Learning Theories and EdTech3 - Banduras

My "favorite" of theorie is Albert Banduras' "Social Learning Theory" (http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/social-learning.html).

I am a strong believer that I cannot ask my students to do anything I am not doing. For example: my students have usually the permission to use their phones in class. How can I not allow them the access, if I am on my phone all the time (to take attendance, look up words/definitions, play music, check my lesson plan ...)? We do have the understanding, if they get too distracted by their gadget, that they need to take a break from using it in class. This works very well. I am modeling the professional use of technology on a daily basis and I believe that my students understand more and more the difference between "play and work". Banduras theory is based on this: "Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do." - Modeling behavior improves the quest for one's own learning style, function as a good citizen and student, and it allows for making choices on the students' part. 

The theory states, that "Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, an environmental influences." Our students do not only learn from reading or listening. We know now that we have to offer them choices, different ways of representation, action and expression as well as engagement (Universal Design of Learning) in their learning. But they do not only learn content. It is so much more that they gain in terms of skills, experiences, knowledge and behavior.

Learning Theories and EdTech2 - Dale, Bloom, and Universal Design of Learning

Edgar Dale's "Cone of Experience"

I must confess, I never heard of Dale's "Cone of Experience". Dale's cone has 11 stages. Those stages are becoming more complex and abstract, as we reach the top of the cone. The experiences are not based on difficulty, but on abstraction and the number of senses involved.

http://teachernoella.weebly.com/dales-cone-of-experience.html


Dale argues that the experiences, as they are getting more abstract, can be - and should be - mixed. They are all interrelated and even though there are lines and stages, finding a balance between concrete and abstract has to be achieved.



Bloom's Taxonomy

Much is written and known about Bloom's Taxonomy, and some educators are now facing the change to integrating technology with the different types of cognitive performance of their students. How can one address "remembering" using a web. 2.0 tool? How can our students be digitally creative and create on a "Higher Order Thinking Level" using the web. Andrew Churches ("educational origami") and Michael Fischer ("visual blooms") offer visuals and links to web 2.0 tools that can be used for the different stages in Bloom's taxonomy. Michael Fischer, however, created a new visual, including the fact that several digital tools can be used in several different areas.

http://visualblooms.wikispaces.com/HOME


Fischer claims that there is a fluidity in using tools online rather than one tool is only usable for one stage.





Universal Design of Learning

UDL is the theory of "differentiation". How can "the curriculum needs [...] be designed for all learner? (cast.org). In their introduction video, they define UDL as follows:

Universal: being used and understood by everyone

Learning: there are three areas:

• recognition - the "What" of learning
• skills and strategies - the "How" of learning
• caring and prioritizing - the "Why" of learning

Design: must be flexible and accessible for all

To design the curriculum, the educator should start with "What is my goal?", closely followed by "What are the barriers?". To universally design the curriculum then, the instructor should give the students choices:

• multiple means of representation of content
• multiple means of action and expression of content/learned material
• multiple means of engagement in the classroom with the content

Learning Theories and EdTech1 - Multiple Intelligences

My "Multiple Intelligences" Inventory

My MI Inventory shows that my strengths are in the "Intrapersonal" and "Linguistic" area of the 8 multiple intelligences according to Howard Gardner. My absolute weakness lays in the "Interpersonal" part. "

My teaching is certainly influenced by my "word smart" and "myself smart" intelligence, as I am able to phrase and rephrase problems, talk to my students on a level that they understand and which lowers their affective filter. Further, the intrapersonal strength serves me well when reflecting about my teaching and my students' learning. As for my weakness, the "Interpersonal", "people smart", area, teaching is a great profession for me, as I am usually responsible for myself and my students, not for the product of a team. However, the almost lack of this intelligence surprises me a bit, since I am usually a "team player", I share my experiences, share methods and materials. Yet, I guess I like doing things by myself, which opposes the actual definition of "people smart".

It is generally a good idea to know, where my students' strength are in terms of their intelligences. This helps me to give them choices in expressing themselves and in facilitating their learning. However, at times, I also try to challenge my kids in trying to look beyond their own box. But especially for assessments, it becomes more meaningful for the student, once their interest and their skills are included.