A couple of months ago I wrote about my philosophy on learning, and while I did include technology, I did so with very little information about how I would use it. Now that we find ourselves at the end of LDT467, I have much more to add to my philosophy about technology and the role of the learner. I am calling this my Learning Philosophy 2.0.

In my original learning philosophy, I described learning mainly as the exposure to something new and the way the learner remembers that new information. What I know now is that it also has to do with the way the learner interacts with information and with others. Communication and collaboration are big components of learning, as students can construct knowledge based on both of those things. Learning also encompasses the presentation of student knowledge in various forms and mediums. While this is primarily decided by the teacher, it can also be determined by the student depending on how the class is designed. Learning also includes the teacher as a facilitator and source of knowledge.

Teachers are often the source of information in a classroom, but they can be much more than that. The role of the teacher is also to introduce students to new ideas and means of creating a product or project using their newfound knowledge. For example, if a teacher wants a student to create a project that includes a new type of technology that students haven’t learned about or used before, teachers have to show students how to use that application and how to create something with it. Teachers are also important for showing students how to appropriately communicate and collaborate to enhance their learning.

My philosophy has changed a lot in regards to the relationship between the student and knowledge acquisition. In my initial philosophy, I was very focused on students constructing knowledge in a very old-fashioned way. For example, I mentioned repetition and studying to learn new material. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but I didn’t mention using technology for knowledge acquisition, just as a means of research and enrichment. My philosophy has also changed in regards to the way that students show they have learned something. When using technology students are sometimes learning, teaching, and creating all at the same time. Obviously, with such a complex way of learning, students need to be evaluated differently than the couple of ways I described in my initial philosophy.

Learning happens when students are engaged, interested, and having fun. It also happens when students are given the opportunity to act as a teacher or creator and show what they already know. In this instance, they are learning to communicate and collaborate more than anything else, while reinforcing prior knowledge about a topic. Learning is also happening when students are able to take their knowledge about a topic and create something with it. This could be a Powtoon video, a sculpture, or a design for a 3D printed item. While technology doesn’t always have to be a part of creating and constructing knowledge, in today’s classroom ecology it should definitely at least be where a decent chunk of their time is devoted.

While I mentioned some of this already, teachers should act as facilitators and sources of knowledge and guidance. While sometimes this may mean that the teacher is lecturing or working through a worksheet with students, it may often mean the teacher is stepping back and letting students construct knowledge on their own (but with guidance and scaffolding). The role of the teacher is also to help students build skills in the areas of communication and collaboration. This could be by means of a hands-on project, where students have to communicate with each other, or a Skype session with students in a classroom halfway around the world. I also think the teacher should be a source of enrichment material in some way, even if students access that material themselves.

I would not necessarily change anything from my original learning philosophy when it comes to knowing when students are learning, I would add to it, however. I still think that students who can correctly apply information in an assessment or project are showing that they learned something. I also think that students are showing that they are learning when they ask questions because they are actively engaged. I still think that the best way for students to show that they are learning is through a hands-on project or activity. I would add that students can show they are learning when they teach another student how to do something. Students should have the opportunity to create, instruct, and share their ideas with their classmates in some way. For example, when a student is working on a presentation using any application that is set up for this (Powtoon, PowerPoint, Animoto, etc.) they can learn as much from their peers while using it as they can through creating with it. They do this by communicating and sharing ideas with each other. They might see something really neat that a peer is doing and ask how to do it on their own presentation, or vice versa.

While I still think that technology is a good source for students to play around with additional enrichment resources and for research, I now see it even more so as a way for students to demonstrate what they have learned, work together, and communicate their ideas. I can definitely see myself using something like Skype in the future for students to learn about an artist or art form. While I have had thoughts of doing something like this for my art club, I had forgotten about its potential in the classroom. This would be a great option for a school with a limited budget because they wouldn’t have to pay an artist to come to the school and speak, they could just compensate them for their time and invite them to video conference with students over Skype. I would also like to work at a school that has a 1:1 ratio of Chromebooks for students to use. This way I could have a digitally formatted classroom with reading resources (InsertLearning or another tech tool to help students who might struggle with reading), project choices (with videos to show students the steps they need to complete projects), and supplemental applications to enrich student learning. Finally, if I were in a school with a 3D printer, it would be great to use something like Tinker Cad with students so they could design and create a 3D printed project.

First of all, I would just like to say that I found this reading difficult. The author seemed to jump around a lot and spent more time on describing comparisons to situations in education than to the actual issue in education itself. It also seemed that the topics of discussion jumped around between chapters where something discussed in chapter 1 might come up multiple times again in the following chapters. There were also a ton of lists of adjectives in this book that reminded me of reading family names at the beginning of the Odyssey. Very tedious.

Chapter one of this book talked a lot about the definition of the institution. The main focus was about how you can no longer use the traditional meaning of institution in the context of the Web 2.0 ecology. The author begins discussing the implications of the institution as a mobilizing network and focuses on “…the fluid networks that operate within, through, around, across, and outside traditional boundaries of even the most solid and seemingly unchangeable institutions.”

Chapter two focuses on participatory learning and customized education. The author finds that it is difficult for educators to come up with a way to meet the individual needs and interests of all students while getting students to collaborate with others who have an entirely different set of individual needs and interests. His solution to this problem is using social media in the classroom. The author also spends time in this chapter talking about plagiarism, fair use, and authoring. He finishes chapter two by briefly talking about classroom gamification.

Chapter three is about the results of interacting with these technologies, with a large emphasis being on trust. Probably the biggest takeaway from this chapter is “In short, learning is shifting from learning that to learning how from content to process.” This chapter talked a lot about ideas we have discussed in depth during our week 8 and week 9 readings.

I would agree with most of the author’s notions of how institutions and pedagogies must respond to emerging technologies and practices. I think more time could have been spent on discussing these ideas in the book rather than discussing ideas of things to compare them to. While this may be discussed in later chapters in the book, I thought the author should have spent more time talking about inequalities and how they impact obtaining and using this technology in the classroom or university.

I think that changes we should be attentive to as educators and learners are how institutions that are already using these new technologies are faring. For example, there was The School of the Future from Philadelphia, PA. What happened to that school? Did they fare well in their approach? I understand that this book is around 10 years old, but I’m sure at the time there had to be some data from the school? There were also the NYC Museum School and the Institute of Play. How are they doing now? Are they still even open? Did their educational model work? I also think we could follow individual classrooms and teachers in our own communities, not just huge institutions, to see their successes and failures. These educational trends have been around long enough now that there are people out there applying them to the educational setting. I think we should be attentive to these institutions and individuals to see what changes they are bringing to their classrooms and communities.

I think that this is the first time during this course where I don’t really think the topic of discussion is conducive to a positive learning experience. I see the positives of using popular culture as a ‘hook’ to catch students’ attention when learning a new topic. For example, a physics teacher could use Pokémon as a way to teach gravitational force on a moving object and compare that to the Poke ball being thrown at a Pokémon. In my own field, I could have students create their own trading cards about art principles or artists much in the same way that children create their own Pokémon cards. However, in terms of augmented reality, I feel like someone would need to come along and design a new application or program that used augmented reality for a specific topic. This is one of the major drawbacks to using augmented reality as an emerging educational technology – it isn’t easily accessible to the average classroom teacher. While someone could spend hours and hours programming software for a history game that used augmented reality to ‘meet’ famous historical figures in their everyday world… most of us don’t have the time or know-how to do such a thing (although it would be pretty awesome if we did!). Also, there is the issue of student accountability. Would students be using augmented reality inside the classroom, or would they need to traverse the school and campus in order to find new items/people/topics in the same way that people traverse their communities in order to find new Pokémon? What if there was a fire drill or emergency situation? How would the teacher know where their students were? In a K – 12 setting this obviously wouldn’t work, but in a college setting, perhaps it could. It would be really neat to have freshman engage in a Pokémon Go style orientation where students found and learned about different places on a college campus. However, in general, it doesn’t seem like a good use of technology in an educational setting for most applications.