Susan Davies

Spring 2018
EDTECH 592
Reflection/Research Paper

Lifelong Learning Lessons

“Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.”

― Albert Einstein

Introduction

In the history of education, online teaching is relatively new. My experience in online

teaching is also relatively new. Though I have been teaching in one form or another for the past

30 years, my current position as an online high school math teacher motivated me to search for a

master’s degree that would complement both online teaching and math education. My studies at

Boise State University have opened up new horizons for me as a teacher. The relevant content

and fresh research, as well as the modeling of the instructors and the courses, have inspired me to

dig deeper into what is possible, rather than to accept the status quo. BSU’s Master’s in

Educational Technology (MET) program has given me tools to create a more accessible and

equitable path through learning for my students and for myself.

Lesson One: Reflections on Learning

The way I was taught to learn and the way I was taught to teach, both differ from the way

I learned in the MET program. Previously, I was following an “instructivist” model (Larson &

Lockerbee, 2014, p. 68), but now I try to follow a more holistic approach. I understand now that

using behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, connectivism and other theories helps me

provide richer learning experiences for my students. I agree that “…the more learning theory

tools you have in your toolbox, the better equipped you’ll be to design instruction that meets the

1
needs of learners who differ with respect to motivations, prior knowledge and intellectual

capabilities” (Larson & Lockerbee, 2014, p. 78).

In the MET program, I chose projects that were relevant, meaningful and authentic, as

well as suitable to my needs as an educator and the needs of my current students. I realized that

my students need and deserve the same affordance. Malcolm Knowles, in his assumptions for

adult learners, states that in teaching adults, we need to recognize their need for “self-directed”

learning (Knowles, 1980, p. 45). High school students should have the same consideration.

Most of the projects I created in the MET program were designed to provide a road map for

student learning, but left room for student voice and choice.

I developed a math lab course that gives students a chance to fill in their gaps and build

their confidence. They work with me to move at their own pace. I am able to apply the

cognitive load theory (Larson & Lockerbee, 2014, p. 80) and respect where students are, without

overwhelming them and causing them to shut down.

In addition to student autonomy, I also now strive for mastery in my math classes. Even

though it has been part of traditional schooling, “when schools are passing students along and

graduating them with major gaps in skills and knowledge, they are doing them a disservice”

(Patrick et al., 2017, p. 3). For math especially, using technology to personalize learning for

students helps them feel empowered, self-reliant and more likely to master the skills they will

need to be successful in future jobs.

In the past, we have been quick to blame our students for their lack of motivation and

engagement. And in an online setting, engagement is crucial. Now that I understand more about

how we learn, I find myself looking at what I am asking them to do. Is it relevant? Is it

meaningful? Is it clear to them why they need to learn this? We are hardwired to learn and

2
“when the SEEKING system is engaged and fueled by dopamine release, we are encouraged to

forage, explore, and investigate with curiosity, interest, and expectancy” (Gregory & Kaufeldt,

2015, p.49).

Because of my classes in the MET program, I am questioning and modifying my

approach to make it more inherently motivating. I need to create meaningful learning

experiences that will activate their natural desire to learn and not just expect them to be able

memorize facts for a test or put in the time in my class. Learning needs to be more meaningful,

“so it is no longer functional to define education as a process of transmitting what is known; it

must now be defined as a lifelong process of continuing inquiry. And so the most important

learning of all—for both children and adults—is learning how to learn, the skills of self-directed

inquiry” (Knowles, 1980, p. 41). My end goal is to help my students develop the tools for

lifelong learning.

Lesson Two: The Art & Science of Teaching

Social constructivist theory and specifically situated learning theory have provided me a

more comprehensive way to view and practice the art and science of teaching. “In such a

technology-driven world, it is critical and timely to study the intersection of learning theory and

technology” (Harasim, 2000, p. 2), and this intersection is critical in the online environment.

Instead of just focusing on behaviors or knowledge, I am more focused now on the context and

how learning gets used and applied. I am analyzing what I am asking my students to learn and

why. I am more focused on learning, rather than on just teaching.

Because of this focus, I serve my students learning needs better as a coach. I am trying to

implement “…a process of facilitating self-directed learning and a redefinition of the role of

teacher as a facilitator of self-directed learning and resource to self-directed learners” (Knowles,

3
1980, p. 19). I plan to develop and use technology tools to deliver just in time, personalized

instruction for students. Dennen and Burner (2008) detail two challenges for those who research

and develop technological supports: “to develop guiding principles of providing computer-

supported cognitive apprenticeships…, and to develop programs that are sufficiently able to

address learners’ individual needs and provide appropriate supports at the right moments” (p.

436). For EdTech 523, I developed a math lab course that uses Khan Academy. This program

addresses individual needs and provides just-in-time supports in the form of short videos and

tutorials, embedded in with the practice problems. Students can move quickly through mastered

skills and they can spend more time on new skills. The longer students work in this environment,

the more I see them take responsibility for their own learning, which I hope transfers to lifelong

learning.

Because of this experience, I am convinced that we should be providing special education

type facilitation for every one of our students. As I have attended webinars and done internet

research beyond my MET courses, I have found numerous schools who are offering that model

to all their students. I like the idea of having advisors, who work weekly or daily with students

to help them plan their learning and meet their learning goals. And just like with my math lab

course, technology can support the goal of personalized learning and make it a reality for all

students.

In addition, learning should be “within social contexts, with realistic tasks and with the

learner being guided by experts as partners” (Gessler, 2009, p. 1618). This has led me to

embrace project based learning and to find ways to make the application of learning more

relevant and authentic. I believe that “educators, then, must either help embed learners in

supportive authentic contexts, or create quasi-authentic contexts in which they can ‘do’ the

4
knowledge that is desired; mere regurgitation is not enough” (Hoadley, 2012, p. 289). These

ideas were the impetus for my geometry project to design and build a tiny house model. In the

future, I would like to expand that project even further by involving the science and social

studies teachers. This would then lend itself to a cross-curricular, “quasi-authentic’ context

which would support student learning on multiple levels. I have more enthusiasm for facilitating

this type of learning.

The art and science of teaching and learning are best supported in the mix of learning

theory, technology and teaching practice. It is the harmony of these components that facilitates

authentic learning in students of all ages. When my students leave high school, they may not

remember all the math formulas they have used. What they may remember was learning

SketchUp (on their own), to complete either a floor plan or a 3D model for their geometry

course. In this case, I provided guidelines and resources for their learning, but I did not “teach”

them in the traditional sense. When my students find themselves in a job that requires new

knowledge and skills, they will be able to transfer what they learned from their high school

projects into new learning. I now see “…the concept of lifelong learning as the organizing

principle for all of education” (Knowles, 1980, p. 19).

Lesson Three: The Design and Evaluation of Instruction

One of the best things about the MET program has been designing new courses that I

have been able to use in my current online school environment. I have learned that “in a

grounded instructional design, the foundational assumptions about learning are reflected in the

organization of the instruction, the teaching and learning strategies used, and the technology

selections” (Larson & Lockerbee, 2014, p. 79). Through the MET courses, I have designed a

number of lessons and courses, using design principles based on best practices and I have

5
embraced the “change from lesson planner to designer of learning experience” (Rice, 2012, p.

168).

For example, in my Project Based Learning for Teachers online course, I broke it into

five steps: explore (research), generate (brainstorming), create (production), present

(presentation), and reflect (on learning). Each of these steps follows a meaningful learning

process and allowed students to build on their prior knowledge and think about how they might

use this learning in their jobs. It also modeled a way for them to design project-based learning

for their own students. In EdTech 512, I designed my geometry project with similar steps,

beginning with exploration and research and ending with students designing a tiny house floor

plan and 3D model.

When I was designing my math lab course for EdTech 523, I considered the best

practices of personalized learning, collaboration, competency, community building, evaluation,

multimedia, resources and synchronous meetings. Personalized learning was a high priority for

this class. Khan Academy provided the videos, practice and mastery challenges. And each

student could work at their own level. We had been expecting them to be able to master algebra

and geometry without a solid foundation in basic math skills. I am now in my fifth quarter of

using math lab and students are learning and building confidence and skill. Technology has the

ability to revolutionize math education because of the way it can personalize learning for each

student. It can also do much of the recordkeeping, as well as formative and summative

assessment for teachers.

My view of assessment has totally changed. Backward design recommends starting with

the assessment and the reason for the learning and working backward to design and create

lessons and courses. It is important that “before we plan activities, our question must first be,

6
what assessment of the desired results follows…specifically, what counts as evidence of the

understanding sought?” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005, p. 146). When I was in school, tests helped

me learn, but I was rarely allowed to retake a test to show that learning. Now I see that both

formative and summative assessments should be used as part of the learning process for students.

They also do not have to be in the form of traditional tests. Journals and reflections (Conrad &

Donaldson, 2009, p. 81), portfolios, speeches, slide presentations, videos, blogs and student-

created websites can also be part of assessment.

All these alternative options for assessment generally use rubrics and I have found these

valuable in my own learning and teaching. Because they foster transparency, “rubrics are

powerful tools for both informing learners about your expectations and for evaluating their

learning” (Rice, 2012, p. 197). I use these in my math classes and I used them in evaluating the

courses I designed through the MET program. The next step for my school is setting up common

rubrics that students will use throughout high school. This is good for students (transparency)

and for teachers (consistency) and follows iNACOL’s recommendation that “next generation

educational systems will need to build educator capacity to make valid and reliable comparisons

of students’ progress against outcomes using evidence of learning and common rubrics” (Patrick

et al., 2017, p. 7).

Another idea that I have adopted is to have students do more self-evaluation, both in my

synchronous classes and at the end of units and courses. I find that they are surprisingly accurate

in their assessment of their own learning. They like giving feedback. I use this feedback to

modify or strengthen the course in future semesters because “the use of simple surveys and polls

allows students to comment on the learning process and provides valuable feedback about the

effectiveness of…instruction” (Rice, 2012, p. 197).

7
 A form of assessment that I am most excited about is portfolios. This is where we want

to take our school in the future. Collecting and showcasing student work, projects and

benchmarks is more meaningful than a report card with letter grades. A portfolio model would

give a much more detailed picture of what students know and what they can do. The artifacts

might even be useful in future job hunting. If collecting and showcasing their learning became a

habit over four years of high school, students would garner on the job training for lifelong

learning and tangible evidence of that learning.

Lesson Four: Networking and Collaboration

When I began the MET program, I tended more toward learning by myself and found it a

bit challenging to complete the discussion group tasks. I felt that my learning was more efficient

on my own. However, I did like the group projects. I found that the collaboration and peer

feedback informed the final work product and made it much richer than I could have made it on

my own. This is helpful for students because “peer assessment of writing and peer assessment

using marks, grades, and tests have shown positive formative effects on student achievement and

attitudes” (Topping, 1998, p. 249). In nearly all of the projects, we used Google Docs and

Hangouts to share initial ideas or drafts and to create final products. Because of this experience,

as the lead teacher in my school, I have initiated this type of asynchronous collaboration for book

study, generating ideas, sharing resources and professional learning community (PLC)

preparation.

Though our school has been doing PLC work for several years, I’m not sure I really saw

how much it is needed, until I started the MET program. We did set goals and accomplish them,

but in hindsight, it felt like rearranging chairs on the Titanic. Now, we are trying to make more

fundamental changes to improve student learning. Because of my coursework, I am able to bring

8
fresh ideas, resources, plans and enthusiasm to our PLC meetings and efforts. It is changing the

direction of our conversations. For example, we are looking at moving away from a focus on

pass rates (overly important for state requirements) to a focus on competency and mastery. Our

conversations are focused on the structures of how we “do” school and how we can make

fundamental changes that will serve student learning rather than just getting them to a passing

grade. These discussions and collaboration have the potential to have a lasting impact on our

students and our school.

No one in our school has ever been happy with the grading scale and system because

“today, the only thing we can know for sure about a high school graduate in most U.S. school

districts is that they have put in the required seat time in the requisite courses and obtained a

passing grade based on highly variable judgment and criteria” (Patrick et al., 2017, p. 3). Our

collaboration is leading to thinking outside the traditional box. These types of changes are not

possible to make by just one or two isolated teachers or administrators. Every teacher has had

something to contribute and we will be meeting this spring to craft a new policy for next year.

My enthusiasm for this process is fueled by my desire to continue learning and to continue

growing as a teacher. In helping our students become lifelong learners, we feed our own lifelong

learning efforts as well.

Another way the MET program has enhanced my networking and collaboration

experiences, came about because I was made aware of Idaho Standards for Online Teachers in

EdTech 521. I had asked our administration why we were not using this to evaluate our online

teachers. At this point, the state requires that we use a rubric designed for brick and mortar

teachers. Someday, I hope this changes. But as a result of this inquiry, I was asked by our

principal to sit on a committee to update the Idaho Online Teacher Preparation Standards Review

9
in the fall of 2017. Prior to the MET coursework, I would not have been qualified to be a

contributing member of that team.

Because of the requirement to attend webinars as part of EdTech 543, I have joined

several networks that send me lists of upcoming webinars and I regularly attend those that apply

to my current needs. These have given me resources and ideas to share with other teachers and

the administration and they have helped fuel the process of positive change in our school.

Lesson Five: The Research-Practice Connection

Researching learning theories throughout the MET program, specifically, situated learning,

cognitive apprenticeships, and constructivism has caused me to reflect deeply about what we are

asking students to learn and why. I appreciated Ertmer and Newby’s conclusion that all three

learning theories, behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism must be considered and can be

used in instructional design and educational practice. Furthermore, they recommended

considering the specific tasks and specific learners when deciding on a theoretical approach to a

given instructional need. The point is made that generally speaking, behaviorism works well for

introductory learning; cognitivism works well for applying facts to problem-solving situations,

and constructivism builds on both of those with reflection and action upon previous learning

(Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 55, 58, 62).

In my field of mathematics, it is easy for me to connect behaviorism with memorizing

multiplication tables and then to connect cognitivism with using multiplication facts to solve

story problems. These two theories were the basis of how I was taught and how I taught

mathematics most of my career. In my school’s online curriculum, some of the new courses

contain math projects after a unit or two based on fact acquisition and basic problem solving

skills. These projects seem to be based more on a constructivist theory of learning. The projects

10
offer students the chance to “get their hands dirty” a bit in applying math in their world. The

projects are open ended and there is a connection to the culture (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 69).

Students use some self-selection in the projects as well.

Studying the history of educational technology has also been a helpful foundation for

positive change in my own teaching. “In such a technology-driven world, it is critical and timely

to study the intersection of learning theory and technology” (Harasim, 2000, p. 2) and not just

use technology for its own sake. The tools we choose to support our learning goals, whether for

ourselves as teachers or for our students, should not be the focus of learning, but a support to that

learning. Though the current accepted definition of educational technology is much longer, I still

favor the definition I crafted in EdTech 504. When crafting it, I took to heart how the evolution

of various definitions of educational technology eventually came to be so vague and general, that

they did not have clear meaning. So my definition is succinct and simple. I like the idea of

teacher as facilitator and the MET program is responsible for that shift in my thinking. My

definition was that educational technology is “the facilitation of learning using appropriate tools

and techniques.”

My first research annotated bibliography on flipped math classrooms drove home to me

that we need to continually consider research on innovative educational practices. While I see the

need for peer-reviewed articles, learning theory research, and theory-informed teaching practice,

this program has inspired me to seek out resources and ideas well beyond the program. Even

resources or research that have not been thoroughly tested are sometimes enough to spark a new

idea or a new direction for me as a teacher. Innovation is a mysterious mix of all that I have

discussed in this paper, as well as past experiences and current needs. Knowing which rocks to

look under for information and support has given my teaching a needed boost and re-ignited my

11
passion for lifelong learning, as well as teaching. Grounding all of this in best practices has given

me a framework in which to hang ideas, resources, theory, and research.

Rarely, before this program, did I ask students to do any research of their own. But this

year, in my geometry classes, I began their project by asking them to research the tiny house

movement. This was a deliberate attempt on my part, to help develop this important lifelong

learning skill.

Because of the research included in the MET program, as well as my own research, our

staff conversations now center around what is most important for students to know by the time

they graduate. We are asking questions about what is relevant, authentic and meaningful. All I

learned in this program helped update both my theoretical knowledge as well as my professional

practice. My learning is also informing our staff, as currently no one else in my school has this

knowledge. We, like our students, need to tap into research as a continuous process and an

important lifelong learning skill.

Closing Thoughts

In the end, learning, like innovation, is a somewhat mysterious process. It cannot be

scripted or controlled. The pursuit of lifelong learning by teachers and students is a creative

process that can be supported by theory, ethics, research, best practice, and technology. But how

it all comes together is unique and unlimited in scope. Because of past experiences, each MET

student likely had a different experience in this program than I did. As I have synthesized what I

have learned in this paper, I realized that my learning has been systematic, but also organic and

unscripted. And it will continue to evolve, as will learning for my students. Lifelong learning

may be the ultimate goal of education but it is also a most satisfying journey.

12
 References

Catalano, A. (2015). The effect of a situated learning environment in a distance education

information literacy course. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 653-659.

Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133315001081

Conrad, R. & Donaldson, J. (2009). Engaging the online learner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Dennen, V. P., & Burner, K. J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational

practice. In: M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, M. P. Driscoll (Eds.),

Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 425-439).

New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ecc1/b2df2d37f995739986739397829f7e7ff4d9.pdf

Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing

critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement

Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Gessler, M. (2009). Situated learning and cognitive apprenticeship. In: R. Maclean, D. Wilson

(Eds.), International handbook of education for the changing world of work. (pp. 1611-1625).

New York, NY: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.fb12.uni-

bremen.de/fileadmin/Arbeitsgebiete/berufsbildung/Gessler_2009_Situated_Learning.pdf

Gregory, G., & Kaufeldt, M. (2015). The motivated brain: Improving student attention,

engagement, and perseverance. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York, NY: Routledge Press.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2009). A practical guide to authentic e-learning.

New York, NY: Routledge.

13
Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In D. H.

Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.)

(pp. 287-300). New York, NY: Routledge.

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd

ed.). New York: Association Press.

Larsen, M., & Lockerbee, B. (2014). Streamlined ID: A practice guide to instructional design.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Patrick, S., Worthen, M., Truong, N. and Frost, D. (2017). Fit for purpose: Taking the long view

on systems change and policy to support competency education. iNACOL: National

Summit on K-12 Competency-Based Education. Retrieved from

https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CompetencyWorks-FitForPurpose-T

akingTheLongView.pdf

Rice, K. (2012). Making the move to K-12 online teaching. Boston: Pearson.

Seely Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, D. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176008

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities [Abstract].

Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

14