EDTECH 504 Reflection 3: Learning theories in the classroom

One of my habits is to listen to podcasts as I commute or drive around town. I subscribe to a variety of podcasts, and I enjoy listening to a wide assortment of topics. Sometime last week, a podcast from NPR TED Radio Hour came up in the queue. The topic of the episode was Success, looking at the topic from the point of view of several different speakers. One of the speakers interviewed on this episode is Angela Duckworth, a psychologist who has done research on ways to predict student success. In the interview with Raz (2013), Duckworth states that she has done many surveys of students looking at various aspects of their lives, trying to determine what quality could be used as a predictor of success in school. Based on her studies, she claims that the quality she calls “grit”--the ability to stick with a goal despite setbacks--is the most reliable predictor, even above IQ and natural gifts in a given topic. In the TED talk the interview is based on, Duckworth states that she does not know how to cultivate grit in a child, but that the concept of growth mindset shows promise as a method of helping a child become “gritty.” Growth mindset is the active teaching that the mind can change over time, with the idea that if a child knows that learning can change their mind in physical ways, they are more likely to continue attempting a task that is challenging. Specifically, Duckworth explains this by stating that these students are not afraid to fail, “because they don’t believe that failure is a permanent condition”(6:58). In other words, this goes against the common belief that an individual either is or is not good at a specific subject.

I realize that this source is not from a peer-reviewed journal, but I feel that the concepts it presents are important if we are to be successful at helping students learn. In their article on model-based learning environments, Pirnay-Dummer, Ifenthaler, & Seel (2012) state that as part of the learning process, “the learner needs to find--and become accustomed to--a culture of curiosity and puzzlement” (p. 88). To carry that through, puzzles are meant to be challenging, and the successful student will understand that they may not get it right the first time they attempt to understand a new topic or learn a new skill. In other words, students must have a certain amount of what Duckworth calls “grit” to be able to face a new challenge without fear and to be prepared to make at least a few mistakes along the way.

Pirnay-Dummer, Ifenthaler, & Seel (2012) also claim that “most learners want quick answers to questions they already have” (p. 89). While the authors do not state in their article whether they are considering primarily adults or children in their discussion about learning, I have found that it is true at all ages, although the intent behind the questions may be age dependent. In my experience, children want immediate answers to their questions because they are genuinely curious to learn something new. Adult learners, on the other hand, want immediate answers as a shortcut to getting information. In some cases, the adults’ questions may be motivated by curiosity, and in those cases, learning is more likely to take place. In other cases, the adult learner wants the quick answer as a means to a goal that may not include learning--to get a better grade for a course, for example, or to save themselves the embarrassment of not knowing something they are expected to know. In general, children are much more accepting of failure than adults are, and they are much more willing to admit when they don’t know something.

This concept that an adult learner wants to learn immediately, without taking time to puzzle and explore the new topic, and definitely without failing in the process, contrasts heavily with the connectivism theories I have been researching for the annotated bibliography this week. While reading an article about an experiment with connectivism in an online class (Barnett, McPherson, & Sanderson, 2012), I couldn’t help but consider how my own students (first- and second-year university) would react to a class conducted in the same way. In that experiment, the instructor of the class (Barnett) chose to have students conduct most of the learning modules. He led the first module as a model, and allowed students to choose the topics they wanted to lead. As a result, there was little formal structure to the class. The authors do state that there was some initial confusion on the part of the students, and they admit to making a few errors in judgment when setting up the course. I think that if I were to attempt to conduct a class using these methods, the students would be too confused to complete the course, and most would choose to drop the course rather than run the risk of failing.

At the same time, though, an article by Tshofen & Mackness (2012) caught me by surprise. The authors of this paper discuss the role of connectivism in the environment of a massive open online course (MOOC), with the implication that all MOOCs are connectivist by default, if not by definition. The fact that the authors of this paper are not traditional scholars--neither is affiliated with a university or other educational institute--makes their discussion on the role of connectivism in learning even more interesting. Prior to starting the MET at Boise State, I decided to enroll in a MOOC on creativity, through Stanford University. The course was very fluid overall--with well-defined assignments and due dates, but with a lot of flexibility on how the assignments could be completed. Students were encouraged to work in teams, and each student was expected to evaluate the work submitted by other teams in the class. Many students complained about a lack of leadership, in that the instructor of the class was “present” only through pre-recorded videos, and there was some chaos at the start of the course, much as described by Barnett, McPherson, & Sanderson (2012). However, for the students who stuck with the course, it was a good learning experience overall. As a result of taking that class, I started trying to incorporate more flexibility into the classes I teach and the assignments I give. I have certainly not gone very far in converting my classes completely into connectivist classes, but I think that the more open-ended assignments I have created have been more successful for my students than more traditional quizzes and papers have been in the past. I am also trying to find ways to incorporate Web 2.0 tools into the classes I teach, and I have plans to include shared blogs in a class about computer concepts that I will be teaching starting next month.

In this reflection, I also have to look at myself as a student, and possibly confront my own fears of failure. I did take Duckworth’s grit test (available at https://sasupenn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_06f6QSOS2pZW9qR), and I scored a 3.63. The results indicate that I am grittier than 60% of the American population. I am afraid of making mistakes to some extent, and while I do believe that mistakes are an important part of the learning process, I still get defensive when other people notice those mistakes. I also believe in the growth mindset mentioned by Duckworth, and I believe that I can accomplish anything I am personally motivated to accomplish. That said, I am still somewhat reluctant to step out of my current teaching modes to experiment with something that could be deemed a “failure.”

References

Barnett, J., McPherson, V., & Sandieson, R. M. (2013). Connected teaching and learning: The uses and implications of connectivism in an online class. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 685-698. Retrieved from http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=93999176&site=ehost-live

Raz, G., (Host) (2013, Nov-1) Is having grit the key to success?. TED Radio Hour. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/11/01/240779578/is-having-grit-the-key-to-success

Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Seel, N. M. (2012) Designing model-based learning environments to support mental models for learning. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 66-94). New York, New York: Routledge.

Tschofen, C., & Mackness, J. (2012). Connectivism and dimensions of individual experience. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(1), 124-143. Retrieved from http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=71275494&site=ehost-live