...because knowledge and meaning are co constructed.
It is a very exciting time to be involved in education. We are going through a huge paradigm shift in our society, accelerated by peak oil and the internet. We are seeing the genetic epistemology of Piaget confront the relational one of connectivism, where ‘learning is a connection making process’ (Siemens, George. 2012). Vygotsky's ZPD has become infinite (Peña-López, I. 2012). In this new age it is being ‘recognized’ that creates a successful network (Downes, S. 2012).
On the one hand we are running into learning analytics (Siemens, 2010) and quantifying learning as never before. At the same time we are individualizing learning into Individual Education Plans (IEP) and Personal Learning Plans (PLP.) Yet, in all this, it is the networking that is occurring, the connections being made, that is the most exciting change. Personal Learning Networks (PLN) are constantly emerging, changing as we make new connections. Robust online, professional focus groups, and their friends, present an element of serendipity. Ideas and thoughts are being exchanged between people around the planet, mirroring the activity of the brain.
The curriculum of the past is enshrined in our architecture (Khalil, E. 2007), the physical school and class structure, and the curriculum itself. From the point of view of the radical marxists (Anyon, J. 1980) and Paulo Freire (1968), traditional classrooms, with rows of seats facing an adult’s desk, teach power, control and predictability. What this was devised to teach us is no longer relevant and may, in fact, be impeding us from our survival as adaptive creatures.
A common thread that has been weaving its way through the theorists of education, is the understanding from experience that knowledge is constructed. This occurs both individually, as Piaget might say, and collaboratively, as Vygotsky and Siemens might say. For education the meaning is clear. Education is co-constructive because knowledge is too.
As we break down barriers to learning for all learners, we see the importance of a diverse and collaborative project-based learning environment where “exploration and discovery can occur with or without a faculty member and can happen individually, in small groups and teams, or within larger groups” (Wolff, 2002). There is a close and essential connection between changing the paradigm of the physical space and the patterns of behavior within them (Khalil). What strikes me is the fundamental role change of the teacher. We know that lecturing is not effective for teaching, yet it is still the dominant method in many educational environments (Mazur, E., 2012). It is here, in this paradigm shift of power, where we see an opportunity for Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to successfully emerge.
In our examination of a learning environment we inevitably run into the dominance of the teacher. The teacher is the one who determines the culture of the classroom. Equity, access, pedagogy, climate and culture--these all revolve around the teacher. The underlying hidden curriculum is not addressed because it is embedded within our institutions, our values and the dominant epistemological assumption. As the dominant paradigm of what constitutes truth and meaning shifts away from subject object dichotomies to contextual ones, the role of the teacher is fundamentally altered. If knowledge is co-constructed, how does our relationship with a teacher work? It has to be one of reciprocal teaching, where we are all learner’s, learning from each other (Foster, E., Rotoloni, R.. (2005). Is the teacher also co-constructing knowledge with the students? To what extent is the teacher’s participation helpful? To what degree is it intrusive?
The irony of the Universal Design for Learning idea is that there is nothing universal about our learning environments or any singular teacher’s ability not to be biased. Even though our society is considered pluralistic, we are creatures of our culture. From the reading I did this semester, most of the strategies and difficulties to implement UDL stem from overcoming the inherent bias of our teachers and our learning environments. Diversify the learning environment, remove the tyranny of the solo teacher at the head of a class, and it seems possible to consider UDL.
Our taxes, our towns and our educational institutions are built around paradigms that are now obsolete. This is a tremendous opportunity. Though this is not without risks. If you fully consider the implications of UDL these fundamental structures of our society come into question. It is not surprising. A monopoly of knowledge, just like the monopoly on salvation, has been a guarded and elitist vocation for centuries. The whole idea was not to be universally accessible and open. As Clay Shirky recently pointed out, it is the openness of the internet that is truly disruptive (Perry, M. 2012).
One of the findings that emerged from my case study was the vital role technology plays in UDL. The student I observed succeeded in the face of his disability because of open access to technology and the internet. This remains the elephant in the room as we consider ‘a grounded perspective about the aims of advanced studies in education.’ Ideas such as,‘reciprocal apprenticeships’ (Stuve, M. (2003), along with ‘User Generated Education’ (Gerstein, J. 2012), ‘Personal Learning Networks,’ ‘Rhizomatic Learning’ and MOOCs (Cormier, D. 2012) are introducing non linear and disruptive forces into the learning ecosystem. These co creative, co constructive and co construction approaches to knowledge and learning extend our ZPD infinitely, mediated by technology. Assistive technology plays a pivotal role for equitable access to information and virtual learning environments. This is true for students with or without disabilities. The student I observed used technology to expand his connections to a wider ZPD. He became a self directed, life long learner in an effort to overcome his disability. This student’s learning journey was personalized and passionate. It asks us to pause and ask some fundamental questions about education. What does the role of the teacher become in this new paradigm of learning? What should the learning environment look like to support the emergent epistemology? How can we assess authentic learning?
I would like to return to the guiding question, how is education co constructive? We discovered that the emergent theory of knowledge is co constructive. Diversity in our learning environment encourages diverse learners to construct knowledge and travel along the learning journey together. Our role as teacher must evolve and renew itself, modeling what it means to be a lifelong learner. In this way we as teachers can hope to participate as co conspirators in the learning journey we share.
References:
Anyon, J. 1980. Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. Retrieved 11/30/12 from, http://cuip.uchicago.edu/~cac/nlu/fnd504/anyon.htm
Cormier, D. 2012. Rhizomatic Learning and MOOCs. Dave’s Educational Blog. Education, post-structuralism and the rise of the machines. Retrieved 12/19/12 from, http://davecormier.com/edblog/2012/08/16/rhizomatic-learning-and-moocs-assessment/ Downes, S. 2012. Half an Hour. Connectivism as Epistemology. Retrieved 12/12/12 from,
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2012/06/connectivism-as-epistemology.html
Foster, E., Rotoloni, R.. (2005). Reciprocal Teaching: General overview of theories. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 12/10/12, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Freire, P. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Barnes and Noble, New York, New York.
Gerstein, J. 2012. User Generated Education. Retrieved 12/19/12 from, http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/
Khalil, E. 2007. Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies. IRB# 05-295-06. Retrieved 11/29/12 from, http://www.ncef.org/rl/impact_research_studies.cfm
Mazur, E. 2012. Twilight of the Lecture. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/twilight-of-the-lecture
Peña-López, I. 2012. ICTLogy.com. Personal Learning Environments and the revolution of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Retrieved 11/26/12 from, http://ictlogy.net/tag/ple/?lang=ca
Perry, M. 2012. The Real Revolution Is Openness, Clay Shirky Tells Tech Leaders. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/the-real-revolution-is-openness-clay-shirky-tells-tech-leaders/40894
Siemens, G. 2010. What are Learning Analytics? Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/08/25/what-are-learning-analytics/
Siemens, G. 2012. Downes on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://www.connectivism.ca/
Wolff, Susan J. 2002. Design Features for Project-Based Learning. Retrieved 11/15/12 from,
http://www.designshare.com/Research/Wolff/Project_Learning.htm
Stuve, M. (2003). Educational technology reciprocal apprenticeships: NETS integration in school-university contexts. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 3862-3864). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/18844.
It is a very exciting time to be involved in education. We are going through a huge paradigm shift in our society, accelerated by peak oil and the internet. We are seeing the genetic epistemology of Piaget confront the relational one of connectivism, where ‘learning is a connection making process’ (Siemens, George. 2012). Vygotsky's ZPD has become infinite (Peña-López, I. 2012). In this new age it is being ‘recognized’ that creates a successful network (Downes, S. 2012).
On the one hand we are running into learning analytics (Siemens, 2010) and quantifying learning as never before. At the same time we are individualizing learning into Individual Education Plans (IEP) and Personal Learning Plans (PLP.) Yet, in all this, it is the networking that is occurring, the connections being made, that is the most exciting change. Personal Learning Networks (PLN) are constantly emerging, changing as we make new connections. Robust online, professional focus groups, and their friends, present an element of serendipity. Ideas and thoughts are being exchanged between people around the planet, mirroring the activity of the brain.
The curriculum of the past is enshrined in our architecture (Khalil, E. 2007), the physical school and class structure, and the curriculum itself. From the point of view of the radical marxists (Anyon, J. 1980) and Paulo Freire (1968), traditional classrooms, with rows of seats facing an adult’s desk, teach power, control and predictability. What this was devised to teach us is no longer relevant and may, in fact, be impeding us from our survival as adaptive creatures.
A common thread that has been weaving its way through the theorists of education, is the understanding from experience that knowledge is constructed. This occurs both individually, as Piaget might say, and collaboratively, as Vygotsky and Siemens might say. For education the meaning is clear. Education is co-constructive because knowledge is too.
As we break down barriers to learning for all learners, we see the importance of a diverse and collaborative project-based learning environment where “exploration and discovery can occur with or without a faculty member and can happen individually, in small groups and teams, or within larger groups” (Wolff, 2002). There is a close and essential connection between changing the paradigm of the physical space and the patterns of behavior within them (Khalil). What strikes me is the fundamental role change of the teacher. We know that lecturing is not effective for teaching, yet it is still the dominant method in many educational environments (Mazur, E., 2012). It is here, in this paradigm shift of power, where we see an opportunity for Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to successfully emerge.
In our examination of a learning environment we inevitably run into the dominance of the teacher. The teacher is the one who determines the culture of the classroom. Equity, access, pedagogy, climate and culture--these all revolve around the teacher. The underlying hidden curriculum is not addressed because it is embedded within our institutions, our values and the dominant epistemological assumption. As the dominant paradigm of what constitutes truth and meaning shifts away from subject object dichotomies to contextual ones, the role of the teacher is fundamentally altered. If knowledge is co-constructed, how does our relationship with a teacher work? It has to be one of reciprocal teaching, where we are all learner’s, learning from each other (Foster, E., Rotoloni, R.. (2005). Is the teacher also co-constructing knowledge with the students? To what extent is the teacher’s participation helpful? To what degree is it intrusive?
The irony of the Universal Design for Learning idea is that there is nothing universal about our learning environments or any singular teacher’s ability not to be biased. Even though our society is considered pluralistic, we are creatures of our culture. From the reading I did this semester, most of the strategies and difficulties to implement UDL stem from overcoming the inherent bias of our teachers and our learning environments. Diversify the learning environment, remove the tyranny of the solo teacher at the head of a class, and it seems possible to consider UDL.
Our taxes, our towns and our educational institutions are built around paradigms that are now obsolete. This is a tremendous opportunity. Though this is not without risks. If you fully consider the implications of UDL these fundamental structures of our society come into question. It is not surprising. A monopoly of knowledge, just like the monopoly on salvation, has been a guarded and elitist vocation for centuries. The whole idea was not to be universally accessible and open. As Clay Shirky recently pointed out, it is the openness of the internet that is truly disruptive (Perry, M. 2012).
One of the findings that emerged from my case study was the vital role technology plays in UDL. The student I observed succeeded in the face of his disability because of open access to technology and the internet. This remains the elephant in the room as we consider ‘a grounded perspective about the aims of advanced studies in education.’ Ideas such as,‘reciprocal apprenticeships’ (Stuve, M. (2003), along with ‘User Generated Education’ (Gerstein, J. 2012), ‘Personal Learning Networks,’ ‘Rhizomatic Learning’ and MOOCs (Cormier, D. 2012) are introducing non linear and disruptive forces into the learning ecosystem. These co creative, co constructive and co construction approaches to knowledge and learning extend our ZPD infinitely, mediated by technology. Assistive technology plays a pivotal role for equitable access to information and virtual learning environments. This is true for students with or without disabilities. The student I observed used technology to expand his connections to a wider ZPD. He became a self directed, life long learner in an effort to overcome his disability. This student’s learning journey was personalized and passionate. It asks us to pause and ask some fundamental questions about education. What does the role of the teacher become in this new paradigm of learning? What should the learning environment look like to support the emergent epistemology? How can we assess authentic learning?
I would like to return to the guiding question, how is education co constructive? We discovered that the emergent theory of knowledge is co constructive. Diversity in our learning environment encourages diverse learners to construct knowledge and travel along the learning journey together. Our role as teacher must evolve and renew itself, modeling what it means to be a lifelong learner. In this way we as teachers can hope to participate as co conspirators in the learning journey we share.
References:
Anyon, J. 1980. Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work. Retrieved 11/30/12 from, http://cuip.uchicago.edu/~cac/nlu/fnd504/anyon.htm
Cormier, D. 2012. Rhizomatic Learning and MOOCs. Dave’s Educational Blog. Education, post-structuralism and the rise of the machines. Retrieved 12/19/12 from, http://davecormier.com/edblog/2012/08/16/rhizomatic-learning-and-moocs-assessment/ Downes, S. 2012. Half an Hour. Connectivism as Epistemology. Retrieved 12/12/12 from,
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2012/06/connectivism-as-epistemology.html
Foster, E., Rotoloni, R.. (2005). Reciprocal Teaching: General overview of theories. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 12/10/12, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Freire, P. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Barnes and Noble, New York, New York.
Gerstein, J. 2012. User Generated Education. Retrieved 12/19/12 from, http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/
Khalil, E. 2007. Integration Patterns of Learning Technologies. IRB# 05-295-06. Retrieved 11/29/12 from, http://www.ncef.org/rl/impact_research_studies.cfm
Mazur, E. 2012. Twilight of the Lecture. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/twilight-of-the-lecture
Peña-López, I. 2012. ICTLogy.com. Personal Learning Environments and the revolution of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Retrieved 11/26/12 from, http://ictlogy.net/tag/ple/?lang=ca
Perry, M. 2012. The Real Revolution Is Openness, Clay Shirky Tells Tech Leaders. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/the-real-revolution-is-openness-clay-shirky-tells-tech-leaders/40894
Siemens, G. 2010. What are Learning Analytics? Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/08/25/what-are-learning-analytics/
Siemens, G. 2012. Downes on Connectivism and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved 12/12/12 from, http://www.connectivism.ca/
Wolff, Susan J. 2002. Design Features for Project-Based Learning. Retrieved 11/15/12 from,
http://www.designshare.com/Research/Wolff/Project_Learning.htm
Stuve, M. (2003). Educational technology reciprocal apprenticeships: NETS integration in school-university contexts. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 3862-3864). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/18844.