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.
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?
The brain is actually three brains: the ancient reptilian brain, the limbic brain, and the cortical brain. This article will focus on the limbic brain, because it may be most important to successfully using interactive video or web-based video. The limbic brain monitors the external world and the internal body, taking in information through the senses as well as body temperature and blood pressure, among others. It is the limbic brain that generates and interprets facial expressions and handles emotions, while the cortical brain handles symbolic activities such as language as well as action and strategizing. The two interact when an emotion is sent from the limbic to the cortical brain and generates a conscious thought; in response to a feeling of fear (limbic), you ask, “what should I do?” (cortical).
The importance of direct eye contact and deciphering body language is also important for sending and picking up clues about social context.
The loss of social cues is important because it may affect the quality of the content of the presentation (by not allowing timely feedback or questions) but also because students may feel less engaged and become frustrated with the interaction, and subsequently lower their assessment of the class and the instructor (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Fortunately, faculty can provide such social cues verbally, once they are aware of the importance of helping students use these new media.
Attachment theory also supports the importance of physical and emotional connections.
As many a struggling teacher knows, students are often impervious to learning new concepts. They may replay the new information for a test, but after time passes, they revert to the earlier (and likely wrong) information. This is referred to as the “power of mental models.” As explained in Marchese (2000), when we view a tree, it is not as if we see the tree in our head, as in photography.
The coping strategies of the two hemispheres are fundamentally different. The left hemisphere’s job is to create a belief system or model and to fold new experiences into that belief system. If confronted with some new information that doesn’t fit the model, it relies on Freudian defense mechanisms to deny, repress or confabulate – anything to preserve the status quo. The right hemisphere’s strategy is to play “Devil’s Advocate,” to question the status quo and look for global inconsistencies. When the anomalous information reaches a certain threshold, the right hemisphere decides that it is time to force a complete revision of the entire model and start from scratch (Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998, p. 136).
While much hemispheric-based research has been repudiated as an oversimplification (Gackenbach, 1999), the above description of how new information eventually overwhelms an old world view may be the result of multiple brain functions – some of which work to preserve our models and others to alter – that help us both maintain and change as needed.
Self-talk is the “the root of empathy, understanding, cooperation, and rules that allow us to be successful social beings. Any sense of moral behavior requires thought before action” (Ratey, 2001, p. 255).
Healy (1999) argues that based on what we know about brain development in children, new computer media may be responsible for developing brains that are largely different from the brains of adults. This is because “many brain connections have become specialized for . . . media” (p. 133); in this view, a brain formed by language and reading is different from a brain formed by hypermedia. Different media lead to different synaptic connections being laid down and reinforced, creating different brains in youngsters raised on fast-paced, visually-stimulating computer applications and video games. “Newer technologies emphasize rapid processing of visual symbols . . . and deemphasize traditional verbal learning . . . and the linear, analytic thought process . . . [making it] more difficult to deal with abstract verbal reasoning” (Healy, 1999, p. 142).
The ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2018 (JCDL 2018L: https://2018.jcdl.org/) will be held in conjunction with UNT Open Access
Symposium 2018 (https://openaccess.unt.edu/symposium/2018) on June 3 – 6, 2018
in Fort Worth, Texas, the rustic and artistic threshold into the American
West. JCDL welcomes interesting submissions ranging across theories, systems,
services, and applications. We invite those managing, operating, developing,
curating, evaluating, or utilizing digital libraries broadly defined, covering
academic or public institutions, including archives, museums, and social
networks. We seek involvement of those in iSchools, as well as working in
computer or information or social sciences and technologies. Multiple tracks
and sessions will ensure tailoring to researchers, practitioners, and diverse
communities including data science/analytics, data curation/stewardship, information retrieval, human-computer interaction, hypertext (and Web/network science), multimedia, publishing, preservation, digital humanities, machine learning/AI, heritage/culture, health/medicine, policy, law, and privacy/ intellectual property.
General Instructions on submissions of full papers, short papers, posters and
demonstrations, doctoral consortium, tutorials, workshops, and panels can be
found at https://2018.jcdl.org/general_instructions. Below are the submission
deadlines:
• Jan. 15, 2018 – Tutorial and workshop proposal submissions
• Jan. 15, 2018 – Full paper and short paper submissions
• Jan. 29, 2018 – Panel, poster and demonstration submissions
• Feb. 1, 2018 – Notification of acceptance for tutorials and workshops
• Mar. 8, 2018 – Notification of acceptance for full papers, short papers,
panels, posters, and demonstrations
• Mar. 25, 2018 – Doctoral Consortium abstract submissions
• Apr. 5, 2018 – Notification of acceptance for Doctoral Consortium
• Apr. 15, 2018 – Final camera-ready deadline for full papers, short papers,
panels, posters, and demonstrations
Victor Pickard, associate professor of communication at the University Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School, whose research focuses on internet policy and the political economy of media.
with each new victory for the American telecommunications oligopoly, that digital optimism fades further from view.
Definition:
Net neutrality protections are essentially safeguards that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from interfering with the internet. Net neutrality gives the FCC the regulatory authority to prevent ISPs like Comcast and Verizon from slowing down or blocking certain types of content. It also prevents them from offering what’s known as paid prioritization, where an ISP could let particular websites or content creators pay more for faster streaming and download times. With paid prioritization an ISP could shake down a company like Netflix or an individual website owner, coercing them to pay more in order to be in the fast lane.
Net neutrality often gets treated as a sort of technocratic squabble over ownership and control of internet pipes. But in fact it speaks to a core social contract between government, corporations, and the public. What it really comes down to is, how can members of the public obtain information and services, and express ourselves creatively and politically, without interference from massive corporations?
Should we think of the internet as a good, a service, an infrastructure, or something else?
It’s all of the above.
The internet has been radically privatized. It wasn’t inevitable, but through policy decisions over the years, the internet has become increasingly commodified. Meanwhile it’s really difficult to imagine living in modern society without fast internet services — it’s no longer a luxury but a necessity for everything ranging from education to health to livelihood. The “digital divide” is a phrase that sounds like it’s from the 1990s, but it’s still very relevant. Somewhere around one fifth of American households don’t have access to wireline broadband services. It’s a social problem. We should be thinking about the internet as a public service and subsidizing it to make sure that everyone has access.
In your recent book on media democracy, you discuss the rise of what you call “corporate libertarianism.” What is corporate libertarianism and how does it relate to net neutrality?
Corporate libertarianism is an ideological project that has origins at a core moment in the 1940s. It sees corporations as having individual freedoms, like those in the First Amendment, which they can use to shield themselves from public interest oversight and regulation. It’s also often connected to this assumption that the government should never intervene in markets, and media markets in particular. (My note: Milton Friedman)
Of course, this is a libertarian mythology — the government is always involved. The question ought to be how it should be involved. Under corporate libertarianism it’s assumed that the government should only be involved in ways that enhance profit maximization for communication oligopolies.
There are clear dangers associated with vertical integration, where the company that owns the pipes is able to control the dissemination of information, and able to set the terms by which we access that information.
There have been cases like this already. In 2005, the company Telus, which is the second largest telecommunications company in Canada, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website that supported a labor strike against Telus.
Net neutrality is just one part of the story. What other regulations, policies and interventions could resist corporate control of the internet?
Roughly half of Americans live in communities that have access to only one ISP. My note: Ha Ha Ha, “pick me, pick me,” as Dori from “Finding Nemo” will say… Charter, whatever they will rename themselves again, is the crass example in Central MN.
Strategies to contain and confront monopolies:
break them up, and to prevent monopolies and oligopolies from happening in the first place by blocking mergers and acquisitions.
if we’re not going to outright nationalize them then we want to heavily regulate them, and enforce some kind of social contract where they’re compelled to provide a public service in exchange for the right to operate.
create public alternatives, like municipal wireless networks that can circumvent and compete with corporate monopolies. There’s a growing number of these publicly owned and governed internet infrastructures, and building more is crucial.
China Central Television (formerly Beijing Television), commonly abbreviated as CCTV, is the predominant statetelevision broadcaster in the People’s Republic of China. CCTV has a network of 50 channels broadcasting different programmes and is accessible to more than one billion viewers.[1] As of present, there are 50 television channels, and the broadcaster provides programming in six different languages. Most of its programmes are a mixture of news, documentary, social education, comedy, entertainment, and drama, the majority of which consists of Chinese soap operas and entertainment.[2]
2018 Special Focus: Education in a Time of Austerity and Social Turbulence 21–23 June 2018 University of Athens, Athens, Greece http://thelearner.com/2018-conference
Theme 8: Technologies in Learning
Technology and human values: learning through and about technology
Crossing the digital divide: access to learning in, and about, the digital world
New tools for learning: online digitally mediated learning
Virtual worlds, virtual classrooms: interactive, self-paced and autonomous learning
Ubiquitous learning: using the affordances of the new mediaDistance learning: reducing the distance
Theme 9: Literacies Learning
Defining new literacies
Languages of power: literacy’s role in social access
Instructional responses to individual differences in literacy learning
The visual and the verbal: Multiliteracies and multimodal communications
Literacy in learning: language in learning across the subject areas
The changing role of libraries in literacies learning
Languages education and second language learning
Multilingual learning for a multicultural world
The arts and design in multimodal learning
The computer, internet, and digital media: educational challenges and responses
++++++++++
PROPOSAL: Paper presentation in a Themed Session
Title
Virtual Reality and Gamification in the Educational Process: The Experience from an Academic Library
short description
VR, AR and Mixed Reality, as well as gaming and gamification are proposed as sandbox opportunity to transition from a lecture-type instruction to constructivist-based methods.
long description
The NMC New Horizon Report 2017 predicts a rapid application of Video360 in K12. Millennials are leaving college, Gen Z students are our next patrons. Higher Education needs to meet its new students on “their playground.” A collaboration by a librarian and VR specialist is testing the opportunities to apply 360 degree movies and VR in academic library orientation. The team seeks to bank on the inheriting interest of young patrons toward these technologies and their inextricable part of a rapidly becoming traditional gaming environment. A “low-end,” inexpensive and more mobile Google Cardboard solution was preferred to HTC Vive, Microsoft HoloLens or comparable hi-end VR, AR and mixed reality products.
The team relies on the constructivist theory of assisting students in building their knowledge in their own pace and on their own terms, rather than being lectured and/or being guided by a librarian during a traditional library orientation tour. Using inexpensive Google Cardboard goggles, students can explore a realistic set up of the actual library and familiarize themselves with its services. Students were polled on the effectiveness of such approach as well as on their inclination to entertain more comprehensive version of library orientation. Based on the lessons from this experiment, the team intends to pursue also a standardized approach to introducing VR to other campus services, thus bringing down further the cost of VR projects on campus. The project is considered a sandbox for academic instruction across campus. The same concept can be applied for [e.g., Chemistry, Physics, Biology) lab tours; for classes, which anticipate preliminary orientation process.
Following the VR orientation, the traditional students’ library instruction, usually conducted in a room, is replaced by a dynamic gamified library instruction. Students are split in groups of three and conduct a “scavenger hunt”; students use a jQuery-generated Web site on their mobile devices to advance through “hoops” of standard information literacy test. E.g., they need to walk to the Reference Desk, collect specific information and log their findings in the Web site. The idea follows the strong interest in the educational world toward gaming and gamification of the educational process. This library orientation approach applies the three principles for gamification: empowers learners; teaches problem solving and increases understanding.
Similarly to the experience with VR for library orientation, this library instruction process is used as a sandbox and has been successfully replicated by other instructors in their classes.
Lahav, O., Sharkey, P., & Merrick, J. (2014). Virtual and augmented reality environments for people with special needs. International Journal Of Child Health And Human Development, 7(4), 337-338.
Cai, Y., Chiew, R., Nay, Z. T., Indhumathi, C., & Huang, L. (2017). Design and development of VR learning environments for children with ASD. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 1098-1109. doi:10.1080/10494820.2017.1282877
Passig, D. (2011). The Impact of Immersive Virtual Reality on Educators’ Awareness of the Cognitive Experiences of Pupils with Dyslexia. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 181-204.
Ke, F., & Im, T. (2013). Virtual-Reality-Based Social Interaction Training for Children with High-Functioning Autism. Journal Of Educational Research, 106(6), 441-461. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.832999
Collins, J., Hoermann, S., & Regenbrecht, H. (2016). Comparing a finger dexterity assessment in virtual, video-mediated, and unmediated reality. International Journal Of Child Health And Human Development, 9(3), 333-341.
Epure, P., Gheorghe, C., Nissen, T., Toader, L. O., Macovei, A. N., Nielsen, S. M., & … Brooks, E. P. (2016). Effect of the Oculus Rift head mounted display on postural stability. International Journal Of Child Health And Human Development, 9(3), 343-350.
Sánchez, J., & Espinoza, M. (2016). Usability and redesign of a university entrance test based on audio for learners who are blind. International Journal Of Child Health And Human Development, 9(3), 379-387.
Rizzo, A. A., Bowerly, T., Shahabi, C., Buckwalter, J. G., Klimchuk, D., & Mitura, R. (2004). Diagnosing Attention Disorders in a Virtual Classroom. Computer (00189162), 37(6), 87-89.
Eden, S. (2008). The effect of 3D virtual reality on sequential time perception among deaf and hard-of-hearing children. European Journal Of Special Needs Education, 23(4), 349-363. doi:10.1080/08856250802387315
Eden, S., & Bezer, M. (2011). Three-dimensions vs. two-dimensions intervention programs: the effect on the mediation level and behavioural aspects of children with intellectual disability. European Journal Of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 337-353. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.593827
Lorenzo, G., Lledó, A., Roig, R., Lorenzo, A., & Pomares, J. (2016). New Educational Challenges and Innovations: Students with Disability in Immersive Learning Environments. In Virtual Learning. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/65219
Minecraft for Higher Ed? Try it. Pros, Cons, Recommendations?
Description: Why Minecraft, the online video game? How can Minecraft improve learning for higher education? We’ll begin with a live demo in which all can participate (see “Minecraft for Free”). We’ll review “Examples, Not Rumors” of successful adaptations and USES of Minecraft for teaching/learning in higher education. Especially those submitted in advance And we’ll try to extract from these activities a few recommendations/questions/requests re Minecraft in higher education.
Callaghan, N. (2016). Investigating the role of Minecraft in educational learning environments. Educational Media International, 53(4), 244-260. doi:10.1080/09523987.2016.1254877
Noelene Callaghan dissects the evolution in Australian education from a global perspective. She rightfully draws attention (p. 245) to inevitable changes in the educational world, which still remain ignored: e.g., the demise of “traditional” LMS (Educase is calling for their replacement with digital learning environments https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/07/06/next-gen-digital-learning-environment/ and so does the corporate world of learning: https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/03/28/digital-learning/ ), the inevitability of BYOD (mainly by the “budget restrictions and sustainability challenges” (p. 245); by the assertion of cloud computing, and, last but not least, by the gamification of education.
p. 245 literature review. In my paper, I am offering more comprehensive literature review. While Callaghan focuses on the positive, my attempt is to list both pros and cons: http://scsu.mn/1F008Re
246 General use of massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs)
levels of interaction have grown dramatically and have led to the creation of general use of massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPGs)
247 In teaching and learning environments, affordances associated with edugames within a project-based learning (PBL) environment permit:
These affordances develop both social and cognitive abilities of students
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Beege, M., Kolda, F., Mackiewicz, V., & Rey, G. (2017). You cannot do this alone! Increasing task interdependence in cooperative educational videogames to encourage collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(4), 993-1014. doi:10.1007/s11423-017-9511-8
Abrams, S. S., & Rowsell, J. (2017). Emotionally Crafted Experiences: Layering Literacies in Minecraft. Reading Teacher, 70(4), 501-506.
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Daniel Rey, G. (2016). Mining Learning and Crafting Scientific Experiments: A Literature Review on the Use of Minecraft in Education and Research. Source: Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(192), 355–366. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.355
Cipollone, M., Schifter, C. C., & Moffat, R. A. (2014). Minecraft as a Creative Tool: A Case Study. International Journal Of Game-Based Learning, 4(2), 1-14.
Niemeyer, D. J., & Gerber, H. R. (2015). Maker culture and Minecraft : implications for the future of learning. Educational Media International, 52(3), 216-226. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1075103
Nebel, S., Schneider, S., & Daniel Rey, G. (2016). Mining Learning and Crafting Scientific Experiments: A Literature Review on the Use of Minecraft in Education and Research. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(192), 355–366. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.2.355
Wilkinson, B., Williams, N., & Armstrong, P. (2013). Improving Student Understanding, Application and Synthesis of Computer Programming Concepts with Minecraft. In The European Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2013. Retrieved from http://iafor.info/archives/offprints/ectc2013-offprints/ECTC2013_0477.pdf
Uusi-Mäkelä, M., & Uusi-Mäkelä, M. (2014). Immersive Language Learning with Games: Finding Flow in MinecraftEdu. EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2014). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/noaccess/148409/
Birt, J., & Hovorka, D. (2014). Effect of mixed media visualization on learner perceptions and outcomes. In 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/fsd_papers/74
Al Washmi, R., Bana, J., Knight, I., Benson, E., Afolabi, O., Kerr, A., Hopkins, G. (2014). Design of a Math Learning Game Using a Minecraft Mod. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4660.4809
When do you believe technology enhances learning, and when do you believe
it does not?
How has technology impacted your own learning?
Does your school, library, or organization have a specific learning philosophy that guides ed-tech purchases and implementation? If yes, what is that philosophy?
More than 450 responses were received (those that agreed for their answers to be
shared publicly can be seen at http://www.modernlearning.com).
For the purposes of this report, “educational technology” (often abbreviated as “ed tech”) is assumed to refer principally to the use of modern electronic computing and other high-tech, mostly Internet-enabled, devices and services in education.
When it becomes a distraction.
● When there is little or no preparation for it.
● When just used for testing / score tracking.
● When used for consuming and not creating, or just for rote learning.
● When “following the education trends: everyone else is doing it.”
● When the tech is “an end rather than means” (also stated as, ”when I don’t have a plan or learning goal…”). We found this very significant, and it is the focus of Observation 6.
● When there is a lack of guidance in how to effectively use new ed tech tools (“when there is no PD”). This is the focus of Observation 4.
● Finally, when it “gets in the way of real time talk / sharing.” Forgetting that the tech “cannot mentor, motivate, show beauty, interact fully, give quality attention, [or] contextualize.” Also: ”outcomes related to acquiring the skills and attitudes cannot be enhanced by technology.” As mentioned in the introduction, this would be missing the “human factor.” One respondent
captured this as follows: “3 reasons tech innovation fails: Misunderstanding Human Motivation, Human Learning, or Human Systems.”
reduced their isolation by helping them to connect with their peers;
● allowed them to feel part of larger educational movements;
● afforded them opportunities to become contributors.
Networked information technology has rendered the words “teacher” and “student” more ambiguous. YouTube tutorials and social-media discussions, just to cite a couple of obvious examples, have made it abundantly clear that at any given moment anyone—regardless of age or background—can be a learner or a teacher, or even both at once.