About Genetrix4u
Back to Portfolio page
My
Philosophy behind use of the web for teaching and learning
Contents
Why
use the web?
Should
we have a theoretical
framework around which to base the use of the web
in our classrooms?
Is
the web best suited
to a constructivist approach? - or a constructivist
approach best suited to the web?
Do
I
believe in the use a constructivist approach?
Are
their dangers
associated with internet access?
Conclusions
References
Why
use the web?
I must admit that I have not used the web much in my teaching. I do
however see value in its use and hope to use it more extensively in the
future. My reasons for doing so are listed below:
- Use of the web has the
ability
to engage students who live in a world dominated by electronic
communication.
- Use of the web is still
novel enough to excite many students.
- There is a vast amount of
information available out there which students can be made aware of.
- Not only must students be
made aware of the presence of the information, but they must have
practice in how to access the information and learn the skills
necessary to validate the information.
- It is becoming more
important in many professions for people to have the skills necessary
to use the web wisely and efficiently to access information.
- The web does have many
good
resources available for students to learn from.
- While students are using
the
web for learning, the teacher is less likely to be in a situation where
they are in conflict with students, but are more likely to be seen as a
facilitator of learning.
- The variety of information
and resources on the web do lend themselves to a variety of teaching
and learning styles and abilities. If used appropriately this ought to
aid all students reach their true potential. It can potentially
enfranchise those individuals who traditionally do not perform well in
some classroom environments.
Should
we have a theoretical
framework around which to base the use of the web
in our classrooms?
Yes we should have a theoretical framework around which to base the use
of the web in our classrooms. We must at least have a good reason to
use the web. Without some sort of reasoning behind use of the internet
for teaching, there is at least the danger that our precious and
valuable time will be wasted. The internet has many valid and valuable
uses for teaching, but it should be used with consideration of the fact
that there are also pitfalls and even dangers associated with its use.
As far as having a “theoretical framework” goes,
while it may well be possible to make good use of the internet without
one, it is surely better to understand what you are doing and why. An
analogy would be to compare this to a person taking apart a
malfunctioning device and reassembling it in the hope that it will now
work. Sometimes it does work, but why, and for how long, and
wouldn’t it have been better to know what you were doing in
the first place so as to fix it properly, avoid damage to the device,
yourself and others?
Is
the web best suited
to a constructivist approach? - or a constructivist
approach best suited to the web?
The web does suit itself to a constructivist approach and a
constructivist approach is suited to the web, but the nature of the web
itself is such that to use the word “best” in
either of the ways above is to limit one’s thinking. The
possible uses of the web may not be infinite, but they certainly
encompass more than just one way of thinking. In order to make the best
use of such a powerful tool, we should not close our minds and think
along only one track. It is likely that an individual who can only
adhere blindly to one philosophy (which is not necessarily accepted by
all experts anyway) is at risk of depriving their students of other
valid learning experiences.
Do
I
believe in the use a constructivist approach?
I do use a constructivist approach when it is appropriate. I believe
that there is valid research that shows that some students learn some
material well when a constructivist approach is employed. It may well
be that in some cases all students learn certain things best when a
constructivist approach is used, but I am not convinced that this
approach is appropriate to all students in all subjects all of the
time. It seems to me that anyone who believes that this is the only way
people learn must be blind to reality. I know from my personal learning
and from teaching for nearly 30 years that there are many times when a
good old-fashioned directivist approach is a perfectly effective method
of teaching and learning. In fact I would say it is ridiculous to
propose that a constructivist approach can be used to acquire certain
knowledge, especially basics such as the alphabet, other symbols, names
of all sorts of things, and a myriad of simple and even complex facts.
I also believe it is only playing with semantics to declare that there
is no such thing as knowledge existing outside of the minds of
learners. I am not afraid to state that I agree with the summary of the
views of Objectivists in Roblyer (2003), “knowledge has a
separate, real existence of its own outside the human mind”.
That knowledge is written in textbooks, Journals, other printed
materials, on websites, CDROMS, floppy discs, other electronic media,
in graphics, on paintings, even etched or painted onto cave walls by
Cro-Magnon man. Constructionists would argue that this is only
information.
Whether a constructivist, directivist or other approach is used to
teach some “knowledge”, there is a pretty good
chance that the knowledge being taught and (hopeful) learned, has been
discovered by someone and has been written down in one or more forms so
that others may also come to “know” it. There is
also a pretty good chance that the person trying to teach that
knowledge, no matter what philosophy they now espouse, has gained a lot
of their own knowledge by some out-of-fashion, outdated, directivist
methods.
The sorts of things that are most suited to constructivist approaches
are those that involve skills or “doing” something
rather than just learning facts. It is unquestionably easier to learn
practical tasks while actually doing them. Mind you, being given clear
direction and help before, during and after the practical work greatly
helps in the acquisition of knowledge related to skills. Examples
include learning to drive a car, use measuring instruments, drawing,
cooking, sewing, typing, using html and other forms of programming. It
may be possible to acquire the knowledge of how to do these things by
having it transmitted to you in a directivist way, but you cannot
really prove you “know” unless you
“do” them. In doing them you construct the
knowledge and gain competence. By the same token, it is way more
efficient to learn such skills given some direction to start with.
It is clearly evident that there no one theory of epistemology or
learning will cover all situations or individuals. Molenda (1991)
observed that an either-or stance seems to gain us little. Sfard (1998)
also states that “one metaphor is not enough”
(p.10) to explain how all learning takes place.
Are
there dangers
associated with internet access?
One area that I appreciate is of concern in the use of the web for
teaching is the possibility of its misuse by students as well as
teachers. It is important that a school should have an efficient filter
system to reduce the likelihood of abuse of internet access.
Conclusions
Glenn M. Kleiman (2000) identified a number of
“myths” about use of technology in schools. His
first myth was “Putting computers into schools will directly
improve learning; more computers will result in greater
improvements.” Under this heading he states
“Computers are powerful and flexible tools that can enhance
teaching and learning in innumerable ways. However, the value of a
computer, like that of any tool, depends upon what purposes it serves
and how well it is used. Computers can be used in positive
ways—such as to help make learning more engaging, to better
address the needs of individual students, to provide access to a wealth
of information, and to encourage students to explore and create; or in
negative ways—such as to play mindless games, access
inappropriate materials, or isolate students.”
I concur whole heartedly with this statement. My feelings are that I
and other teachers should use the world wide web wisely. We must not
use it simply because it is there, or because the Ministry expects us
to, or because it shuts kids up. It must be used to help us achieve our
learning outcomes. This means we must be sure of the contents we choose
to expose the students to, as well as using appropriate methods of
teaching based on sound epistemology and theories of learning.
References
Kleiman, G. M. (2000). Myths and realities about technology in K-12
schools. In the Harvard Education Letter report, The digital classroom:
How technology is changing the way we teach and learn. Retrieved
October 17, 2005 from http://www.edletter.org/dc/kleiman.htm
Roblyer, M.D. (2003). Chapter 3: Learning Theories and Integration
Models, Integrating Education Technology into Teaching (3rd ed.) Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Molenda, M (1991). A philosophical critique on the claims of
“constructivism.” Educational Technology, 31(9),
44-48.
Sfard, A (1998). One-two metaphors for learning and the
dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.