Collective Intelligence Activity

I contributed to the Collective Intelligence activity daily and I enjoyed seeing what my peers were contributing. I liked that this group activity was completely online and that we could contribute to it from any device if we needed to. I found myself drawn mostly to quotes, and images with quotes, so that is what I posted primarily. So it was nice to see other students sharing links to videos, word clouds, web pages, etc. A nice variety of information that helps to define, "What is Education?" was shared by all. 

I do think I could use an activity like this in the classroom. As an art teacher, I frequently have done an activity where my students had to explain, "What is Art?" I've done this activity with various grade levels, having students work either in pairs or in teams. They would work together to collect information and then create a presentation to share with the rest of the class what they considered 'Art' to be. I have never done that activity to include a group document, such as we did this week.

If I were to do this with art students, I think it would be a great way for all the students in the class to contribute for a number of days. Then they could still work in teams or in pairs and use the collective intelligence gathered to create their presentations. They could then add some additional technology for the purpose of sharing their information, perhaps using Prezi or PowToon to create a visual presentation for the whole class. 

This kind of activity ties in with what Bullock said about social interactions being used "to produce, co-operate, and collaborate" in ways that weren't really possible before. Students could work together in the past, but they usually had to be in the same room to do so. In an online format like this, students could technically be anywhere in the world and still be working together on a project or assignment. Wouldn't it be fun to coordinate with a teacher on the other side of the world to do a collaborative activity between classrooms? I think it would be.

Additionally, as Ilon says, a collective intelligence activity such as this would allow information to flow, change, and adapt as it's collected. Students can be acquiring new perspectives and bits of information all the time, which can change the way they look at a subject and give it new meaning. Whereas if they were working alone, they might focus on a single viewpoint and be limited in what they know and learn by that singularity of focus. 

I also think that this type of activity could be included as part of a PLE, allowing students to self-direct in looking for sources of information. And this would be a good way for them to learn how to sharpen their skills in "information fluency," so that they can better learn to differentiate fact from opinion when using a variety of sources.

RP4 Collective Intelligence and PLE

Collective Intelligence: What it Could Mean for Education, by Shawn Bullock, Ph.D.

In this article, Bullock argues that traditionally teachers teach the way that they were taught, according to familiar patterns termed as the "grammar of schooling," according to Tyack and Tobin. Bullock contends, however that Web 2.0 digital technologies "have the potential to drive educational reform in powerful ways." He further states that Web 2.0 technologies have created a major social innovation that allows people of all ages to "produce, co-operate, and collaborate" in ways that were never really possible before.  Bullock shares Shirky's idea that there are four types of social interactions in use with Web 2.0: Sharing, Cooperation, Collective Production, and Collective Action; and that these four types can be thought of as collective intelligence. Bullock also emphasizes the idea that teacher educators should be transitioning from the traditional "transmission-oriented approaches to teaching" to using digital technologies that can contribute to collective intelligence. He feels that Web 2.0 technologies can help enhance learner motivation to work together to solve common problems and act "collectively in an intelligent fashion." And Bullock also feels that educators should take full advantage of the "natural human impulse to create and share." 

My Thoughts: I whole-hardheartedly agree with Bullock with regard to the "grammar of schooling" and how educators tend to teach as they were taught, and that these patterns of teaching are very much resistant to change. I also fully agree with his assertion that Web 2.0 technologies have the potential to "drive educational reform in powerful ways." If we can take advantage of the nature of humans to create and share, and utilize the four most common types of social interactions (thought of as 'collective intelligence') as teachers and learners using Web 2.0, then we can quite possibly affect education in many positive ways. 

How Collective Intelligence Redefines Education, by Lynn Ilon

Ilon's article compares and contrasts the traditional, formal education system with collective intelligence systems. First Ilon describes our traditional formal education system and its beginning with the Industrial Revolution. Also, Ilon describes how the values at the time were that teachers had vetted knowledge that was taught in a top-down management system. These educational systems are viewed as systems that must be government-controlled for maximum societal benefit. These systems also view knowledge as "an established, known entity" that can be "found, mastered, and tested;" and where knowledge mastery is the ultimate goal. Within this view, knowledge is seen as something that is static and it grows by building on accumulated expertise. This all contrasts with a collective intelligence system, in which knowledge flows rather than grows; and in which the system "builds knowledge in real time, so knowledge changes rapidly," and it has an open system for collecting knowledge. With a collective intelligence system, the "process of building knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself." The point is made also that traditional schooling systems are highly focused on efficiency--whether it be financial or time-constrained. Whereas the collective intelligence system would measure efficiency with its flow.

In the second part of her article, Ilon talks about the structure of formal schooling compared to a collective intelligence system. Here, Ilon describes collective systems as the "process by which they create knowledge - learning." These collective intelligence systems are about a systematic flow of knowledge, rather than about the knowledge itself and it being known and imparted by a single person. There is no final person--instead, knowledge is combined and builds a complex, dynamic, and adaptive system, and each person has some of the necessary information and has "the skill to work collectively." It is noted also that collective intelligence can also handle a rapid change of knowledge, and that no knowledge is finite. In the final part of Ilon's article, she makes a comparison between industrial economics and knowledge economics and notes that traditional formal education systems cannot adapt because of the lack of understanding of the "new economic logic."

Ilon concludes her article with the idea that formal schooling fails to integrate collective intelligence due to "system controls which served a particular economic system," even though that system is continuing to fade in its influence. She also notes that formal schooling will not likely ever go away because young children still need basic skills. However, Ilon feels that those basic skills should be rethought with a focus on learning skills, rather than on static skills. She also feels that, in time and due to necessity, formal school will integrate collective intelligence, because of "its sheer superiority in producing people who are good learners, innovators and collective thinkers."

My Thoughts: As a student and as a parent, I have long thought that education in America is sorely out of sync with the global and interconnected nature of society. Education has evolved at an ancient snail's pace, in my opinion, and it functions more as a product of habit and culture from days gone by than for relevant, contemporary need. Ilon's comparison of our traditional, formal education system with collective intelligence systems provided me with an insightful perspective on where we were in education and where we really need to go. I definitely feel that our traditional system needs to integrate the collective intelligence systems, wherein knowledge can flow, change, and adapt, and where everyone works collectively--and where the process of building knowledge is equally as important as the knowledge itself.

7 Things You Should Know about Personal Learning Environments (Educause)

This article first describes PLE's as the things a learner uses to "direct their own learning and pursue educational goals." It also compares a PLE with an LMS (Learning Management System) and notes that an LMS is course-centered, whereas a PLE is learner-centered. Basically, a PLE refers to an idea of how an individual approaches learning. The article conveys how many institutions and students around the world are using PLEs as "tools for discovery" and "in an effort to expand their learning experiences beyond campus boundaries." It is also noted that it is a true PLE when resource integration begins to include "the work and the voice of others as readily as a student's own critical reflection and scholarly work." PLEs are different than traditional learning environments in that they draw connections between resources that learners select and organize themselves. Students are much more in charge of their learning process in this context, and they can use tools to help them learn that they know will help them learn best. The article also shares the downsides of PLEs, including disappearing data, a need for disciplined self-direction and self-awareness, and the potential for a lack of information fluency in students. The article also notes that the PLE is a result of the evolution of Web 2.0 and that it is "likely to become a fixture in educational theory." And finally, it is noted that the PLE changes the role of resources in in teaching and learning, and the necessity for students in changing from simply collecting information to also making connections to it, sharing it, and also collaborating in it. Additionally, PLEs may create a much larger emphasis on metacognition in learning. 

My Thoughts: I like that a PLE can allow students to self-direct in a way that works best for them, and that it gives them much more autonomy over their learning. I can also see the benefits of incorporating a PLE at various grade levels, particularly in helping students to learn to more more collaboratively. I also agree with the downsides, particularly that a PLE can necessitate a strong measure of self-discipline and self-awareness, and that students will need to sharpen their skills in being able to differentiate between fact and opinion ('information fluency') when collecting information from a wide variety of resources. 

PLE Example Video by a 7th Grade Student

This video was created by a 7th grade science student about the Personal Learning Environment that she created. In the video, the student talks about how she was learning about network planning, and about how she spent time at the beginning of the year researching how to find information online and pull it all together on a personal web page. The student said she loves learning via a PLE because it allows her more freedom to choose how she completes learning tasks and when she will do them. She also said that even though she has so much online freedom to do her work, which has the potential to be distracting, she instead feels much more inclined to be responsible. She also likes that most of her work is paperless, and so she hardly ever needs to have a pencil for class. Examples of resources and technology the student uses in class include Google Docs, a blog, Evernote, Glogster, and Skype.

My Thoughts: I loved hearing from a student first-hand what her experience has been like using a PLE in a K-12 classroom environment. It was interesting to see how the student began her day in her science class with their science agenda page, which allowed the student to view assignments, and then either be directed into the learning tasks of the day, or provide her with more autonomy to choose her activities for that day. This PLE seems really beneficial and a positive experience for this student, as it allows her some independence, while also providing her with some structure for learning tasks. I would love to be able to sit in on this classroom and observe how all the students individually approach and handle their PLE, and see first hand to what extent it is a positive experience for each of them.

Reflection

Collective Intelligence Systems seem to be a logical step toward a more effective learning environment in this digital age, and a necessary step in transforming our aged transmission-oriented approach to teaching. We need to take advantage of the natural tendency for humans to want to share and create and work together to solve problems. As Bullock said, by utilizing Web 2.0 technologies, we can "drive education reform in powerful ways." The benefits for our students and for their future may be just as powerful as a result.

As noted by Ilon, our education system was created with the Industrial Revolution, when knowledge was considered as simply a thing, rather than a way. It was delivered using a top-down management system as a "known entity" that had to be "found, mastered, and tested;" and where knowledge mastery is really the only goal. This outdated formal schooling system discounts knowledge that flows, changes rapidly or adapts or that is anything but finite and delivered by a single person or source. With a collective intelligence system, the "process of building knowledge is as important as the knowledge itself." And shouldn't it be?! In an age where information is be shared and updated from a variety of sources in real time, shouldn't education be doing the same? Learning shouldn't be just about regurgitating facts and figures as a product of societal and educational habit rather than of actual need. Education should be about creating "good learners, innovators, and collective thinkers," in an environment that values the process of building knowledge as much as the knowledge itself.

I think that Personal Learning Environments are a strong example of how effective a collective intelligence system can be. A PLE allows a learner to help construct knowledge in a collaborative and more autonomous environment. As noted in the Educause article, true PLE is learner-centered and will  have the learner integrate resources to include the "work and voice of others" as readily as they do their own. In a PLE students are selecting and organizing their own resources and they're making connections between these resources in the ways that they know they learn best. There are downsides to a PLE too, particularly the need for self-discipline and "information fluency." But these skills may be acquired and/or improve over time with the continued use of a PLE. Students may even enjoy the process of learning more due to the increased freedom it provides, as evidenced in the video created by the 7th grade science student. 

In my opinion, the main connection between these articles and video is an emphasis on a more collaborative and varied learning environment that is still learner-centered and focuses on student success; but also one that capitalizes on the nature and structure of knowledge in our technology-filled information age. They are about improving learner achievement, while also recognizing that achievement isn't only about viewing knowledge as simply a thing: it is also a way. And since knowledge and information today are available from so many resources (rather than just from a teacher and a textbook), and since they change so rapidly, education needs to adapt and evolve so as to capitalize on the constant stream and diversity of that knowledge.

 

Using Constructivism and Technology to Teach Art

I am an art teacher, and when you get right down to it, I have used Constructivism to teach many art lessons. I can't honestly say that I have purposely done this, but in my ten years of teaching experience--along with my continued pursuit of higher education wherein I've learned much about learning theory--I can see that Constructivism has played a large role in my teaching, whether I knew it at the time or not. 

Teaching art is very often open-ended, collaborative, and relevant in some way to a student's life or experiences. Most art teachers plan a good portion of their lessons with these things in mind. Because no matter what skills or concepts we may be teaching, we are usually hoping that the students will have experiences and make projects that are personally meaningful. That is what helps to engage them and motivate them more as well. This week's readings have made me more aware of the kinds of lessons I want to teach, and how important it is for me to consciously use the Constructivist model of learning with my students in the future.

With that in mind, I began to search for an appropriate exemplary lesson for this weeks' activity. The lesson that I found for Using Constructivism and Technology to Teach Art is on the Concept to Classroom website at Thirteen.org. It is part of their workshop on Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning. It is a Middle School lesson on Tessellations and it can be found at the following link:

Shape Shifters: A Constructivist Unit on Tessellations

It is actually a three-part lesson unit. I've converted the lesson into a PDF that you can download here:

Shape Shifters: A Constructivist Unit on Tessllations PDF Download

This unit is very comprehensive and includes many web links and resources, and it was too long to be included here in the blog post. So I will simply summarize why I feel it is exemplary, constructivist, and equitable. 

This unit is Constructivist because it was created specifically using the elements of the Constructivist model of learning. Rather than simply being told the definition of tessellations, the lesson is structured to allow students to discover its meaning and the concept through teacher-guided activities. The teacher is there to facilitate learning, but is not giving typical direct instruction through carefully planned steps. The students then examine a problem through various perspectives, which encourage them to draw on prior insights and experiences with hands-on experience. Then the class must work together collaboratively in groups to solve a problem using their acquired knowledge and understanding of tessellations. All of these are essential elements of a constructivist learning environment.

This unit is Exemplary because of the way it integrates Constructivism, as well as Technology, Math, and Art within its lessons. It is a multifaceted unit that provides experiences that are beneficial to a variety of learning styles, therefore it is also hitting on Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. Additionally, it reaches multiple levels of Lori Anderson's revised Bloom's Taxonomy (which I prefer because it is in verb form): Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating). 

And this unit is Equitable because all the students have access to the same technology resources. It also allows the students to work together to exchange ideas and knowledge, in order to take their academic learning and utilize it to solve a real world problem. Students are also very active in their learning, rather than passive--they are designing, creating and sharing content that is relevant. They are also provided with multiple kinds of activities to help them produce personally meaningful content, and motivate them to explore new means of using technology. Lastly, the students also have the teacher there as a support system and mentor while completing their activities.

I have taught tessellations at various grade levels in art, but never in this way. I do hope to be able to use this constructivist lesson though at some point in the future.

RP3 Learning with Technology and Constructivism

This week's readings were designed to help us decide if technology makes a difference in the learning process, and whether or not Constructivism underlies best practices in educational technology.

Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, by Richard E. Clark

Mr. Clark's basic tenet is stated quite clearly in one of his opening paragraphs: that is, "that media do not influence learning under any conditions." He goes on to state that incidents that caused changes in student achievement or ability is actually caused by a curricular reform, rather than by any media that accompanied the change. Clark further states that media are nothing more than vehicles for delivering instruction, "but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition." 

Clark boldly asserts that after five decades of research on media comparisons, that there are "no learning benefits to be gained by employing different media in instruction." He argues that it is actually the relevant and crucial cognitive process features--translated in a symbol system and delivered via a convenient medium--that are necessary for learning or successful performance of tasks. He proposes that "it is therefore not the medium or the symbol system that yields the required performance. When a chosen symbol system is shaped to represent the critical features of the task and other things are equal, learning will occur."

My Thoughts: Clark's research and theory are from the digital dinosaur age, and in my opinion are too outdated to be relevant. Educational Technology (and technology in general) is vastly different right now than it was even 16 years ago at the turn of the century--let alone how it was 33 years ago when Clark's original article was written. Clark's evidence and resources also seem rather biased, so they do little for me in the way of supporting his claims. While I would agree that using media/technology to deliver instruction does not ensure learning and success for all students all the time, and that there can be other factors in play that help determine student achievement, that doesn't necessarily disprove that technology can indeed influence student learning.

 

Learning with Media, by Robert B. Kozma

Kozma's 1991 article is a response to Clark's. In it, Kozma first defines media, and then examines theories and research on learning from books, television, computers and multimedia environments. Clark examines each medium, the instructional designs that take advantage of them, and the characteristics of learners and learning tasks relevant to each.

Kozma states that "whether or not a medium's capabilities make a difference in learning depends on how they correspond to the particular learning situation--the tasks and learners involved--and the way the medium's capabilities are used by the instructional design." Kozma views learning with media as a "continuous, reciprocal interaction between person and situation--between learner and mediated information." He contends that little research has been done on learning in a multimedia environment, but that the advantages of using a combination of each type of the individual media already researched can be brought together and "strategically used to facilitate learning." He also notes that most media research for the past 30+ years has been on the impact of one medium vs. another, when the focus should really be on how to effectively learn WITH media.

With regard to Clark, Kozma concedes that some students will indeed learn regardless of delivery device. However, his research indicates that some students will be able to "take advantage of a particular medium's characteristics to help construct knowledge." He concludes that many instructional methods are effective in large part due to a particular medium's ability to "complement the learner's prior knowledge and cognitive skills." And, unlike Clark, Kozma feels strongly that further research is necessary to help further understanding of the relationship between media capabilities and learning.

My Thoughts: Kozma's research seems less biased and more accurate. I like that he acknowledges that media isn't necessarily going to improve learning for every student in every situation. But he gives much evidence for the benefits of the various types of media (or a combination thereof) for potential improved student achievement. He explains and cites evidence for each type of media, the instructional designs that take advantage of them, and the characteristics of the learners and learning tasks. In doing so, in my opinion, he effectively demonstrates the effects of learning with the different media. Additionally, he notes that because of the ever-evolving nature of technology, that more research is needed; and he notes that our focus shouldn't really be on the debate about whether or not teaching with media is effective. Rather, our focus should be on how to more effectively utilize media within instruction to improve student achievement. 

Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design, by David H. Jonassen

In this 1994 article, Jonassen first explains Constructivist theory--which states that learners construct their own reality based on their perceptions and experiences, so "an individual's knowledge is a function of one's prior experiences, mental structures, and beliefs that are used to interpret objects and events." Jonassen talks about the difficulty in designing constructivist instruction, and "trying to determine what guidelines might exist in a constructivist design model." Also noted is that with Constructivism, there is a focus on knowledge construction, not reproduction, with authentic tasks and reflective practice, rather that "predetermined instructional sequences." The article also points out the primary difference between Constructivist and Objectivist approaches to instruction design: that is, the distinction between instruction and learning. Instructional design focuses on instruction with a predetermined outcome; Constructivism believes that learning outcomes shouldn't be predictable, and that "instruction" should foster rather than control the learner's process. In the Constructivist model there is much collaboration and "social negotiation" between learners, and the instructor is more of a mentor or facilitator, rather than an expert of "purveyor of knowledge." The conclusion is that both Objectivist and Constructivist models are useful and effective, but in different contexts.

My thoughts: I like this particular learning model and agree that it can be an effective way to improve learning. I think it is just like anything else where instruction is concerned: different contexts and learning goals can benefit from different methods of instruction. As an art teacher, I think Constructivism can be utilized a lot, especially when the focus is on the process, rather than on the product. Sometimes art lessons have very specific learning outcomes in mind, while other times they are much more open-ended. And I often feel that I am much more of a facilitator or mentor, rather than as someone who is just purveying knowledge.

Redefining Equity: Meaningful Uses of Technology in Learning Environments, by Robbin Chapman

Chapman first discusses in her article the need for equitable and meaningful access to technology. She discusses the common notion that the "Digital Divide is a manifestation of social inequities, which results in limited or denied access to digital resources." However her clearer focus is on the question of whether "equal access to educational technologies, in and of itself, will benefit all learners." Chapman suggests that a much broader definition of "equity" is necessary, one that includes meaningful use of these tools by all learners. She further states that "meaningful use describes a learner who is not a passive consumer of technology, but an active user, designing, creating, and sharing content that is culturally relevant" to them. Chapman also notes that there are three important aspects of what is considered meaningful use.

• The learner's motivation to produce personally meaningful content.
• Activities that motivate users to explore new means of expression through technology.
• The incorporation of a support system within their learning environment.

All of these things, according to Chapman, are a part of the Constructivist model of learning, which can be effective in combination with Community Technology Centers and/or Computer Clubhouse models. Chapman concludes that equity goes hand in hand with meaningful use of technology, and that both are particularly suited the to Constructivist model of learning, which is also very adaptable to a variety of learning styles.

My thoughts: It seems evident that meaningful use of technology is the key in creating true equity, and that equity and meaningful use of technology are very well suited to Constructivism. Learners can be much more successful when they feel that content is personally relevant and meaningful to them. Learners can also be more successful when they are allowed to explore new means of expression and collaborate in social environments, and when they are working with a strong support system in their learning environments. And these are all key components of Constructivism. 

Reflection

If we are to believe Mr. Clark, we really should simply disregard technology all together within the classroom because, according to him, it has no influence on learning under any circumstances. Mr. Kozma, on the other hand, believes that technology can and often does influence learning--but that it depends upon the context. He also seems to concede that even though technology can be effective in learning, it is not necessarily beneficial in every class or situation. Kozma also feels that we should focus on how to use media more effectively, rather than continuing to debate whether or not it actually is.

Constructivism is explained by Jonassen as a model wherein knowledge is facilitated by instructors but constructed by students, rather than reproduced, and based on their prior knowledge and experiences, mental structures, and beliefs. There is no predetermined outcome in Constructivism, and there is much social collaboration and communication between learners, while the instructor acts as more of a mentor. This seems to tie in very well with Chapman's notions of equity and and meaningful access to technology. In Chapman's model, the learners are also motivated by personally meaningful content; they are encouraged to explore new means of expression in a community center, and there is a strong support system incorporated into their environment. So there are many similarities between Constructivism and Chapman's community model of learning with technology.

I think the main connection between all of these theories and research is that there is not a one-size-fits-all-model of effective instruction. What works in come contexts and circumstances will not necessarily work in all, and what works for some students will not necessarily be effective for others. Additionally, it seems clear to me that technology can be very effective in improving student learning when it is equitable, meaningful, and personally relevant to the learner. What it comes down to is active and meaningful engagement and participation of learners, rather than passive observation. And, like Kozma, I think that continued research is important, considering the ever-evolving technological world in which we live.

I just want to add a helpful resource that I found on effectively using Constructivism in the classroom. It has lots of relevant information and explanation, demonstration, videos, resources, lesson plans and more.

Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning

RP2 MOOCs and edX

Since I have just completed the edX Demo course and have read several articles on MOOCs, I feel like I have a very good idea about these types of online learning programs work. The edX Demo course was interesting and provided a good first-hand experience with a MOOC learning environment.  I think there are several pros and cons to these types of programs, based on the edX experience and on information I've read.

One pro to a MOOC, as was pointed out in the Educause video (MOOCs), MOOCs are a means of creating connectedness between content and learners on a global scale. It allows people all over the world to connect and collaborate--to connect people and information, and to connect the workplace, higher education, and lifelong learning.

Another important pro to MOOCs would be the access to a much broader range of content than students might otherwise get. A student's local school/college may not offer every class the student wants, so a MOOC environment could very well open up so many more class options than their local school could offer.

Yet another pro would be the affordability factor, if MOOCs remain as free courses. This widespread availability to people of all income levels could provide a means to acquire a vast array of knowledge and skills that some people might not otherwise have access to. As pointed out by Adrien Basdevant in the article, Will the future of Education be Online, Open and Massive?, MOOCs "arrive at a time when dissatisfaction with the way the courses are taught in higher education is growing. The cost of education is going up, the quality is not really increasing, and all the while dropout rates are climbing." Cost is very much a factor that prevents many people from pursuing higher education. MOOCs, if they remain free, can bring higher education and lifelong learning to a virtually unlimited number of people.

Additionally, I think Basdevant was spot on also when he stated that digital learning can deliver a more "relevant, personalized experience" both online and offline. And that it's possible that MOOCs can provide a way of educating that are much closer to what the current generation knows, "which is a more connected and mobile world."

Basdevant also pointed out some of the main cons and drawbacks of MOOCs. He noted the possibility of cheating and the feasibility of grading. I agree that those would be two main concerns for any online course. Another inherant challenge would be with regard to interaction and feedback, which isn't really the same in an online learning environment as it is in face-to-face classroom environments. 

Another con to MOOCs would be with regard to equity of access to technology. Not everyone, even in this digital age, can afford a computer or tablet. Not everyone has high speed internet access or the hardware and/or software necessary to take online classes. The "digital divide" is a problem not only for higher education, but for our public school children as well. MOOCs can only be beneficial to those students/people who have access to them. Deborah McCallum talks about this type of "academic disparity and inequality" in her 2013 article, Technology in Education : BYOD & Equitable Access. McCallum notes that, "Unfair advantages will lead to an increase in the digital divide and to uneven competencies in digital citizenship and literacy." So this would definitely be a concern for the future of online learning.

I also read some interesting remarks about MOOCs from Kio Stark, in an article on BrainPickings.org, written by Maria Popova entitled, Don't Go Back to School: How to Fuel the Internal Engine of Learning. In that article, Stark critiques MOOCs for attempting to replicate the offline experience online. She feels that what MOOCs should be doing instead is building a new model for learning. Stark states that MOOCS are "designed to put teaching online, and that is their mistake. Instead they should start putting learning online. The innovation of MOOCs is to detach the act of teaching from physical classrooms and tuition-based enrollment. But what they should be working toward is much more radical — detaching learning from the linear processes of school." Starks other comments about how to be effective independent learners gave me more food for thought about the potential effectiveness of MOOCs.

After reading much about this topic, I personally do not feel that MOOCs or other similar types of online learning are the end-all-be-all future of education. I do think they can play a meaningful and important role in how students learn in the future--and in how teachers ultimately teach. I think more than anything else they can benefit learners by providing them with free, or at least (hopefully) affordable options for continued education. They can also provide them with a connectedness with a much broader range and type of information and with other learners across the globe. They could certainly make their way into K-12 classrooms at some point too, either as full classes, or just as alternatives to classes that students can't fit into their regular schedules at school.

However, the effectiveness of MOOCs isn't going to be determined solely by easy access or affordability, or by how connected it may make its students. It may actually rely much more on each individual's internal desire to learn and to keep learning, and how each individual defines effective pedagogy.

While there are some drawbacks to MOOCs, I think that overall they can be a powerful tool for educating and enriching the lives of all age ranges of students, and help to create generations of lifelong learners. But that isn't to say that every single student or learner will benefit from MOOCs. What works for some doesn't necessarily work for others. This is as true for MOOCs as it is for any other type of instruction.

RP1 - Digital Natives Digital Immigrants

Are students today fundamentally different than students in the past?

My Original Answer

I feel that students today are fundamentally different than students in the past. Students today have grown up in the digital age, where all types of information are available to them immediately and in a multitude of ways. And students have access to all of this information literally at their fingertips, with a tap or a swipe or click. Whether it is via social media like Facebook or Twitter, or via Google, or just simply through texting between friends and family, students today have access to more information, in more ways, and in real time, than ever before in history. As a result, the way students view and interpret information would seem to be fundamentally different too.

My Revised Answerd, After Reading Both Articles

After reading Prensky's article and DT Quinn's blog post response, I still feel that students are fundamentally different. I feel this because of the reasons I already stated: so many types of information are available to them, in such a variety of forms, and immediately--at their fingertips. In my opinion, this would seem to greatly affect the way that students of today view and interpret information compared to students of the past.  And as Prensky stated (Paragraph 3), "today's students...are the first to grow up with this new technology." It surrounds them all the time as "Digital Natives," which is very different than how their "Digital Immigrants" counterparts grew up.

Additionally (Paragraph 5), Prensky notes that as a result of growing up in a digital environment, the experience of today's students leads to different brain structures that make them think and process information fundamentally different from their predecessors.

As Quinn also noted (Paragraph 4), "attention spans decrease and 'twitch speeds' increase as humans are exposed to digital media.' In my opinion, this has to affect--at least some of the time--how today's students view and interpret/assimilate new information. Conversely, Quinn also notes in the same paragraph that humans do engage 'with TV, internet, and games for unhealthily protracted durations.' So this would demonstrate that even though attention spans may be shorter for many students, they are also still capable of focusing for long periods, given the proper motivation. 

I agree with what Quinn said (Paragraph 6) with regard to Prensky's thoughts on 'Future Content.' Future Content is primarily going to be digital and technological, but it will also continue to include things like ethics, sociology, politics, languages, etc. And "this is very much an argument for the 'repurposing or remastering' of old or existing learning."

I think Quinn's final statements (Paragraph 8) say it best: "This is our current and future reality. Using technological tools or media changes the way we do things, but core human needs, activities and behaviours persist. Education must change how it does its business, whilst preserving, repurposing and remastering the best of what it has always done. A user-determinist approach is still appropriate – we are still in charge and pedagogy should always drive technology. Users (both lecturers and students) still make choices about how (or how not) to use technology"

What that says to me is that using technological tools may change how we do things as educators (and as students); however, educators must still find ways to preserve and repurpose what has worked in the past to meet the needs of today's digital learners. WE can control what we teach and how we teach it so that we can be as effective as possible as teachers. We have choices as teachers, as do today's students.

There's a good article here  that I found on this topic as well:

RECONSIDERING DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS