Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning is not a straight line, static activity, but rather a fluid, dynamic exploratory
process, that is cyclical in nature. Therefore, to facilitate this in a blended classroom, which
integrates online with traditional face-to-face class activities, the teacher must provide a safe,
engaging learning environment which is student-centered and places value on creativity,
exploration and promotes the development of an intrinsic motivation to learn.
Over the last few decades I have moved into a constructivist, student centered approach,
as it is a better fit with my own emerging philosophy of teaching and learning. As Anderson
(2008) states, constructivists see learners as active rather than passive. Knowledge is not
received from the outside or from someone else; rather, the individual learner interprets and
processes what is received through the senses to create knowledge. The learner is the centre of
the learning, with the instructor playing an advising and facilitating role. If I am to develop a
student centered learning environment, it is critical that students have input into the direction that
a course will take and that they play a role in determining how learning outcomes can be
achieved. This is an important factor in the way I design my units of study. I feel this ownership
enables students to become intrinsically motivated to produce their best work. One of Huangs
(2002) six guiding principles of design states that in order to develop ownership of the learning
process by learners, the learners themselves need to become invested in the process from the
planning stage onward. By allowing students to be involved in the process of developing the
course objectives and outcomes, they become personally invested in their coursework.
In the past creativity has not been given the value that it deserves, Robinson(2006), in his
TED talk argued that creativity is as important as literacy and should be treated with the same
status. In order to accommodate creativity in an online course, it is important that the teacher
take into account the type of interaction desired amongst the learners, which can determine the
level of creative freedom given to individuals within the framework of the course. This is an
important consideration as there are clear differences in the degree of individual freedom
between a class that is focused on collaboration and one one that is based on cooperation.
Downes (2010), makes a clear distinction between the two:
In the case of collaboration, diversity of aim or objective is not desired. While
individuals may engage in different activities, each is understood only in terms of the common
end or goal, as in the production of a car on an assembly line. In the case of cooperation, there is
no common element uniting the group; rather, each individual engages in a completely unique set
of interactions based on his or her own needs and preferences. In terms of freedom, it is my
belief that a cooperative network engenders greater freedom. (p.1)
I believe it is this greater freedom that will allow each student to put their own creative stamp on
the final product.
Students should be the focus of any learning environment. Gone are the days of the sage
on the stage, as teachers begin to develop new philosophies about education, as well as
classrooms that give students a voice and input into what their learning should look like. By
allowing students the autonomy to actively participate in all aspects of their education we begin
to foster deeper engagement and an intrinsic motivation to learn. Teachers and facilitators must
also begin to look at how the creative and non-traditional learners in their class can use their
unique gifts to provide evidence of their learning. Read and regurgitate based courses no longer
have a place in the modern, digital classroom, as there are far too many alternate methods by
which information can be disseminated and proof of learning communicated. Providing safe and
appropriate communication is vital in any learning environment, but it is important that clear
guidelines for appropriate use are explicitly stated at the onset of instruction. In order to create a
References
Anderson, T. 2008. The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. [e-book] Edmonton: AU Press.
pp. 91-111. Available through: http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook
99Z_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf [Accessed: 12 Jan
2014].
Bruckman Amy (1996). Finding One's Own in Cyberspace. Technology Review. "99(1), 48-54.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T, & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2:
87105
Kear, Karen Lesley. Online and Social Networking Communities: A Best Practice Guide for
Educators. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in student learning:outcome and
process'. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance
Education (AJDE), 3(2), 1-7.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by
increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169.
Robinson, K. (2006, June). How schools kill creativity. Retrieved from http://
www.ted.com/ talks/ ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (1999). Assessing social presence in
asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2)
Wellborn, J. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of
motivation in the academic domain. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Department of Psychology.