nitive skill development. One approach to doing this, which would be in line with Crystal Isl
If players who demonstrate SRL do better, does that indicate that SRL leads to better learning or that the two are just related? Also, if students are engaging in SRL practices through the game, does that count as metacognition or do students need to be aware that they are engaging in them as metacognition?
unk, 2005; Zimmer
This concept of using learning by teaching to encourage SRL is a fascinated one--not only do students have added stakes to a certain extent (since they are the teachers) but it also likely increases their engagement and reflection since they are focusing on how to teach it to someone else.
ptive nature of SR
What makes this a macro-level model?
norms and values of the target community of practice
What about the situation where these are at odds with the classroom norms?
. In classrooms, the equivocal nature of the scaffolded learning pro-cess can be an impediment to learning, potentially resulting in an emphasis on the product rather than the process.
This issue applies much broadly than just to scaffolding--constructivist forms of learning can be at odds with a traditional school culture where students are accustomed to obtaining the right answer from someone in a position of authority.
without being over-whelmed by the complexity
Scratch comes to mind as a great example of this--it makes coding accessible to students who might not even be great readers yet but can nonetheless understand computational thinking when complex languages are taken out of the equasion
elping learners articulate their thinking as they progress on problems, and rel ect on their solutions in ways productive for learning
Essentially metacognition?
acilitates transfer
How does it being contextualized facilitate transfer?
, learners work on real-world or expert complex tasks, which motivate developing subskills and requisite knowledge
Unlike the behaviorist approach described above, where skills are broken down into sub-skills and each is taught discretely, scaffolding involves developing the sub-skills in context as part of the process of solving problems.
In these approaches, learn-ing requires small-scale tasks created specii cally for developing a particu-lar subskill. Such tasks may not rel ect actual tasks outside the learning environment.
This speaks to the importance of context in learning--learning through authentic problems in real environments
This understanding is built by having the tutor perform the required action for the learner (modeling) or animate the actions of the learners (Goffman, 1974 ) by helping to implement their actions, such as in manipulating their hands in a loom (Greeni eld, 1984 ) or rephrasing their words to better align with the task
Is modeling a form of scaffolding? Doesn't modeling imply more of an imitation process, rather than just simplifying a problem so its more accessible for the learner?
we propose that there may be a sec-ond important difference between them, and this difference relates to the outcome oflearnin
Does this imply that there is no cognitive activity specifically for interaction? Through interactive learning we can produce a "shared mental model" but is there no cognitive activity that is particular to this kind of learning?
Why would attending processes help learning? If information is alreadyknown, then activating it can further strengthen existing knowledge, thus making itmore salient, more stable, and more retrievable, thereby enhancing learning.
This seems to be describing constructivist learning. Active learning helps organize, store, and retrieve information in the way that Ertmer and Newby describe.
Obviously these activities do not have to be carried out overtly. For exam-ple, one could be self-explaining covertly, as students often do spontaneously.
This raises an important point: if learning is defined, as Ertmer and Newby do, as changes in behavior, then it's easier to "see" learning; however, to the extent that learning is happening covertly, it's much more challenging to know that learning (or learning processes) are occurring and consequently difficult to fully map the learning that might be happening.
An obvious commonality is the use of feedback. A behaviorist uses feedback (reinforcement) to modify behavior in the desired direction, while cognitivists make use of feedback (knowledge of results) to guide and support accurate mental connections (
Could we argue that constructivism also relies heavily on feedback, particularly through Vygotsky's social construction theory?
Learning is an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience
Is learning always behavior-oriented in some way? Is it possible to learn things that don't change our behavior but are still valuable?
ff ective solutions to practi-cal instructional problems are often constrained by limited time and resources. It is paramount that those strategies selected and implemented have the highest chance for success.
This resonates strongly as a former teacher and highlights an important challenge of the learning sciences--great strategies are not enough. They have to be viable given the plethora of external constraints often present in learning situations.
ff ective solutions to practi-cal instructional problems are often constrained by limited time and resources. It is paramount that those strategies selected and implemented have the highest chance for success.
This resonates strongly as a former teacher and highlights an important challenge of the learning sciences--great strategies are not enough. They have to be viable given the plethora of external constraints often present in learning situations.
With reflexivity, a critical attitude exists in learners, an attitude that prompts them to be aware of how and what structures create meaning
How often do individuals actually reflect on this? At what point is there a certain kind of cognitive overload that emerges from thinking and also thinking about thinking. I think this level of intentionality is incredibly powerful, though my experience is that it's challenging and limited in practice.
Whether students are prepared to take ownership and manage their own learning is a question posed by critics of contructivism.
This point resonates--constructivism alludes to a proactive and engaging kind of learning that, due it's learner nature, requires more of the learner. At the same time, I wonder whether constructivism is saying that learners are capable of taking ownership over their own learning versus being prepared or wanting to do so.
deploy,1ble knowledge <f---·T~a~:~~~d in context
This emphasis on both context and applicability highlights the fact that DBR and constructivist approaches to learning are highly interconnected
rhizome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome#/media/File:Euphorbia_rhizophora2_ies.jpg A picture in case anyone else is curious to see what the rhizome actually looks like!