Da-Bearss Lair

When I look at the overall scheme of this mindmap, the first thing I noticed is it is more-heavily ‘weighted’ in my Work and Career networks. If one were to associate our connections or networks with what it means to live a balanced life, this tool suggests I need to put more effort in the methods, tools, and people for Social and Lifelong Learning. This realization in and of itself is a learning experience. I cannot say the network will “change” the way I learn, but rather it will enhance the way I learn by providing a fundamental “knowledgebase” of varied resources I have immediately available to answer questions,  seek advice, establish collaboration,  and gain knowledge in the various aspects of my life. The learning will occur when I am able to think, process and analyze and potentially re-model the information that I gather using these resources.

Networks are great utilities to seek out and gather information with the intent to build new knowledge. A common starting place for me is Wikipedia. I use the breadth and depth of information gained from this to set up additional research, using on-line library resources (Medtronic’s e-library or the Walden University Library) and then extend my search from there using online databases, if applicable. While I consider learning as a thinking-processing-remodeling exercise, the tools that best facilitate this process are those that promote synchronous or asynchronous interaction and collaboration with thought-exchange.  Networking and gathering different perspectives from classmates, colleagues and friends are the best methods to accomplish this.

Do humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group?

From an anthropologic point of view, the willingness to interact may be the result of a human behavior characterized as “innately sociable and helpful to others” (Wade, 2009) and occurs as a natural inclination that is not imposed by parenting or culture (Tomasello, 2009). As they mature, adolescents experience phases of being cooperative outside the home, develop a sense of a social norm, and exhibit a desire to belong to a group. Tomasello (2009) also points out that humans at a fairly early age develop what is referred to as a “shared intentionality” from which they derive a sense of norms of what to expect from others, the sense of “we”, and the notion for others to obey these norms. It is believed the basis of human socialization and what eventually evolved into the purpose of cooperation in gathering food is the result shared intentionality. A child’s existing propensity for social cooperation can be further influenced from certain parenting styles that communicate to the child about the effects their actions can have on others (2009).

Humans are also naturally deeply social creatures. We have evolved to heed a powerful desire to “belong”; be part of a group of people we can know and who, in return, can know us (Wever-Rabehl, 2006). Social connected-ness, or our fear of losing it, continues to be paramount in defining the quality of our lives. Therefore, the answer to the above question is “yes”; humans do exhibit a natural trait to interact and work as a group.

How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles? As you know, the Constructivism theory maintains that students construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998). Social constructivists view learning as a participative and social process. Conceptual growth comes from sharing multiple perspectives and changing our internal representations through collaborative learning.

Technology has provided numerous platforms to facilitate this process in the form of electronic networking via Skype, Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter using the Internet, and 3G wireless mobile technologies with Smart Phones. The use of these collaborative technologies not only forges relationships between learners but also promotes sharing ideas and solving problems. Meaningful learning occurs when individuals are engaged in social interactions with each other (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998).

Bonk, C. J., Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tomasello, M. (2009, October). Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wade, N. (2009, December). We may be born with an urge to help. Retrieved January 12, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html

Wever-Rabehl, G. (2006, July). The anthropology of belonging: The need for social inclusion. Retrieved January 12, 2010 from http://anthropology.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_anthropology_of_belonging

The importance of placing labels (the –isms) on methods sometimes seems to outweigh the methods themselves. When presented with the name of a theory, do our minds automatically associate with a concept, process or technique that represents that theory? Or, when given a particular learning situation, is it more useful to identify a theory that can explain why it does (or doesn’t) work? What struck me very poignant was Bill Kerr’s statement, “Should we stick to -isms or should we be more pragmatic and just cherry pick different useful ideas out of the various theories?” I can relate to this. It’s probably the reference to being pragmatic that caught my attention. I tend to try different teaching methods and then continue to use the ones that work, then modify and improve upon them. What particular -ism it falls under is not the focus; learning outcomes from well-designed instruction is what’s paramount. This notion is further emphasized in Bill’s response to the following comment by Stephen Downes,

“…it remains puzzling that so much of the instructional design

community remains in behaviorism, this more than 30 years after

the theory was abandoned everywhere else.”

I agree with Bill’s reply. Repeating what gets results is the path to the reward, as opposed following the popular theory du-jour (e.g. cognitivism). I tend to get lost in the semantic gymnastics of all the –isms…cognitivisn, empiricism, nativism, rationalism, skepticism, realism, idealism, pragmatism, objectivism, interpretivism…without the need to stop and ask their relevance. In the wiki http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com Bill Kerr talks about “the need to study a wide variety of learning theories to learn about the wide variety of tricks that different people use to learn.” I wonder if the -isms would become clearer if we knew more about what those “tricks” were.

Understanding learning theory definitely has its place in order to help understand all the various ways that the human mind learns, and allow us to try and predict the methods to accomplish effective learning. For that nuclear power-plant scenario; if either a strictly behaviorist or strictly cognitivist approach doesn’t work, then “cherry-pick”; be creative and design a blended instructional method that does work, or maybe have the trainee stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

 It’s winter here in Minneapolis, the land of 10,000 frozen lakes; not one of my favorite seasons here. This piocture serves as a pleasant reminder when water is fluid, I wish I could say this introduction was written from the back of the boat in this picture.   

That image was taken by me the summer of 2008 while on the upper Mississippi River somewhere between Red Wing and Wabasha, Minnesota.  The shoreline is as it looks… mostly wild-life preserves and quite pristine. Being a major migratory flyway, it is also home to a wide variety of birds at various times throughout the season. Wabasha is known for its large population of bald eagles. At various times of the season, you will also find pelicans. Yep…the same big-billed birds you see in Florida. Sorry I don’t have a picture of one of those to show you.