This week I have felt encouraged to learn that my teaching style resembles that of the constructivist theory. I was not aware before that “in a constructivist classroom, students are more actively involved…they are sharing ideas, asking questions, discussion concepts, and revising their ideas and misconceptions” (Sprague & Dede, 1999). The best definition I found for constructivism basically states that students best learn by building on to their prior experiences. Technology in the classroom is a great way to allow students to add to their current leave of knowledge! I better understand now why we are encouraged to cluster units of knowledge around questions of discussion or in my classroom activities or projects. While I never particularly understood my teaching method, I have found in this week’s lessons that my teaching method, while encouraged by my administration, is not my philosophy or personal style of teaching.
This week we also discovered the theory of connectivism created by George Siemens. I have found that this closely relates to the philosophy that have believed in since I was a student teacher. In his theory, Siemens notes that connections between ideas or concepts is vital and should be viewed as a core skill. (Solomon &Schrum, 2007) I personally find it absolutely necessary to teach my students decision-making skills in my classroom. More importantly, I value and encourage students to discover information beyond their confort zone and outside of our little world in West Texas. Technology provides a means to transport our children into other worlds without leaving their own room. The internet has given students a pathway to so deeply expand their knowledge that my classroom has a tough time keeping up with the speed of potential learning. However, intrigued I am to connect my philosophy to my teaching, I am amazed and most deeply curious about the Cyborg theory of learning.
My final new experience in education and most thought provoking debate this week was on the Cyborg theory. While technology eliminates the gap for men and women who have lost or were born missing limbs or the ability to utilize what they were given, cyborg technology allows them to control their body with the bodies strongest muscle, the mind. In our reading, one of the authors even suggests that technology advance is not “separate from human but rather…on par with human evolution; both one and the same” (McPheeters, 2009). While I know that technology is ever-chaging and truly a fantastical sort of creature, is it truly on par with human evolution? I ask because technology has exponentially changed in the time since I graduated high school. As we speak, a computer has beat the most well versed men in the world at Jeopardy, and there is already technology being developed that we will not see in our homes for another decade. The idea of Cyborg theory is interesting, but also very scary. Perhaps I have spent too muc
h time in the science fiction world with my father, but weren’t cyborgs bad? “Assimilate or die,” was the montra of the Borg in Star Trek the Next Generation, remember “resistence is futile.” Yet, McPheeters suggests that “this adaption to Cyborg learning theory will allow the next generation to assimilate their destiny and be educated to bear their responsibility as stewards of their culture for the sake of future generations” (McPheeters, 2009). Connect me to the world. Allow me to construct my viewpoints on what I know and where I have been, networking should be left to the social aspect of life not linked to our learning.
Technology is not the central point of our lives, rather it is a tool to lead students on journeys outside of the text. It can connect us to worlds apart or help us dig deeper in our own backyard, but perhaps it is not the manner of education. I say this while sitting at my computer for an online course, but there is such a missing element in technology being the central force of teaching or learning and that is the human connection.
Perhaps I went in a direction that was not planned by our professors or even seen by my classmates, but I understand why McPheeters speaks of the polarizing debate between students and teachers. However, I truly believe that constructivism or connectivism can bring technology to the classroom to create an environment for all levels of learners without taking over our lives or our education. (Special thanks to the scifi nerd and the debater in me for the direction I have gone today!)
McPheeters, D. (2009, March). Social Networking Technologies in Education.
Tech and Learning. Retrieved February 22, 2011 from http://www.techlearning.com/PrintableArticle.aspx?id+16250
Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007).
Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Sprague, D. & Dede, C. (1999). If I Teach This Way, Am I Doing My Job: Constructivism in the Classroom.
Leading and Learning, 27(1). Retrieved February 22, 2011 from http://imet.csus.edu/imet9/280/docs/dede_constructivism.pdf
