I mean - really. Is anyone on the planet really surprised that I wouldn't love this theory? I'm wondering how hard it is to change your name. Matthew Constructivist Kruger-Ross. That's not too dorky, eh?
On to the good stuff. Any article (or topic, actually) that brings up the philosophical background to a topic - I'm game. In particular - I had no idea that epistemology had any other derivative... epistemic. I totally did a double-take. Love it.
Again - the simple being made complex for me and these instructional design theories - how simple is it to realize that the learner's beliefs about knowledge and about learning and success influence how well they will, therefore, learn something. Duh! (But, on some level, I knew this - maybe just thinking about it in this way helped me wrap my mind around it in a different way? 'Til by turning, turning we come round right?)
Other than encouraging us to bring the question of epistemology into the equation - I think my favorite part of this theory is that is tries to accurately capture the real-world with it's treatment of simple vs. complex knowledge. In life there are hardly ever black and white decisions that need to be made. There is context, prioritizing, access to ample resources. CFT - even as complex as it is itself - aims to hit this nail on the head.
I'm a big picture kind of guy, as you may be able to tell by now. CFT hits the spot for that in its approach to larger themes of a topic. And we must create and build our own learning/knowledge-base. Using cases (or stories) - while proven by research - just makes good, common sense.
I think a lot of folks approaching CFT (and trying to also figure out how to use CFT and multimedia) can be daunted by the amount of time it might take to create a module based on CFT. I think we need to rethink our position as teachers to fix this concern, or at least take it down a notch. If we are still of the perspective that the teacher sits on high delivering curriculum - then sure, you better get to work and produce that module!
However - if we step back from that perspective and view the teacher as part of the larger learning community, first among equals of sorts - then the teacher doesn't necessarily have to produce a finished product - a perfect example of a CFT module. The teacher could create the basic framework and then through activities, discussions, multimedia production - all with students helping - literally live a CFT example. Wouldn't be very good for official research purposes, but it would get the job done and truly engage the learners.
Kevin's done an excellent job making CFT accessible via the Plantation Letters. It really stretched me - in more ways than just the technology and the theory! Other ways to pull it off could be via YouTube, SecondLife, Voicethread, GoogleMaps,... - I'm really thinking of all of these as venues for cases/stories/offering multiple perspectives. There's still going to be a need for a leader of sorts to create some kind of "hub" to help convey the big picture - and now I'm going to spend the rest of the weekend trying to think of ways to pull it off!
Can't wait to read all of your reflections. Don't know what I'm going to do with myself when I don't have to write these weekly blog posts. Have a great week!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How about "Master Constructivist" Kruger-Ross?
ReplyDeleteReally, I was wondering about polygamy--would there be more wedding bells this week? (I thought about it for myself...)
I remember learning about the concept of epistemology and it really was a revelation of sorts, and seems especially relevant not only in the sciences, but also in helping students understand the nature of knowledge and publishing (in academia and otherwise)--that it's something real people (maybe even themselves!) can do.
Your post made me think of something else--with PDAs and all sorts of other ways of storing and accessing information, students can develop their own resource collection or library to carry with them and consult. As a brain supplement.
I'll miss your posts!
Eleanor
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI agree on the use for official research and use of this theory. Many times in the context of the assignment Dr. Oliver gave I was questioning the bias given the information I had at hand and how the samples were not as random as I would like. Now, on the flip, this got me thinking so how bad could it be for my students to encourage further education concerning any topic in my class :)
Thanks,
Mike S.
Hi Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you said that life is usually not "black and white". It is most always grey, or blue, or green, or yellow... From reading some posts, it seems that some are having trouble finding a place for this model, or having trouble making sense of it. I, like others in class, had trouble muddling through the readings this week, but I think you hit the nail on the head for where this model fits.
Mary Ellen
Matthew, please be on the lookout because if you marry this theory, I will be having an affair with it. At first I hated it, but it was a mere misunderstanding. I am now loving this theory and the fact that it is both simple and no so simple at the same time.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth
Another EXCELLENT post as usual!!
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Eleanor's comments about "Master Constructivist", honestly the very first thing that went to my head was Master Shake off of Aqua Teen Hunger Force - an animated series that comes on Cartoon Network. Why? No idea!! :)
Matt, you're right about using Second Life for Cognitive Flexibility Theory. That would be a fantastic forum!
ReplyDelete