This first week’s topic was an Overview of Learning Science. I read one book chapter, by Bransford et al, as well as three papers, one by Spiro & DeSchryver, one by Sawyer and one by Collins & Halverson. Overall the readings were interesting as an overview, touching on topics like instructionism versus the new learning science, the interdisciplinary science of learning, constructivism’s well- and ill-structured domains in education, and the past eras of schooling versus now. I further read an article by Driscoll about the science of learning and technology’s role in it. Allow me to discuss.
In the Bransford et al chapter (2006), the authors wrote about the science of learning as an interdisciplinary measure. According to them, three factors are employed in a learning environment: implicit learning, information learning, and formal learning. These three are co-involved via synergy. The authors develop the idea of synergy stating it is an ecological view, includes social situations, and takes a cultural view, all at once. I understood this to be applicable to education at this time. As far as strengths, this chapter went in-depth on learning environments as they apply to education today (instructionism), more so than did the other readings. It most applies to my research (librarianship in an urban area) in its explanation of education. I can use what was written in understanding what’s done in schools today. I found that the Bransford et al chapter most corresponded with the chapter by Sawyer.
In Sawyer’s chapter (2006), the author states that the current schooling model (instructionism) does not correspond to today’s economy. The author goes into depth about what learning has traditionally entailed: rote memorization of facts and practices passed from teacher to student with an ending test of said material. Learning should involve prior knowledge, diverse teaching styles, varied learning environments, and student reflection. This is instructionism. Says Sawyer, learning is social and happens with technology. In other words, learning happens both out of school and through technology; it’s not a singular entity learned by remembering rules and procedures. As far as strengths, this chapter did a good job explaining the need for socailization in education, more than did the other readings. I found this applicable to my research again in understanding the scope of what is happening in schools now. Understanding this will lead me deeper in my own research. The Sawyer paper most reminded me of what Spiro & DeSchryver wrote.
In their paper, Spiro & DeSchryver (2009) cover constructivism, where students, as opposed to teachers, by means of deeper learning in a well-structured domain (WSD) that is teacher-led, learn best. They further write about direct instruction as suited for learning procedures like memorizing facts gained in a teacher-led atmosphere like the traditional classroom, an ill-structured domain (ISD). Of the two domains, a WSD is preferable because students naturally conduct their own learning outside of the classroom or on the web. In the future, constructivism involves the Post-Gutenberg Mind (one developed in conjunction with the Web) in a deeper-learning, student-centered ISD where teachers lead student-centered instruction. This article did a good job of delving into the need for teachers and students to be involved in good ISDs. It was different from the other readings but in a positive way. Again, this article goes to my own research in understanding education’s current place. Knowing how students best gain knowledge will lead me to what they’ll do next. The Spiro & DeSchryver paper is most remiss of the Collins & Halverson chapter.
In their chapter, Collins & Halverson (2009) discuss the three eras of schooling: apprenticeships, formal schooling, and (today’s) lifelong learning era. The authors find lifelong learning, where students of all ages can pick up a topic and become an expert out of interest for the subject, is much like apprenticeships were. I find education to be cyclical and agree with this assessment. The impetus for the newest lifelong learning era is marked by technology’s role in it. This article depicts the cyclical nature of education better than do the other articles, though all try in some way. Understanding how education flows is important to my research as well. It will inform next steps for students. This of course relates to what I read in the Bransford et al chapter. So this assignment has also been cyclical =]
I further read an article by Driscoll (2002) called, “How people learn (and what technology might have to do with it). It offered a great summary of all four readings in its own way. Driscoll looks at the rules for learning as: occurring in context, active, and reflective. In this way she’s writing about instructionism. She’s writing about it currently because she writes of what technology lends to education. In specific, when speaking of context, technology adds real world experiences. As far as the active angle, it’s technology used as a resource by teachers and students alike. With the social aspect, a view of the school (and students) as part of the community comes in to play. And regarding the reflective means, it happens via feedback and revision. I found this article’s strength was its concise application of what is needed for students to be successful with technology in the classroom. It was like the other articles in its view of education but goes in to how students can achieve success. This again applies to the scope of my own research in the field of urban environs and librarianship. It will help me to know what can be most useful for students in their education going forward. The article itself was a great connector to all of the articles I read this week.
Overall I learned a great deal about constructivism and instructionism and the differences therein. I learned about the history of schooling over time including where it is headed (the “new school”). Plus I learned how schools can utilize technology in all kinds of environments to best benefit students and teachers. This was an interesting week!
References
Bransford, J.D., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P. et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences(p. 19-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, A., & R. Halverson (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and the Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2009.
Driscoll, M.P. (2002). How People Learn (and What Technology Might Have To Do with It). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearing House on Information and Technology.
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Chapter 1 introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences(p. 1-16). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
annotation Azevedo-et-al Barron Berliner Bransford CIM Clark Cobb Collins Halverson constructivism Driscoll ecology ed research EDU800 EDU 800 education research Gutierrez-Penuel HAL Hoepfl hypertext instructionism interview Jacobson Kellie's Blog Kozma Kuiper-et-al Labaree literature review Plengkham qualitative Ross Salomon Perkins Sawyer SFT Shapiro-Neiderhauser Shulman Spiro DeSchryver SRL Stough-Lee technology week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 week5