“What frameworks do we need to make sense of learning in our world of constant change?” (Brown & Thomas, 2011, p. 19).
I started grad school with a huge misconception. Particularly, I thought it would be at least similar in nature to undergrad. However, the Applied Digital Learning program at Lamar is nothing like what I expected. It’s fun to apply the concepts I’m learning about constructivist theory to analyze my misconceptions. For example, the constructivist theory says that I built my understanding of what school is like on what I already know and believe to be true about school (Andrews et al., 2011). Furthermore, what I thought grad school was going to be like early on – sit-and-get, lecture-style coursework – shifted as I experienced the ADL program. This is because “what students know and believe at the beginning of a course is often [scientifically] inaccurate” (Andrews et al., 2011, p. 400). I think we all realize by now that the ADL program is meta.
That is to say, the program is designed to model the very concepts it’s teaching – Choice, ownership, and voice in authentic learning environments.
Gaming as a model for learning
Our grad school cohort reminds me a lot of the example of intergenerational gaming described in A New Culture of Learning (Brown & Thomas, 2011). My team members and I are actively engaged with one another on a quest for learning. The connections we build in the context of grad school work are concrete. This is because, in the ADL program, our professors cultivate meaningful resources and group us into cohorts as our own collective.
- Cultivation: Take nearly unlimited resources and consolidate them into a bounded, structured environment and adjust as necessary (Brown & Thomas, 2011).
- Collective: “A community of like-minded people who help [people] learn and meet a particular set of needs” (Brown & Thomas, 2011, p. 21).
In other words, “everything and everyone around us is a resource for learning” (Brown & Thomas, 2011, p. 32-33).
Collaboration for the sake of learning
Coaching and collaboration by themselves do not improve learning (Goodwin, 2015). Studies show that “collaboration without the benefit of outside expertise falls flat” (Goodwin, 2015, p. 2). In other words, the quality of the collaboration is more important than the quantity. In Innovation That Sticks Case Study – OCSB: Collaborative Professional Development (EdCan Network, 2016), teachers shared that the learning they achieve in their model of professional learning applies collaboration effectively.
For example, instead of attending mass training where every teacher hears the same information, teachers as learners take time off to collaborate with one another. During this time, they may “set up lesson plans, decide how they present something, get help with technology, and spend time networking and sharing ideas and knowledge” (EdCan Network, 2016). I believe that our graduate program works similarly. As a learner, I reach out to multiple collaborative groups. In these ever-changing groups, we support one another’s growth as we apply high-level concepts to authentic learning environments. Our collaboration and the collaboration of the teachers in In Innovation That Sticks Case Study – OCSB: Collaborative Professional Development (EdCan Network, 2016) works because it is personalized.
Improving active learning
We do a lot of active learning in our grad school program as well. However, adding an active learning activity or component to a course does not improve learning. “No one can assume that they are teaching effectively just because they are using active learning” (Andrews et al., 2011, p. 403). The implications of this are few but important. Firstly, “we need to build a better understanding of what makes active-learning exercises effective” (Andrews et al., 2011, p. 403). This requires rigorous scientific examination. Next, “we need to develop active-learning exercises useful for a broad population of instructors” (Andrews et al., 2011, p. 403). Finally, “we need to identify what training and oncoming support [faculty need]” (Andrews et al., 2011, p. 403). In other words, active learning cannot be prescriptive bandaid fix. It must be intentional and systemic to be effective.
Constructivist learning
What makes active learning effective? The simple answer is to apply constructivist learning principles. Needs of the learner at the center. What does this look like? The general instructional design involves using backward mapping to create lessons and curricula (Harapnuik, 2018). To begin, identify your desired results. That is, determine the big ideas and skills that you want students to know (Harapnuik, 2018). Then, determine acceptable evidence or the culminating task you will use to assess student learning (Harapnuik, 2018). Only then should you plan your instruction. Harapnuik (2018) calls these learning experiences or learning events. Examples of active learning events include PBL, concept-based learning, case-based studies, cognitive apprenticeships, experiential learning, authentic learning opportunities, and more (Harapnuik, 2018).
Under this model, “the best technology disappears” because it becomes part of the learning environment (Harapnuik, 2018). The teacher moves from the front of the room to the side of the student. S/he is “didactic, reflective, inventive, transformative, presenter, facilitator, coach, and mentor” (Harapnuik, 2018).
These principles are easy to espouse but difficult to apply without continued teacher support and the evolution of systems.
It’s about learning
When it comes down to it, our ADL professors model constructivist learning through the COVA model: Choice, ownership, and voice in an authentic learning environment.
Choice: They ignited my passion for the Paperless Office Proposal. Digital solutions are something I care deeply about.
Ownership: I literally own my website domain! I also own the ideas for my proposal.
Voice: Through blogging, I am finding my voice and making connections.
Authentic Learning Environment: My proposal applies directly to my job, so I have no make work! I also message my peers constantly to work through assignments. Check out Stephen’s and Kim’s work! They have shaped me more than I can express.
Learning is play is culture is living
Learning is so much more than information, data, and content. After all, humans aren’t merely machines. Humans are, “transforming how we think about information, imagination, and play,” (Brown & Thomas, 2011, p. 31). They are rethinking their “motivations for learning across generations, platforms, purposes, and goals,” (Brown & Thomas, 2011, p. 31). Each of us has personal, specific needs but we also have shared interests that can create a collective around those needs. “Learning thus becomes a lifelong interest that is renewed and redefined on a continual basis” (Brown & Thomas, 2011, p. 32).
Learning is living.
References
Andrews, T.M., Leonard, M.J., Colgrove, C.A., & Kalinowski, S.T. (2011). Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394-405. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
Brown, J. S., & Thomas, D. (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
EdCan Network. (2016, May 19). Innovation That Sticks Case Study – OCSB: Collaborative Professional Development. YouTube. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUusuw-xdr4
Goodwin, B. (2015, December 1). Research Says/Does Teacher Collaboration Promote Teacher Growth? Educational Leadership, 73(4), 82-83. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/does-teacher-collaboration-promote-teacher-growthHarapnuik, D. (2018, July 14). CSLE. It’s About Learning. Retrieved March 31, 2022, from https://www.harapnuik.org/?page_id=849