My Personal Learning Theory Experiences: Taking it to the next level.

Feedback provided to me was very positive and constructive. During this process, I completely changed my theory of personal learning, growing as a student and advocate of improving instructional approaches. As pointed out in my paper, “The “maker movement emphasizes learning through direct experiences, hands-on projects, inventions, and is based on a constructionist learning theory even if members and advocates of the movement are unaware of the theory” (Stager, 2013). As a member and advocate of the maker movement, I realize that the above statement summarizes my personal approach to learning theory. All constructionists embrace constructivism. However, constructionism approaches extend to include a larger social element, highlighting the importance of creation via learning artifacts within an extended community. After improving my understanding of constructionism approaches, I revamped my theory of personal learning and located many articles and studies to learn more about constructionism research approaches. Feedback stressed what I already knew to be an issue, proofing. Considering that I revamped my theory of personal learning completely, I recognize that time spent towards proofing would improve the overall quality of my product. However, instructors also complimented me on the overall paper, which really surprised me and has motivated me to continue and press on. Task two has led me to continue my research towards constructionism approaches, as I have located over 25 articles and research studies surrounding constructionism studies. I have begun condensing my paper. In addition, I plan to include a wider perspective to include research giants of constructivists and constructionism, instead of only emphasizing Piaget and Papert. Also, it was suggested that I should quote the source of important contributions to the constructivist and constructionism field instead of quoting from articles reviewed. For example, I quoted an article that mentioned John Dewey’s personal theory of learning. I have now read John Dewey’s own writings and contributions, which provides legitimacy. Our final major task towards completing CECS 6100 includes creating a research proposal. I plan on utilizing materials from my experiences in CECS 6100 to conduct a study that focuses on constructionism approaches with teachers to compare STEAM (science, technology, engineering, the arts, and mathematics) professional development delivered via a MOOC and face to face. Materials I am developing are very relevant to my real world professional experiences at this time.

ImageImage

 

Stager, G. S. (2013). Papert’s Prison Fab Lab : Implications for the maker movement and education design, 487–490.

Advertisements

About instructionaltechnologist101

Instructional Technologist 1 to 1, Avid change agent, Mac Enthusiastic, Implemented K12 1:1 program, managed offsite curriculum center in community museum, learner, PhD student in Educational Technology at University of North Texas. The future is now! www.why-steam.com

Posted on April 6, 2014, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: