ASSIGNMENT 1.1 – Profile Wiki

One of our first tasks was the ‘Profile Wiki’, which required us to provide brief information on our interests and learning backgrounds, later posting them on our online course Moodle site. This exercise’s main priority was to share information with the rest of the student body, so people could make further choices as to a future partnering exercise. It also served as a crash course in the concept of a ‘wiki’ and the value of networking.

Initially the basic questions were asked, as in age, family, location in order to mainly let others find out who is geographically compatible. We were then asked to write details about our skills and degrees to further narrow down on our abilities. After which we gave information about our learning styles, hobbies and academic habits. Finally we provided information on our previous involvement with ICTs and the subjects within this field that we wanted to focus on.

Conclusively the theory behind this activity outweighed the practical result. The fact of the matter was it was designed to make participants begin the networking process by having them find relevant information about others, and taking perceived similarities into account for a future partnering exercise. But the fact of the matter was is that most people only read the profiles of other’s out of vague interest. Any partnering that was conducted was done on a largely geographical basis, which was available without the need to participate or even read the profile wikis anyways (refer to ‘When are you available to meet online?’ section). Furthermore it offered very little in the ways of self reflection to prior experience, even though questions such as ‘My Involvement with ICT’ were asked.

This activity’s greatest strengths lay in the simple profiling methods, it was a sort of ‘getting to know you experience’ , although if given my own students I would simply give them a discreet questionnaire rather than broadcast their details to their peers as form of communicative encouragement.

ASSIGNMENT 1.2 – Learning Theories Wiki

The learning theories wiki was a partnering activity that we were asked to do. Using the Profiles wiki we had to determine a suitable partner in which we would discuss and collaboratively dissect a learning theory based on a simple PMI (Plus, Minus and Interesting) scaffolding technique we broke down this theory into it’s strengths, weaknesses and unique features. Originally the online grouping in which I was allotted to was ‘Group B’, a group of 4 people. With 2 of the four people already paired up I was approached by Del Waller with the prospect of partnering, to which I humbly obliged. We collectively chose the theory of Cognitive Constructivism via a series of emails between us. 

I found to be a very interesting activity, although much alike the process of our partnering, Del and I conversed over a series of emails, elaborating on a series of points until we came to a series of agreeable conclusions Del was very forthcoming with his ideas, myself acting as an elaborator as such, adding several perspectives he had somewhat overlooked, a very constructivist process indeed. Much alike the previous activity there was an initial theme of behaviourism, given the construction of thinking processes. The ability to relate and connect with a peer (to whom had a much varied background of experiences) via the wiki gave the presence of cognitive thought. 

I came to the conclusion through my understanding of the linked material was that Cognitive Constructivism is the idea that students cannot just "acquire" information that they can immediately understand and put into practice. Rather, students must "construct" their own understanding of knowledge in order to make sense within their own minds. Thus, they should be bombarded with stimuli through an environment of shared ideas, essentially giving them the ability to personalise their individual experiences. I found one the biggest potential disadvantages of Cognitive constructivism was the potential for students to be somewhat over stimulated or simply misguided by their own interpretations (whereas something like behaviourism is very strict and clear on it’s subject and reasoning). Another was that it largely worked off the assumption that all students are motivated or had something to contribute (which may be more difficult if given complex or foreign issues). 

Perhaps, in the future, some years from now I could imagine students utilising wikis or collaborative discussion forums. It is a brilliant concept, but if my memory of my final school years (scarcely five years ago) is anything to go by, then it is hard enough to get students to talk collaborative in the classroom face to face than having them go and online to pool their ideas. With that said though with the rapidly changing classroom structures (with students assuming the role of either digital natives or immigrants there may just be a place for this type of online constructivist learning in the future. If so it will enable students with vast and varied learning styles/ multiple intelligences to express themselves in vast and exciting forms in the pursuit of Higher Order Thinking.

ASSIGNMENT 1.3 – Mobile Phones Wiki

The ‘Mobile Phones Wiki’, was a task where we assessed the reality of using mobile phones as an educational tool in the classroom through the various checks and balances of our recently acquired learning theories. I found the mobile phones wiki, out of all of the activities to be the most interesting concept so far. Using a table broken down into the Six Thinking Hats, students had to read the available materials, the opinions already posted by others and contribute to one of the categories of thought in a very constructivist manner.

The argument largely came down to the fact that they were a very powerful tool with a great reliance on the self-disciplined learning. It was from these simple points that many people argued their viewpoints, once again a very constructivist activity about a largely cognitive tool. 

I took the critical black hat on this one (which evidently was the most popular position took). In a nutshell, it is just too soon, too soon for students, still excited by this tool in their personal lives to be able to use them in a educational and constructive manner. Yes, they are powerful, yes they are accessible, but what compels students to use them for good? The lack of transparency (as far as the teacher’s awareness of what they are doing compared with desktop PCs) is a major concern. So really I am of the understanding that tablets or desktop PCs are preferable, for constructive learning, teacher’s awareness and the achievement of Higher Order Thinking. 

My opinion though was obviously of little value as my post was dissolved into a paraphrased collection of ideas by the ‘moderator.’ Apparently there were too many posts in the ‘negative’ section; maybe this informed other students about what the consensus of their fellow peers was as to the general perception of such a tool was? So I left with the impression that this measure was an attempt to justify the need for us to examine having such a frivolous tool as mobile phones in the classroom to start off with by downsizing our subsequent rejection of it.

ASSIGNMENT 1.4 – Conclusion

Let me be upfront and clear by saying that I disagree with the blogging process, as it has been nothing short of counter-productive. Not only has the blogging experience been a resounding failure, the activities we had to blog about have all been carried out with a seemingly low level of academic outcome.

The profile wiki I found to be a short, unrewarding and partially invasive process, with little to gain rather than catering to the ‘sticky-beaking’ tendencies of a few, and finding out the geographical similarities to those one wanted to partner with in the following exercise. If anything is to be said in it’s defense it was somewhat of a profiling exercise, and also that it was an ‘ice-breaker’ of sorts, although not towards other students, rather just with moodle. Although I am willing to admit this was a largely behaviourist activity, with the structure emphasizing a largely regimented sequence of questions. 

The learning theories wiki I felt was simplistic in application, with a moderate bearing on the course outcomes and subsequent assignment. I understand the practicality of group work and the need to work collaboratively; it’s just that it could have been delivered more clearly and productively. After all it’s not as if people were necessarily brainstorming original ideas, rather researching by themselves, comparing outcomes and removing the ‘repeated’ information. Although I must say it was a reassuring experience to work constructively with another person on this activity; I’m just not sure it resulted in much overall learning.

The mobile phones wiki too was largely a well intended exercise with misguided results. With all of the theory we could be learning and processing I reject the validity of cross-examing mobile-phones in the classroom so early on into our course works (regardless of the underlying theory). Admittedly it was somewhat of a cognitive experience, with the sharing of ideas providing a content rich stimulus.

Conclusively the blogging process so far has been a frustrating course practice about our course frustrations. I would also have liked to of elaborated further on the learning theory I have acquired so far through this coursework, but I believe that is what the purpose of my assignment was.

LEARNING STYLES QUESTIONNAIRE

ACT                                      X            REF

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

SEN                                              X    INT

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

VIS                      X                            VRB

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

SEQ                              X                    GLO

11  9   7   5   3   1   1   3   5   7   9   11

Based on the above results I am of the understanding that:

REFLECTIVE vs. ACTIVE LEARNERS: I am a reflective learner, someone who tends to absorb information and try and come to educated conclusions about an issue by themselves. This is in contrast to an active learner who prefers to test theories through example and further validate them with their fellow peers. This of course is all well and good, but the only drawback is continual reflection has a tendency to stagnate one’s learning focuses. In order to help this I need to continuously review what I have learnt, allowing myself to move beyond what I think I know to what I now know.

SENSING vs. INTUITIVE LEARNERS: I am without any shadow of a doubt a strong intuitive learner, one who delves into alternate possibilities and relationships before examining linear processes. I enjoy the mystery and intrigue of learning variants, as opposed to the methodical repetition that sensors are more accustomed to. This would explain my sporadic learning abilities. I must be more patient with what I assume to already know as crucial and basic factors could be easily brushed aside.

VISUAL vs. VERBAL LEARNERS:  I am fairly equally weighted between both my visual and verbal learning capabilities. I can remember the spoken word as much as written text, which is apparently strength to be equally capable in both mediums.

SEQUENTIAL vs.  GLOBAL LEARNERS: I also surmised that I am more inclined to the global learning outlook, as opposed to a sequential learner. I am able to gauge overall concepts before following a trail of logically sequenced steps. The sporadic nature of my learner further supports my intuitive nature. To improve upon my learning abilities I need to remember not to forget the smaller details and the methodical steps that one undergoes (consciously or not) in order to reach a comprehensive conclusion.

Questionnaire developed by R. Felder & B. Soloman of the North Carolina State University (http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html)