a shock and unfortunately completely turned me off from learning anything further about the concept of constructivism. That was until I had started my ETEC coursework and I realized there was significantly more to the explanation. And, completely unawares to me, I had already incorporated a variety of constructivist ideas into my teaching practice. Mostly relying upon how I was taught as a youngster by my parents and the influence of Aboriginal elders in my life.
I am still a bit wary of radical constructivism. An idea that suggests that knowledge and truth can only be generated from a young person’s own sensory experiences no matter how limited their understanding. How could this provide an appropriate base for a comprehension of complex objects and ideas of 21st century science? I agree with M. Matthews that this is a “fatal substitution” between what we perceive as reality and what good old-fashioned empirical data shows us about reality. The objectivist approach which relies upon more programmed instruction shouldn’t be totally discarded. I heard it said one time that there are two basic ways to learn – we learn either by our mistakes or by role modelling. Wouldn’t a combination of these philosophies be the most constructive and effective? A mash up of what the experts tell us and some experiential learning?
I’m wondering how many the-world-is-flat folks would still be out there if we all relied solely on our sensory perceptions…..
If you have time check out this clip from von Glaserfeld on radical constructivism.

I had a great time with the quiz that we completed this week which basically asked… What kind of Science teacher are you? As it turns out I’m not the science teacher I thought I was (according to their definitions)

Week 2 Post:
Maybe I’m alone in this but having been an educator dealing with science these last 12 years…. I think I might have been over thinking some of the questions. As it turns out I seem to be on the side of

Positivist

Deductivism

Decontextualism

Process

Realism

When I read the information that elaborated on these descriptors I could see some accuracy in how they applied to me. And some inaccuracy (probably from how I read the questions) I do feel that good science gives us good information. And that really good experimental (and sometimes theoretical) science should involve controlled experimentation. And that this is very much what we should be sharing in science classes with youth. However, even though I was identified as a decontextualist, I don’t share the view that science is completely independent of its cultural location and sociological structure. Western science has been influenced greatly over the last 150 years by the rigid social structures existing in the past, and still in existence today. This is especially apparent by what is accepted and what isn’t accepted as good theoretical science. I’m thinking of an example I had read about in M. Gladwell’s book “the Outliers” about a gentleman from the States with supreme intellectual powers who has spent the majority of his adult life studying science and mathematics but with no formal post-secondary education. Something he had to forgo because of affordability. However, he has worked out some very complex theories but will never see them published in an academic journal. Is this an example of societal prejudices/structure impeding scientific thought? What are your thoughts? Is there still an “old boys club” at work in the scientific field – and is this an impediment to our understanding of the universe?

PC

If you have a minute, take a look at the accompanying media presentation for an overview of technology’s possibilities with constructivism in the education of Canadian Indigenous youth. The transcript for the verbal portion is available here:
ETEC521 submitted transcript