Second IMS podcast on technology in education: Constructivism
Today’s vocast will be broadcasted live at:
Adobe Connect | Facebook Live | Twitter (#IMSvodcast) |
and will be archived at:
SCSU MediaSpace | YouTube (subscribe for the channel for future conversations)
Constructivism.
Student-centered learning theory and practice are based on the constructivist learning theory that emphasizes the learner’s critical role in constructing meaning from new information and prior experience.
- What is it?
- Why do we have to know about it
- Can we just disagree and stick to behaviorism?
- Is it about student engagement?
- Is it about the use of technology?
- Resources
- https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2014/06/28/constructivism-lecture-versus-project-based-learning/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/12/03/translating-constructivism-into-instructional-design-potential-and-limitations/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/03/28/student-centered-learning-literature-review/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/11/05/online-discussion-with-plovdiv-university/
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2015/05/27/handbook-of-mobile-learning/
Crompton, Muilenburg and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”
- The “context”in this definition encompasses m-learnng that is formalself-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral.
- therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the devices to look up something that has just prompted an interest (Crompton, 2013, p. 83). (Gaming article Tallinn)Constructivist Learnings in the 1980s – Following Piage’s (1929), Brunner’s (1996) and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. (p. 85). The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12)Constructionist Learning in the 1980s – Constructionism differed from constructivism as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. The tutee position. Teaching the computer to perform tasks.Problem-Based learning in the 1990s – In the PBL, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. Launched the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out of school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction
- Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s. SCL believe that social and individual processes are independent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palinscar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978).
- 96-97). Keegan (2002) believed that e-learning was distance learning, which has been converted to e-learning through the use of technologies such as the WWW. Which electronic media and tools constituted e-learning: e.g., did it matter if the learning took place through a networked technology, or was it simply learning with an electronic device?
- Discussion
- Share with us practical examples of applying constructivist approach in your class
- Would one hour workshop on turning existing class assignments into constructivist-based class assignments be of interest for you?
+++++++++++++++
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2018/02/12/first-ims-podcast-on-technology-in-education/
2016 POD Network Conference
http://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/2016-POD-Program-Final.pdf
https://guidebook.com/g/pod2016
Studying Connections between Student Well-Being,
Performance, and Active Learning
Amy Godert, Cornell University; Teresa Pettit, Cornell University
Treasure in the Sierra Madre? Digital Badges and Educational
Development
Chris Clark, University of Notre Dame; G. Alex Ambrose, University
of Notre Dame; Gwynn Mettetal, Indiana University South Bend;
David Pedersen, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; Roberta
(Robin) Sullivan, University of Buffalo, State University of New York
Learning and Teaching Centers: The Missing Link in Data
Analytics
Denise Drane, Northwestern University; Susanna Calkins,
Northwestern University
Identifying and Supporting the Needs of International Faculty
Deborah DeZure, Michigan State University; Cindi Leverich, Michigan
State University
Online Discussions for Engaged and Meaningful Student
Learning
Danilo M. Baylen, University of West Georgia; Cheryl Fulghum,
Haywood Community College
Why Consider Online Asynchronous Educational Development?
Christopher Price, SUNY Center for Professional Development
Online, On-Demand Faculty Professional Development for Your
Campus
Roberta (Robin) Sullivan, University at Buffalo, State University of
New York; Cherie van Putten, Binghamton University, State
University of New York; Chris Price, State University of New York
The Tools of Engagement Project (http://suny.edu/toep) is an online faculty development model that encourages instructors to explore and reflect on innovative and creative uses of freely-available online educational technologies to increase student engagement and learning. TOEP is not traditional professional development but instead provides access to resources for instructors to explore at their own pace through a set of hands-on discovery activities. TOEP facilitates a learning community where participants learn from each
other and share ideas. This poster will demonstrate how you can implement TOEP at your campus by either adopting your own version or joining the existing project.
Video Captioning 101: Establishing High Standards With
Limited Resources
Stacy Grooters, Boston College; Christina Mirshekari, Boston
College; Kimberly Humphrey, Boston College
Recent legal challenges have alerted institutions to the importance of ensuring that video content for instruction is properly captioned. However, merely meeting minimum legal standards can still fall significantly short of the best practices defined by disability rights
organizations and the principles of Universal Design for Learning. Drawing from data gathered through a year-long pilot to investigate the costs and labor required to establish “in-house” captioning support at Boston College, this hands-on session seeks to give
participants the tools and information they need to set a high bar for captioning initiatives at their own institutions.
Sessions on mindfulness
52 Cognitive Neuroscience Applications for Teaching and Learning (BoF)
53 Contemplative Practices (BoF) Facilitators: Penelope Wong, Berea College; Carl S. Moore, University of the District of Columbia
79 The Art of Mindfulness: Transforming Faculty Development by Being Present Ursula Sorensen, Utah Valley University
93 Impacting Learning through Understanding of Work Life Balance Deanna Arbuckle, Walden University
113 Classroom Mindfulness Practices to Increase Attention, Creativity, and Deep Engagement Michael Sweet, Northeastern University
132 Measuring the Impacts of Mindfulness Practices in the Classroom Kelsey Bitting, Northeastern University; Michael Sweet, Northeastern University
+++++++++
more on POD conferences in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=pod+conference
Speeding Up Your Podcasts Won’t Solve Your Problems
https://plus.google.com/+DanievanderMerwe/posts/CSFxq67eSC4
https://theringer.com/inefficiency-week-podcasts-speed-comprehension-f0ea43949e42
My note: sometimes around 2011, the Chronicle had a report on Berkeley students listening to coursecasts at 2X (can’t find the reference). Here some other sources about #speedlistening:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
more on podcast in education in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=podcast+education
