Voice Thread - An Incredible Resource

I have spent some time this week messing around with an online resource called Voice Thread.  If you have never seen it before it is a resource that is definitely worth checking out for many applications, but especially in the classroom.  Essentially, you upload a series of images (or videos) and add audio and/or labeling to it that plays as people view the presentation.  That doesn't sound all that exciting until you realize that anyone (depending on how you set the privacy level) can add audio, video, or text comments to the show you have posted.  It sounds chaotic, but is actually pretty neat.  There are many ways I can think of using this in my own classroom!  To give you an idea of how this works, I created a Voice Thread on Estimating Populations to get my students thinking about how and why would go about figuring out how many individuals there are in a population.  This question is set up to promote problem-based learning as we work into a lab where we count the population of crickets by painting them. Check it out by clicking the link below!

Voice Thread - Estimating Populations or http://voicethread.com/share/2903736/

Technology That Supports Social Learning Theory

This week we looked at cooperative learning as an instructional strategy and technology that aids it.  Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) get right to the point by defining cooperative learning as: “Having students interact with each other in groups in ways that enhance their learning” (p. 139).  They go on to discuss the advantages of learning something socially over doing it alone.  All of this matches with Orey’s (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) description of social constructionism where: “Students actively engage in constructing artifacts and conversing with others.”  Though I hold the belief that students can learn by individual constructionism, I also believe that there are advantages to learning socially when the environment is set up properly.  For one thing, students are able to “leap frog” each other in their thinking.  By this I mean that learners build on each other’s thoughts in a way that speeds up and expands the thinking and learning process. 

Perhaps just as important, if not more so, is the theory of Connectivism.  As stated by Siemens (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b), in Connectivism: “Learning is the act of forming networks and navigating networks of knowledge.”  Even if some argue that this is not truly a learning theory, I believe Connectivism has a much a place in this blog as any other as it relates directly to the application and integration of technology.  It stresses not rote knowledge but the ability to find knowledge.  As mobile devices and computers make their way further and further into the lives of our students, and therefore, our classrooms, the line between memorizing information and accessing information begins to blur.  Connectivism also stresses the social nature of learning but more so in the context of collectively storing and accessing knowledge.

 He technological applications I would like to discuss this week target both social learning theory (social Constructionism) and Connectivism.  As Pitler et al. (2007) explain: “Technology can play a unique and vital role in cooperative learning by facilitating group collaboration, providing structure for group tasks, and allowing members of groups to communicate even if they are not working face to face” (p. 140).  In order to guide our discussion here I will break this post up into three major categories: Multimedia, Online Resources, and Communication Software.

Multimedia:

 Pitler et al. (2007) list several examples of multimedia that could be used in class.  In reality, the list of specific software and hardware is endless (and growing).  Be it PowerPoint, Video production, Photoshop collage, or anything else you can think of, the general idea is that technology is a great medium for social learning.  Set-up seems to be a key component of all cooperative learning and at the heart of that should be a well-designed rubric.  With this in hand, students will have a clear idea not only of what the final product should entail, but also what each individual’s part should be in its completion. 

As a multimedia project generally requires the construction of an artifact (or something that can be shown off) its use ties right into social Constructionism. 

Online Resources:

Webquest: Again we find ourselves discussing a topic that has an infinite number of resources and ideas.  However, I would like to discuss a few mentioned by Pitler et al. (2007).  One of these would be Webquests.  Though the term is already starting to feel antiquated in modern education, the idea behind it is sound.  Webquests can be very teacher intensive in terms of preparation.  However, they can help guide students through the onslaught of search engines to help them focus on the essential information rather than hunting (2007).  From my own experience with them, you almost always have to make your own as the ones I have found already created often go off on tangents and have links that are no longer good.  They also have a strong tendency to be made towards the early part of this century meaning that information is already getting outdated.

Web Site Creation: The idea of having students build their own websites is nothing new.  However, even in the last year it has become so much easier with Flash based online software such as Wix (www.wix.com) which allow students to easily design very modern and interactive web sites with only a little bit of knowledge.  Web site design is an area that lends itself towards cooperative learning as designing an entire site is almost too much for one person (trust me)!  AT the same time, elements of a home page carry over onto all other pages.  Learners have to work together to hammer out the key elements in terms of design and content, while at the same time there is room for personal expression.  Again, we are building a “tangible” artifact that students can walk away feeling proud about.

 Collaborative Organization: The biggest light bulb for me in all of this was websites that allow you to share information.  I know that sounds dumb in light of the Facebook and Twitter craze, but in terms of education there were several resources mentioned that seem very applicable.  One idea I really liked was that of shared calendars.  We all know that one of the most difficult things about collaborative work is the getting together.  Sure, there are technologies out there that make it so that people do not even have to meet face to face, but sometimes it is a requirement.  The shared calendars mentioned would also allow group members to all see do dates and I could see potential in having the students actually setting due dates for themselves to stay on track with a final project.  (ex: http://calendar.yahoo.com)

Shared bookmarking is intriguing as well.  With apps like Evernote these type of sites may be at the waning end of their life, however for collaborative work I can see a lot of advantages in being able to share web sites, videos, and books.

Communication Software:

I will end by briefly discussing communication software in terms of social learning.  We must remember that this book was published not long after the introduction of the first iPhone, and that communication has come a long way in terms of texts and software like FaceTime.  However, some of the tried and true tech is still king in collaborative efforts and does not depend on a family’s minutes and messages.  For starters there are blogs and wikis, which have been discussed on this very blog in length.  More notably we have Skype (www.skype.com) which now allows up to four people to talk “face to face” at one time.  It also allows people to talk for free despite time and distance, enabling communication with peers around the globe.

Put it all together and we have a bunch of technology that can help support teachers implement and manage social learning.  Even though most of the software discussed does not create collaborative learning environments outright, they are the forerunners of what is to come.  My advice is that we start implementing them now before we get left too far behind to catch back up. Any advice, suggestions, or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Social learning theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Connectivism as a learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Problem-Based Learning: Technological Aids

 “One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it, you have no certainty, until you try.”  - Sophocles

And so it is that several millennia later we discuss what many tout as a new(er) theory of the way we learn.  In modern education, this is known as constructionism, an extension of its cousin, constructivism.  Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) summarizes it well by calling it: “A theory of learning that state people learn best when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others.”  Both of my grandfathers were incredibly good at getting me to do this.  Instead of teaching me all of the steps to a job, with minute details and special orders, they would hand me a tool and a piece of wood and tell me to get to work.  Through those trials and tribulations, I learned skills with more understanding and depth than I ever would have by reading a book or even watching someone else do it. 

This constructionist lens of learning is how I would like to take a look at a teaching strategy that Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) call “generating and testing hypothesis.”  Though it may sound all shiny and new it is really just a collection of ideas and resources that teachers can use to teach by using problem-based learning (PBL) with their students.  According to Glazer (2001), problem-based learning: “Is an effort to challenge students to address real-world problems and resolve realistic dilemmas.”  In other words, a problem is either discovered by or presented to students, and the process of solving that problem is used to teach students content within the context of the solution.  

Today we are going to look at specific techniques involving problem-based learning.  More specifically, we will how technology can aid students learning this way by allowing them: “To spend more time interpreting the data rather than gathering the data” (Pitler et al., 2007, p 203).  As a science teacher, I am well aware of this pit fall, having spent extra days, and even weeks, trying to sort out data from a lab to make it accessible for students.  Pitler et al. (2007) offer up three general categories of technologies to aid constructionist learning which I will follow in this analysis: 1) Spreadsheet software, 2) Data collection tools, and 3) Web resources.

Spreadsheet Software:

There are many spreadsheet programs out there; however, the king of them all seems to be Microsoft Excel.  I will mention that there are a few benefits to using Google Spreadsheets in terms of accessibility online and a few other features, but almost every computer I have touched in schools has Excel loaded on.  Despite your brand choice, there are huge advantages for teachers to use this software in class. 

The obvious advantage is data analysis whether it is lab results or test scores.  Numbers can be easily compiled, crunched, and plotted with only basic knowledge of the program.  However, today we are not discussing a spreadsheets ability to count; rather we are looking at its use in helping students learn in a manner consistent with constructionist theory.  

The examples shown by Pitler et al. (2007) do not involve number crunching.  Rather, the teacher sets up a spreadsheet that allows students to test a hypothesis.  Students are told that they inherit ten thousand dollars and must decide how to invest it to maximize their yield.  To bring this back to the learning theories, students are given a realistic scenario for which they must figure out the best solution.  As a science teacher, I can see many advantages to spreadsheet software in testing hypotheses.  For example, students could use the software to determine how large of a sample size they would need to get an accurate picture of population.  Alternatively, they could devise a plan to decrease pollution levels for families by calculating current levels.  Of course, I am spouting out examples without having done them, but I see some potential for uses of spreadsheets in problem-based learning especially.

Data Collection Tools:

A hypothesis is not a hypothesis unless it can be tested.  Pitler et al. (2007) are spot on when they discuss the importance of data collection in testing a hypothesis when they describe how: “Students research problems, form a hypothesis, and collect data to confirm, deny, or revise their last hypothesis” (p 210).  However, they way they apply data collection tools, from Probeware to the internet, it is not a teaching strategy, rather a teaching aid. 

Almost all of the problem-based learning I have directed in my classroom requires the collecting of data.  This data is often used to help solve a problem, though occasionally, and perhaps more effectively, it has been used to determine the problem itself.  For example, while working in Montana with the Watershed Education Network (WEN), middle school students first pointed out rapid decline in the health of a local river through their monitoring of the river itself.  Data collection tools can greatly speed up this process.  In the case of these middle school students, these Probeware devices made monitoring streams feasible during a normal school day. 

I have a great example of internet-based data collection tools used by students tracking the migration of certain species across the continent.  Students from across the country input dates and counts of sightings.  This data was collected into charts that show where different species are in their migration.

Web Resources:

This category is really the dumping ground for anything found online that has not fit into the other two categories.  However, Pitler et al. (2007) discuss their importance in allowing: “Students to use background knowledge, make decisions, and see the outcome of their hypotheses, often in virtual situations that would be impossible or financially unfeasible in real life” (pp 212-213).  In science, I know of many simulators that allow students to test the hypotheses they have derived from other parts of the class.  There is an added benefit to these in terms of student buy-in and engagement, which helps with learning and motivation (2007).

It is easy to fall into the pitfall of thinking every simulation online fits into constructionist learning theory.  However, we must make sure that students are actually able to create stuff and not just fill in preset boxes.  As the line is fuzzy between these two, I would encourage teachers to aim hard towards the side of design, rather than just manipulation.  On that note, I believe Pitler et al. (2007) gave us many great resources to aid students in implementing Problem-based learning.  We just have to understand the importance of making learning relevant to students.  This means leaving things open ended enough for students create things on their own.  Though technology can be an incredible aid in constructionist learning, it is also very easy for teachers to design something that is really just a digital worksheet.

Resources:

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Technology That Supports Cognitive Learning Theory

Last week we looked at Behaviorism as a learning theory and established that much of its ideas are still very alive in everyday classrooms, and life.  However, by the latter half of the twentieth century, scholars like Gagne, Bloom, and Anderson began looking beyond what was simply observable in a lab.  As opposed to Behaviorism, Cognitivists believed that: “Changes in behavior are observed, but only as an indication of what is occurring in the learner’s head” (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012).  In other words, we are not just programmed to spit out a specific response to every stimulus.  Rather, there are cognitive processes that actively occur.  According to Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) cognitive learning theory is really a collective of theories describing how the brain processes and stores information.  This week we looked into two instructional strategies based around cognitive learning theory.  I would like to take a moment to review these strategies as to their relation to the learning theory and application into my own classroom.

The first broad instructional strategy we will look at is called Cues, Questions, and Advanced Organizers by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007).  By their own definition this strategy: “Focuses on enhancing students’ ability to retrieve, use, and organize information about a topic” (p. 73).  This definition lends itself directly toward the cognitive learning theory as it focuses on information processing and storing.  Though the name of the strategy may seem daunting, it really comes down to different ways of organizing information so that students may access it more efficiently and make important links. The “cues” and “questions” are really built in to various forms of “advanced organizers.”  Though Pitler et al. discuss many technologies we can use to do this, they can essentially be summed into three larger categories.  

The first of these is Word Processors.  As an educator this is what most of us use to create the charts and tables we may call advanced organizers.  One idea I have not thought of is the use of a brochure for a field trip or other learning experience.  According to Pitler et al. (2007), a teacher could have students add all sorts of information from maps to agendas to interesting facts.

A second technology they discussed was the use of spreadsheets as advanced organizers.  Pitler et al. (2007) recommend this mostly in conjunction with a rubric.  Easy to set up formulas would allow students and teachers to plug in scores for categories established in a rubric.  This format is now easily calculated, saved, and duplicated for further use.

  Finally Pitler et al. (2007) discuss technologies that organize information for us.  At one end of this spectrum, we have programs like Inspiration that allow students and teachers to create all types of graphic organizers.  This is where the use of explicit cues and proper questioning techniques is essential.  From these, students are able to expand and analyze information while seeing the connections between it all.  They all discuss the use of other media that allows student to make visual-mental links to information, whether they are video sites, interactive tutorials, or maps of the stars.  This works well with Orey’s (2011) explanation the dual coding hypothesis, as students are able to link visual images with the linguistic data they are processing.  This visual image does not only have to be a picture (ex: of a cat), but could also be an image of a graphic organizer which allows them so see connections).

The second strategy we will look at is titled by Pitler et al. (2007) as Summarizing and Note Taking.  As the name says, this technique focuses: “On helping students separate important information from extraneous information and state the information in their own words” (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 119).  Again, we find this strategy to be in line with cognitive learning theory as it focuses on students’ processing and storing information.  As I am focusing primarily on the technologies that assist in this, I will again break this learning strategy into three broad categories.

Yet again, the first deals with an educator’s weapon of choice, a Word Processor.  They encourage the use of multiple note taking formats for maximum retention.  For example, students may write down notes supported by pictures.  In addition, they have to summarize the information, which helps improve comprehension.  This technique is called using “combination notes.”  Similar note taking techniques are described using other mediums, such as PowerPoint, but the main idea is the same.  One feature I was unaware of in Word is the AutoSummarize tool.  Though I have not tried it yet, it supposedly does exactly what the name explains.  I am a little weary of this, but am excited to try it out, especially on the newer versions Word. 

The second general category, and the one I am most excited about is the use of organizing and brainstorm software.  Pitler et al. (2007) describe several specifics ways to use concept maps to improve student understanding.  All of them start out with key questions or topics that branch into smaller sections.  I am not going to go into each type, but rather discuss them all as great ways to: “Help learners visualize ideas and connections between ideas” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  The best techniques appear to involve the teacher setting up the main nodes of the graphic organizer.  From here, they leave holes for students to either fill in, create, or expand on.  In any case, it moves notes from a linear, often hard to follow, format to one that more closely resembles the connections our minds make when accessing and storing information.

Finally, Pitler et al. (2007) describe the use of communication software to help students organize and summarize learning, namely: wikis and blogs.  As I have discussed these at length in this blog already, I will not go into a ton of detail other than saying that these are great mediums for requiring students to take a chunk of knowledge, analyze what is important, and summarize what they have learned.  The advantage of these programs is that they are interactive, allowing for input from people anywhere in the world to help continue the conversation and advance learning.

In the end, I feel we have seen many great examples of learning strategies that closely align with cognitive learning theory.  We have also seen that technology appears to be paramount in maximizing these strategies effects.  Even though many examples were covered, I believe we are only scratching the surface in terms of both software and applications.  I encourage you to continue exploring what is out there and ask that if you find any golden nuggets you return to share with us here.

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Cognitive Learning Theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2012). Cognitivism at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved March 14th, 2012 from http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitivism.html

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Behaviorism: Practical Applications

Climb into any circle of educators and you will see that the term behaviorism is not in vogue.   However, as I have discussed in my post “Behaviorism: Dead or Alive?” the term may not be popular, but the learning theory itself is very much a part of our every day classrooms.  I would now like to expand on that epiphany by looking into two “techniques” that we can use in our classes that take advantage of the piles of data that people like Watson and Skinner became so fond of.  I will be discussing each from the approach of technology integration (the point of the whole blog)!

The first, titled “Reinforcing Effort” by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007), aims to enhance: “Students’ understanding of the relationship between effort and achievement by addressing their attitudes and beliefs about learning” (p. 155).  According to Pitler et al. (2007), this strategy for learning assumes that effort is not important to every student but they can be taught that effort pays off.  The idea is to show students how effort affects them by having them collect and compare how their effort and its associated achievement compare.  Before looking any further into this strategy we can see the backbone of behaviorism appear.  In it, we are going to ask students to chart their effort and compare it to their results (stimulus) in order to solicit a change in their effort (response).  In other words, we hope to reinforce the behavior of applying effort to what they are doing in our classes.

 Pitler et al. (2007) offer two technology methods to achieve this.  The first is by means of a classic spreadsheet analysis.  Students would essentially score themselves each week based on criteria predetermined in a rubric.  They would score themselves in categories such as participation, attention, homework, studying, and grade (Pitler et al., 2007, pp. 158-159).  The advantage of using a digital spreadsheet (for example: Excel) is that it is very easy to add, average, and graph data.  It always amazes students when they stop looking at numbers and start looking at graphs.  Having students input their data digitally also allows teachers to compile all of the students data together.  As Pitler et al. (2007) put it: “When students see that others have faced many of the same difficulties they face and have overcome these obstacles and achieved goals with strong effort and good attitude, they too can see the connection between effort achievement” (p. 161).  Though it may not look like it, this is a practical application of classic operant conditioning.  Reinforce the good behavior by showing students the positive effects of their effort. 

In some ways, the teaching of effort seems like it fits more into the realms of elementary education.  However, I can see the practical applications at the secondary level as well.  I have worked with several students on behavioral contracts much like those described by Standridge (2002).  However, these contracts are taken one step further as they not only use the data as a motivator but also have rewards for certain scores.  These types of data are submitted by the teachers rather than the students, but the idea still stands.  At the secondary levels there is much more room for understanding and growth, even if the curriculum itself does not lend itself towards teaching effort outright.

The second learning strategy we will look at is aptly titled by Pitler et al. (2007) as “Homework and Practice.”  As you can probably guess, this strategy deals largely with homework and other ways of practicing and applying the concepts learned in class.  The benefits of homework are not new knowledge.  The question is how behaviorism plays a role in its successful completion (note that this is different than simple “completion”).  Too often in our classrooms, homework is seen as “busy work.”  It often goes ungraded by the teacher, or at least not in a timely manner.  However, Pitler and his colleagues caution us about homework stating that: “Because it is easy for errors to slip in when students are practicing, teachers should give feedback as quickly as possible – ideally, early in the practice sessions, before students internalize erroneous processes” (p. 188).  As students practice with the content we have taught them, they are reinforcing skill sets.  If they continue to do something wrong, the theory of behaviorism says that they will continue doing it until there is no longer reinforcement or there is a negative response (ex: wrong answer, or no answer).  The key word for educators has to be “Feedback.”  It is through feedback, be it positive or negative, that we are able to adjust the track of behavior.  The earlier we can provide this feedback, the more likely students will attain the correct responses and patterns in the future.

Technology is giving teachers (and peers) more and more opportunities to provide feedback to students early and quickly.  The most obvious pieces of tech is a word processor.  The new versions of these, such as Microsoft Word, allow educators or peers to insert comments and make changes.  In this way we can direct the behavior of a student by providing reinforcements (both positive and negative).  Online tutorials are also becoming more and more popular.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) explains, these tutorials provide instant feedback to guide behavior.  The best of these tutorials provide instant remediation for incorrect answers.  Pitler et al. (2007) discuss how students, or teachers, can provide similar experiences by creating PowerPoint games using action buttons and hyperlinks.  Even better are the ever advancing abilities to work collaboratively online through programs like Wikis.  Through these, students can instantly modify and provide feedback to a peer.  Teachers can monitor changes and redirect (reinforce) groups who need guidance.  There are many more ways technology can be used to support homework and practice, and this list is only going to continue to grow.  I also hope you have seen several examples of how behaviorism plays a key part in modern education.

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Behaviorist learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author. 

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. 

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Behaviorism: Dead or Alive?

As much as we try to deny it, modern education is built around behaviorist learning theory.  If you go into any lunchroom, teachers are most likely not talking about the learning of the students, but rather the behavior.  According to Standridge (2002) behavior is must be directly observed to be counted.  She also asserts that behaviorism is based upon: “Changes in behavior that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner.”  If you are one who does not believe that behaviorism is not alive and well in a classroom, take a bag of candy into a middle school classroom and see what you can get them to do.

All day every day, we run our classes based on Skinner’s idea of operant conditioning.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) explains, we use: “Reinforcement of desirable behaviors . . . [and] punishment of undesirable behaviors.”  This is generally done in the manner of “holding carrots.”  Some examples may be: getting music, sitting by your friend, no homework, a good grade, piece of candy, etc.  We bargain with students every day to come up with things that will reinforce the behaviors and answers we want to see. 

Even though: “Reinforcement is the cardinal motivator” (Smith, 1999) in most classes, punishment is also alive and well.  As a current substitute, this unfortunately seems to be the one I reach for when a class gets rowdy.  Holding the class after, detention, picking up trash; each teacher has their own favorite deterrent for behavior they deem undesirable.

So far, all I have talked about is the typical “behavior” associated with lunchroom chatter.  However, in a science class, I find behaviorism as a must.  No matter how hard I have tried, constructivist learning theories just do not help with reinforcing how to hold a microscope.  First, you threaten financial consequences for dropping a microscope.  You may reinforce proper technique by allowing students access to the best specimens, while simultaneously making students who use improper technique start over and try again.  Getting more into learning strategies, if you want students to use the specified steps of the scientific method (even if you initially taught it using other learning theories and strategies), there are few things more effective than drill and practice.

Let me also discuss grades as a whole.  Contrary to popular belief, grades have two purposes.  The first, more widely acknowledged purpose is to tell the student (and others) how well they are learning the content.  However, at the daily level, these are the primary rewards and punishments we have as teachers.  Why else would students stay after school for several hours the day before grades are due to get a good grade?  They are either afraid of the consequences or motivated by the rewards.

In terms of technology, Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) makes a good case that programmed instruction, as defined by Skinner: “Is ubiquitous with online learning.”  Technology has not done away with behaviorist learning theory, but revitalized it.  In this very program, we have taken quizzes where you choose between answers and get immediate reinforcement or remediation for our answers.  When working with any piece of technology there is a certain series of steps involved for everything we do.  Do them right, and the task will be completed as desired.  Do them out of order (or have no idea what to do) and you will wind up frustrated (and cursing at Bill Gates . . . we have all been there).  Despite our belief that behaviorism is outdated and long gone, it is actually alive and well.  In fact, the technology that we so praise and rely on may actually be bringing back behaviorism rather than move us away from it.

One final note after pondering Pavlov’s experiments (in Standridge, 2002); do our students not salivate at the sound of the lunch bell?

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Behaviorist learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Smith, K. (1999). The behaviourist orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/