LDES 5001 | Fall 2024 | Sessions 2 and 3: What we know about learning

1. Learning

1.1. Is connectivism on the same level as the other three theories?

1.1.1. Wouldn't it be better to see Connectivism as a valuable appendix to show how technological tools can facilitate educational design in each of these paradigms (behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism)?

1.2. Can connectivism distinguish between true-false knowledge? Between knowledge that is truer or based on more empirical evidence? Google search results famously use a PageRank algorithm which delivers results based on (among other factors) the quality of the content determined by the number of inbound links on a webpage. Google bombing a webpage can produce search results that may not be based on accuracy of knowledge but the ability to game the algorithm. How does connectivism account for this, so that the individual derives knowledge that is not misleading?

1.2.1. Connectivism suggests that knowledge retention (memory) is less critical since understanding is one click away with digital technologies. This week's readings discussed the input-output nature of learning as if the human mind resembled a computer. However, learning is a complex (non-linear) process requiring evolutionary understanding in a continuous cycle. How does the reliance on Google as a repository for knowledge benefit individual learners?

1.3. How does the theory define information versus knowledge within the networked environment of the Internet? What tests have been conducted to determine whether an individual with more network connections can attain more or better knowledge than one with fewer? How does the theory evaluate the quality of the networked connection (i.e., knowledge composition)? Does the theory delineate among types of network knowledge? For example, is a Facebook Like equivalent or not equivalent to a LinkedIn Insightful emoji response?

1.4. Now, as the economic social order undergoes another state of rapid development (in light of generative AI, expanded immigration, and global climate crises), how might the learning paradigms once again evolve? And in a more subversive view, is there any chance that learning paradigms might evolve independently of, or at least giving less importance to, the economic demands of the time period, taking into account, among other goals, human health, societal harmony, and ecological restoration?

1.5. While reading about constructivism, I realized that Design Thinking is a constructivist approach to problem-solving. Am I correct?

1.6. "That is, a behavioral approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession (knowing); cognitive strategies are useful in teaching problem-solving tactics where defined facts and rules are applied in unfamiliar situations (knowing how); and constructivist strategies are especially suited to dealing with ill-defined problems through reflection-in-action." Ertmer and Newby, p26 (this quote

1.6.1. How do we apply these concepts to soft skills?

1.7. What would it look like for learning paradigms to concern themselves with a new ultimate goal of human flourishing and the creation of lives worth living?

1.7.1. Do learning and teaching form a hierarchy?

1.8. How do we even begin to measure the value of learning that occurs outside of the individual?

1.8.1. Can learning be a self-motivated process?

1.8.2. Do gender differences have an impact on students' metacognitive skills?

1.8.3. What would it look like to apply metacognitive learning skills outside of the realm of academic performance and in the realm of mental/physical wellness?

1.9. Given that memory is vital for creativity, should we be concerned that relying on AI could alter how we use our memory? My concern is that reliance on AI might weaken our ability to encode, store, and retrieve memories.

1.10. Given that the learning strategies introduced in the book are based in the U.S. educational system, what would be their potential applicability on a global scale to improve the educational experiences and learning of students around the world?

2. Technology

2.1. Technological advances could indeed (and clearly do) serve as a means to improve designs for achieving the most meaningful learning outcomes. Which learning model will benefit the most from technology?

2.2. Considering the role of assistive technology in education, how can schools integrate such tools to support students with disabilities without singling them out or making them feel different from their peers?

2.3. Even with well-defined policies related to AI use, the legal use might not be ethical. Who is going to define the line between legal and ethical for learners?

2.4. How can McGuire’s metacognitive strategies be adjusted to ensure that AI is being used to aid learning rather than to replace it? Educause’s list of the risks of AI use included, “loss of fundamental skills requiring independent thought.” (Robert, 2024) Do the pros outweigh the cons in regard to AI use in education?

2.4.1. So, where’s the balance in using technology for learning?

2.4.2. So, where’s the balance in using technology for learning?

3. Design

3.1. In your experience as a learner or educator, how have empathy and dignity influenced the effectiveness of learning design?

3.2. Is learning design the same as product design? If so, how can we better “empathize” in learning design?

3.3. How do we even begin to measure the value of learning that occurs outside of the individual? Stage 2 of design thinking is creating a list of the users’ needs and problems. If we made this list for the learning theories, what would be the common shortcoming between all of them?

3.3.1. How do we strike the right balance between structure and flexibility? How do we know how much freedom we can give learners while ensuring that they still achieve the desired learning outcomes?

3.3.2. But how do we ensure we are fully aligned with the learners' needs?

3.4. Considering design thinking, how might we design for those who are not able-bodied or those who have intellectual disabilities, without actually experiencing it ourselves? What is the line between empathizing with a user versus outright assuming their wants and needs?

3.5. How has the relationship between learning design and disabled folks/disability studies evolved over time? Do learning designers feel that they are repeatedly retrofitting outdated systems, or do they feel like they are able to be proactive (specifically in terms of accessibility) in their designs? How has the accelerated spread of information changed the way that we value education?

3.6. What are some "misfitting" people with disabilities are still facing but not much people have noticed?

3.7. How can we make instructions clearer and more accurate for the learners?

3.8. With the advent of AI in all spheres of our lives, how do we, as instructional designers, need to consider this a skill to be taught to learners?

3.8.1. What mental blocks to students' use of metacognition strategies do we need to foresee and plan for as instructional designers?

3.9. If anyone has worked with people with either one or both physical and psychological disabilities, what are tips you would give me to keep in the back of my mind as I seek to work on a learning engagement focused on accessibility?

3.10. how we, as prospective learning designers, can successfully design learning experiences for diverse classrooms. How can we truly design inclusive learning experiences given every person’s distinctly different individual needs? How can we design to accommodate the “level of the learners” in a given classroom, if every learner’s level is not the same?

3.10.1. Since educators, school administrators, and child psychologists may not always know what students are going through, I'm curious about how/when they can integrate metacognition into the curriculum/class for students of all age groups and grade levels?

3.11. What are the possible challenges when trying to integrate constructivist and connectivist approaches into traditional systems of education focused on standardization and uniformity?

3.12. I began to question what role these learning theories such as behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism should play in designing a learning experience. Should they lead the design process, dictating how we structure our programs? Upon reflecting further, I now think these theories should act more as supporting tools rather than leading forces in the design process.

3.12.1. How do we embrace the chaos of connectivism discussed by Siemens?

3.13. When it comes to subjects unrelated to your strengths and interests (e.g. science, history), how can students and teachers implement learning over studying, even if you don't want to pursue a career in either option?

3.14. How can we expect students to teach others the correct information if they are still learning it themselves, and they have no way of confirming said information? The same goes for creating exam questions: how can we expect students to create good exam questions that go beyond the first level of Bloom’s taxonomy of simply remembering and recalling information?

3.15. How can we facilitate shifts in students' relationships with grading? How do metacognitive techniques look different at different levels of learning (K-12 vs. higher ed) Considering most college professors at research universities are subject experts, and do not undergo teachers' education, how could we facilitate trust between students and professors to introduce and use these metacognitive techniques at a college level? How can we prepare educators to change/adapt their teaching and learning strategies for neurodivergent students?