Connected learning

Ramos, Tara

ET, IL

Connected Learning.  (n.d.). Connected learning principles.  Retrieved from

http://connectedlearning.tv/connected-learning-principles

and

Connected Learning Research Network and Digital Media & Learning Research Hub.  (2007). Connected learning infographic.  Retrieved from http://connectedlearning.tv/infographic

Summary: The Connected Learning website provides many resources for teachers who are interested in learning in the 21st century.  The principles spell out what connected learning means for both students and teachers.  For students, connected learning is interest-powered, takes place in the context of peer interaction, and academically oriented.  For teachers, instructional design principles are also provided.  Connected learning environments must be constructed around a shared purpose for both students and adults.  Everyone is learning around a common set of interests and contributing to a common purpose as they learn.  They are also production-centered, meaning that students are actively involved in creation of digital and physical products.  And lastly, they are openly-networked so that the flow of knowledge has no boundaries and students are linked to groups, institutions, etc. beyond the school walls in their learning.  

Evaluation: I find the Connected Learning principles both exciting and daunting. When I read them, I think "Yes, yes, yes!!! This is what should be happening in schools!," the keyword being should.  My on-the-ground experience in schools is that we are far from existing in these connected learning environments.  Teachers are bound by educational policies that encourage them to continue to be the holders of information that they must transport into students' brains.  There have been some small shifts to these type of ideas in recent years, but teachers are still not getting the support that they need in order to become the designers of instructional experiences like those described here. Nonetheless, theses principles are very useful for teacher librarians who work with teachers and can help to build this type of learning environment for at least part of the school year.  

Older Video Explores Still Current Ideas

Cooper, E. J. (1991). Integrating thinking, reading, and writing across the curriculum. Hamilton, N.J.: Films Media Group.

I found this video in the Films on Demand database that the library where I work subscribes to. The item record showed the publication date as 2011, but that must have been when it was digitized and uploaded, because it was definitely made in 1991. Despite its age, I found it very interesting and relevant. It take the format of a panel with an audience, and in between the panelists answering questions, there are clips of teachers applying the techniques discussed in their classrooms. These clips include interviews with students who discuss how they feel about these classes compared to their classes with teachers who use more traditional methods.

Although no one ever claims these methods as adhering to any particular theory or philosophy, the methods and ideas that are discussed are clearly constructivist, and it is illuminating to see theory put into practice. The term "cognitive coaching" is used a lot, and it seems to refer to encouraging inquiry and metacognition. This video is pretty old, but the ideas hold up. 

Ramos. Tara

IL 

TeachThought Staff.  (2015, October 7).  Moving students from digital citizenship to digital leadership.  Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/digital-citizenship-the-future-of-learning/moving-students-from-digital-citizenship-to-digital-leadership/

Summary:  The graphic below sums up the article nicely.

Evaluation:  I like this reframing.  It would mean teaching students to go beyond being citizens and participants in a digital world created by others and teach them that they can help to change and create new digital worlds.   I believe this would be empowering to students and it would engage them in learning in very meaningful ways.

The SAMR Model In-depth

Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), 79–93. 


I appreciated how this article went into some depth about each level of the SAMR model for technology integration in the classroom with emphasis on the use of mobile devices. In addition to explaining what each level was, it also presented example scenarios for what each level would look like in a classroom setting. It also explored some of the downsides of devices, such as providing distractions from instruction, or problems that arise from everyone not having the same kind. This article is a great resource for anyone looking for a comprehensive introduction to the SAMR model or planning to make use of mobile devices with their students 

How we can assess in a 21st century learning environment

Ramos, Tara

CA

Barnes, M. (2016). SE2R can revolutionize how we assess learning.  Retrieved from

http://www.advanc-ed.org/source/se2r-can-revolutionize-how-we-assess-learning

Summary: This article gives an idea of how assessment can work in a 21st century learning atmosphere.  Mark Barnes, author of the book Assessment 3.0 proposes that narrative feedback is most useful to student learning and he suggests teachers use his SE2R model for providing that feedback.  The SE2R model can be summarized as follows:

• Summarize- the evaluator gives a short statement about what was accomplished with the work
• Explain- the evaluator explains what learning was demonstrated and/or what was missing  
• Redirect- when learning outcomes are not demonstrated, the evaluator redirects students to prior learning, to resources or to seek help from teachers or peers.   
• Resubmit- Students are asked to resubmit their work after making changes.  

Evaluation: I found the SE2R model to be very helpful and I feel that it aligns very well with the type of learning experiences and environments that we are building in the INFO 250 course.  We must not let assessment fall by the wayside as we create 21st century learning experiences.  Narrative feedback and the chance to resubmit goes hand-in-hand with the growth mindset that we are trying to foment.  It views learning as continuous and makes the point of learning learning, not a letter grade.  It also allows for each student to start at their unique starting point and grow as much as possible.  Lastly the SE2R model need not be only limited to teacher use, but students could also learn to use it as a tool to evaluate their own and their peers' work.  I highly recommend this article and this author to others in the INFO 250 course.  

Informal Science Education Programs in Indigenous Communities

Mack, E., Augare, H., Different Cloud-Jones, L., Davíd, D., Quiver Gaddie, H., Honey, R., … Wippert, R. (2012). Effective practices for creating transformative informal science education programs grounded in Native ways of knowing. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9374-y

In this article, the authors explored the common features in successful informal science education (ISE) programs in indigenous communities around the world, but primarily in North America. Although constructivist theory is not specifically mentioned in is this article, the strategies that are listed are recognizably constructivist. These include building on student's pre-existing knowledge, and making the content relevant to their lives. It also notes the importance of collaboration, especially with community members that students will recognize as leaders. This reinforces the relevance of the content instruction by showing that Person X is on board with it, and helps counter any notion that the science being taught contradicts traditional knowledge. 

Choosing Web 2.0 Tools for Instruction

Gupta, S. (2014). Choosing Web 2.0 Tools for Instruction: An Extension of Task-Technology Fit. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(2), 25–35.

In this article, the author explores how the Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, and discussion boards have become common practice in K-12 education, but how there are not really clear guidelines as to when the use of Web 2.0 tools is appropriate or how to select them. The author proposes a model based on "Task-Technology Fit" theory. 

The author tackles the problem of balancing process instruction with content instruction when using Web 2.0 tools. "Underfit" is the term used to describe scenarios in which the technology tool doesn't adequately allow students to explore/express content, while "overfit" is used to describe scenarios in which the technology tool is so complex to learn that content instruction is sacrificed. 

Task-Technology Fit is optimal when pedagogical tasks are complemented by a technology's characteristics, and result in positive impact in performance