EDUC 6711 Reflecition

As I reflect on my personal theory of learning that I began this course with, I find that many of my ideas are the same.  For example, I believe that my theory of learning and practice of instruction is ever-evolving.  Throughout the course, Dr. Orey has suggested that understanding learning means understanding what happens inside the mind, while understanding instruction is understanding how to manipulate the environment to best facilitate learning (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010b). What this course, Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology has taught me are means of manipulating the environment so that it is conducive to student learning. 


Additionally, however, I stand behind my initial assertion that students need to be interested and invested in a lesson to most effectively learn. I believe that a core portal to ensuring that students are learning is to invest them in the process so that they care.  Simply put, students need to care about a topic to truly learn it.  Or when thinking in terms of memory retrieval, students need to create multiple pathways to sync new information with pre-existing ideas.  Further, as teachers, we may be even more effective with student learning if we can create episodic memories tied to the knowledge being taught.  


One of the most dynamic differentiation I learned about in the course was the difference between instructional technology tools and learning technology tools.  Prior to this course, not understanding the essential differences between the two I would often assume that they were one in the same. However, as Dr. Orey presented in the vignette, instructional tools are way in which teacher use technology to present material whereas learning technology tools involves students use technology to learn the new material (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010).  Ultimately, the best scenario would have the instructional tools used by teachers to present the material, also used as part of the learning tools.  Creating PowerPoint presentations that involve dual coding or have the students actively engaged with the SmartBoard are just two ways Dr. Orey mentions using technology in a way that is meaningful to the learner (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010). 


My two main long-term goals with regard to technology integration in my classroom are 1) how to have students create PowerPoint presentations that are both meaningful to the student presenter but, also, to the student learners and 2) ensuring that the instructional technology tools that I use in my classroom are also learning technology tools for my students.  Certainly, my first goal is much more simplistic and attainable but perhaps my second goal is more important.  I often have students create PowerPoints as a jigsaw method of conveying research dense material, but sometimes these PowerPoints are less than effective for my other students watching the PowerPoint.  One strategy I might employ is creating rubrics containing expectations for each presentation which can include some learning tools therein.  My second goal will best be approached by being a careful consumer of instructional technology.  Just as I am cognizant to include lessons involving multiple modes or learning (visual, kinetically, and orally), I, too, need to ensure that my instructional methods double as learning tools for my students.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Program thirteen. Technology: Instructional tool vs. learning tool [Webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Program three. Instructional theory versus learning theory. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.