As I continue through this course I am continuously gathering more and more resources and tool which to implement in my GAME plan. This week's focus was Assessing student learning. Our text resource " Technology Integration for Meaningfull Classroom Use: A standards based approach" By Katherine Cennamo breaks down assessment into 4 major categories, "1) Forces Choice assessments, 2) open-ended response assessments 3) Performance-based assessments, and 4) project-based assessments" (p 143). While it goes through many different pros and cons for each approach I have found that there are two of these options that best fits my classroom and content that I teach.
As a science teacher there is a large databank of multiple Choice questions (forced answer) that are already aligned with the standards and curriculum I am expected to teach. By using technology programs like Gradecam.com I can instantly access my students knowledge and understanding and formulate lesson plans to better address their content needs. I have recently implemented this for review for the state exam. I gave my students a practice exam to complete and as they finished they could instantly grade themselves and begin looking at their wrong answers. In doing so they were able to have technology enhance their learning process. By getting instant results they could correct misconceptions on the stop and start looking for the correct information. I can now further the students immersion "in the light" (Prensky) by providing access to online resources for the correction of wrong answers. I will have the students go through and give a reason as to why they selected the wrong answer; what was it about that answer that made them want to select it. Then, using the internet and resources preselected by me to be on their level and beneficial to their studying, the students will begin documenting the correct information. I can ask them to not only document what the correct answer is, but provide an explanation of why that is the correct answer and supply the resources they used to correct their knowledge. They can then make a new question that will address the same content knowledge. As a summary of their new knowledge they can make a voicethread presentation of their previous misconception and how they came to the correct knowledge. By putting these all together the whole class will have a study resource that addresses the questions they struggled the most with and helps them prepare for the state exam.
In this way what they are doing is aligned with how they will be assessed, their learning is being driven by where they are weakest in terms of content knowledge. I feel that this meets my goal of continuing to immerse the students into a technological and digital age learning process. By using multiple forms of technology in the review process my students will have a learning experience that is similar to the world they live in outside of the classroom, "connected to the entire world around the clock" (Prensky 2008). This process also simulates how students can begin to facilitate their own learning when they have a question that they need or want answered. By modeling this with something that needs to be done in the classroom the students are not only learning content but also 21st century life skills needed to succeed in todays economic climate.
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
G.A.M.E. on!
My GAME goal is to increase Digital Age experiences, both learning and assessment based, for the students I teach. This goal is so broad and could take a life time to work on and even start to feel like any impact is being made. Technology is changing at an exponential rate and teaching in some ways is still stuck in the agricultural age (why do you think we have our vacations... Crop based). One material that I will definitely need a lot of is Computer access. A lot of what I have bouncing around in my head for these students to engage in is internet based student interaction software and media. By getting the students online and engaged with web 2.0 materials like blogging and wiki's they will be able to enhance their digital age mind and experiences while still meeting and achieving content goals. Vicki Davis (2010b) explains that teachers should look to enrich lessons with technology, not develop lessons to meet the technology and this will be the way assessment forms will be selected (from my last entry). In this way the technology will be used to enhance their learning. By using dynamic and interactive websites students will be able to experience things not possible in an inner city classroom. I am fortunate enough to have access to a full set of laptop computers that I can sign out for my class to use (as long as other teachers have not already signed them out). This has been an amazing tool that I have used repeatedly throughout the year.
Another material or resource that I will need is the schools permission to begin testing out some facebook interactive features. I have heard of other teachers creating a teacher page which students can add on facebook. The teacher will then send out current events, deadline reminders, homework help, interesting facts and quotes. It takes the classroom into the "light" that Marc Prensky discusses the students are basking in all day outside of the classroom.
In regard to information that I will need, I think I am chalk full of ideas of things to try and implement in the classroom. What I really need is someone to work the details out with and problem solve issues that may arrise. I have thought about blog discussions as review, Wiki's as portfolios, Facebook as an interactive extension of the classroom etc. There is so much that can be done, but what I really want to do is One thing really well. Then start a new GAME plan to include the next.
All of that being said I want to narrow down my GAME plan to focusing on the use of Word and email together for students to collaborate and work on one lab report/science fair project. This is a long term science investigation that the students will be working on for the next 4 weeks and they will have the computers out for 2 periods a week (fingers cross for availability). I will begin by teaching them the skills of creating a document and saving it. Then working on attaching the document to an email and ensuring it is sent before shutting down the computers. Later on I will introduce them to the "commenting" option on microsoft word and google docs. This way they can begin collaborating and having an academic conversation about the text without needing to be in human contact.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Enriching Centent Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part 2 [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Vickie Davis
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
Another material or resource that I will need is the schools permission to begin testing out some facebook interactive features. I have heard of other teachers creating a teacher page which students can add on facebook. The teacher will then send out current events, deadline reminders, homework help, interesting facts and quotes. It takes the classroom into the "light" that Marc Prensky discusses the students are basking in all day outside of the classroom.
In regard to information that I will need, I think I am chalk full of ideas of things to try and implement in the classroom. What I really need is someone to work the details out with and problem solve issues that may arrise. I have thought about blog discussions as review, Wiki's as portfolios, Facebook as an interactive extension of the classroom etc. There is so much that can be done, but what I really want to do is One thing really well. Then start a new GAME plan to include the next.
All of that being said I want to narrow down my GAME plan to focusing on the use of Word and email together for students to collaborate and work on one lab report/science fair project. This is a long term science investigation that the students will be working on for the next 4 weeks and they will have the computers out for 2 periods a week (fingers cross for availability). I will begin by teaching them the skills of creating a document and saving it. Then working on attaching the document to an email and ensuring it is sent before shutting down the computers. Later on I will introduce them to the "commenting" option on microsoft word and google docs. This way they can begin collaborating and having an academic conversation about the text without needing to be in human contact.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Enriching Centent Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part 2 [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Vickie Davis
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
G.A.M.E.
A G.A.M.E. plan must include 4 major parts: 1) Setting a Goal 2) Decide on Actions to take 3) Monitor your actions and 4) Evaluate the results of the actions taken.
My G.A.M.E. plan surrounds the National Educational Technology Standards for Students and how I as a teacher will be implementing a section of the standards to support the students in their growth as 21st century students using 21st century skills.
The Goal I have chosen is to Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments. One thing that happens in today's developed nations is that "today's kids grow up in the light. They're deeply immersed in it (technology) long before educators ever see them" (Prensky 2008). The technology allows students access to any information they might be curious about concerning the past or present world. This turns the light on to their own enlightenment. Prensky suggests that as students enter the today's classroom they are asked to "power down" and turn off their connection to the "light" as cell phones and technology are used much less in the classroom than what students naturally experience in their every day lives. My goal is to address this discrepancy in my classroom by providing more learning experiences and assessments that include technology that mirrors or enhances what the students are experiencing outside of the classroom.
Actions I have chosen to meet this goal include weekly research into new programs that teachers are incorporating in the classroom. Using computers 1 time per week in a format that uses the internet to open up a world of information. This includes facilitating student exploration of how to search the web using modifiers, different search engines, and analyzing sources of information. One time for every two weeks the students will demonstrate their learning through a digital age assessment. This will take the form of google documents, text messages, blog entries, wikispaces etc. Vicki Davis (2010b) explains that teachers should look to enrich lessons with technology, not develop lessons to meet the technology and this will be the way assessment forms will be selected.
Monitoring the actions chosen will be done in the form of blog entries tracking each category; Computer use, Internet usage, assessment techniques. This will take place in the form of a statement of what was done and a small reflection on the pros and cons of the process. By tracking in process all of the little successes and challenges a greater understanding of how to implement 21st century skills will take place.
To Evaluate the progress obtained through this G.A.M.E. process around Designing and Developing Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments I will review all of the monitoring entries on my blog. By synthesizing what was done I will be able to find the overall successes in terms of student progress as well as identify what it is that I need to focus on for my next G.A.M.E. process. This will help to highlight which of the "4 attributes of teachers with effective integration of technology" (Ertmer 2010a) I need to work on the most. Will it be my Knowledge of background skills, Confidence in what I can do with the technology pertinent to the students, Beliefs around what good teaching is and looks like, or whether I am in a supportive culture that encourages turning on the lights? Only through evaluating my process will I be able to find out.
Resources:
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Enriching Content Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part I [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Peggy Ertmer
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Enriching Centent Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part 2 [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Vickie Davis
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
My G.A.M.E. plan surrounds the National Educational Technology Standards for Students and how I as a teacher will be implementing a section of the standards to support the students in their growth as 21st century students using 21st century skills.
The Goal I have chosen is to Design and Develop Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments. One thing that happens in today's developed nations is that "today's kids grow up in the light. They're deeply immersed in it (technology) long before educators ever see them" (Prensky 2008). The technology allows students access to any information they might be curious about concerning the past or present world. This turns the light on to their own enlightenment. Prensky suggests that as students enter the today's classroom they are asked to "power down" and turn off their connection to the "light" as cell phones and technology are used much less in the classroom than what students naturally experience in their every day lives. My goal is to address this discrepancy in my classroom by providing more learning experiences and assessments that include technology that mirrors or enhances what the students are experiencing outside of the classroom.
Actions I have chosen to meet this goal include weekly research into new programs that teachers are incorporating in the classroom. Using computers 1 time per week in a format that uses the internet to open up a world of information. This includes facilitating student exploration of how to search the web using modifiers, different search engines, and analyzing sources of information. One time for every two weeks the students will demonstrate their learning through a digital age assessment. This will take the form of google documents, text messages, blog entries, wikispaces etc. Vicki Davis (2010b) explains that teachers should look to enrich lessons with technology, not develop lessons to meet the technology and this will be the way assessment forms will be selected.
Monitoring the actions chosen will be done in the form of blog entries tracking each category; Computer use, Internet usage, assessment techniques. This will take place in the form of a statement of what was done and a small reflection on the pros and cons of the process. By tracking in process all of the little successes and challenges a greater understanding of how to implement 21st century skills will take place.
To Evaluate the progress obtained through this G.A.M.E. process around Designing and Developing Digital-Age Learning Experiences and Assessments I will review all of the monitoring entries on my blog. By synthesizing what was done I will be able to find the overall successes in terms of student progress as well as identify what it is that I need to focus on for my next G.A.M.E. process. This will help to highlight which of the "4 attributes of teachers with effective integration of technology" (Ertmer 2010a) I need to work on the most. Will it be my Knowledge of background skills, Confidence in what I can do with the technology pertinent to the students, Beliefs around what good teaching is and looks like, or whether I am in a supportive culture that encourages turning on the lights? Only through evaluating my process will I be able to find out.
Resources:
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Enriching Content Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part I [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Peggy Ertmer
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Enriching Centent Area Learning Experiences With Technology Part 2 [Webcast]. Integrating Technology Across the Content Areas. Baltimore, MD: Vickie Davis
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Learning theory, Instruction and Technology Reflection
At the beginning of this course I stated in an assignment that I believed firmly in Jean Peaget's explaination of schema theory. That is each person as different constructs within which they input new and existing information. New knowledge that doesn't fit into those constructs or schema either needs assimilation or accommodation. Each of these process require the modification of something; the schema construct or the knowledge being fit into existing schema. I continue to believe in this way of thinking as it visually makes sense to me. The idea of the current ability being based on each person's individual constructs I see as being a baseline from which to grow and learn more.
The Zone of Proximal Development [ZPD] (as shown in the image) once again helps me to visualize what is needed to help students to accomodate or assimilate new knowledge into their current repertoire.
Through this course I have learned the importance of the Social Constructivist approach to teaching. I feel this aligns amazingly well with that which I presented at the beginning of the course. My previous mental construct was that of me as teacher being the only one that can help to scaffold and support each and every student's access and growth through the ZPD. However, in a way social constructivism makes my job easier because I can now rely on and expect students to push each other to learn more through their own interactions. Glazer (2001) states this about constructivism in the classroom, “new ideas are most likely to be created when learners are actively engaged in building some type of external artifact that they can reflect upon and share with others.” Sharing with others helps students to open up their own schema's to different ways of thinking and processing information. The simple notion that it is coming from a peer seems to make students more open and receptive to new information. Rather than it coming from an "expert" teacher who has studied this way more than they have. I have seen this social constructivist approach actually broaden the ZPD of some of my most resistant students. In class they have been more actively engaged and readily dive into information they might not have in the past.
As a result of what I learned in this course I would like to make two long term goals of incorporating this into my teaching.
1. Use a social constructivist approach in every unit either as an introduction, exploration or culminating activity.
2. Ensure the use of technology as a tool to encourage students exploring knowledge on their own and producing external artifacts to share with their classmates.
Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 2-20-11, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
The Zone of Proximal Development [ZPD] (as shown in the image) once again helps me to visualize what is needed to help students to accomodate or assimilate new knowledge into their current repertoire.
Through this course I have learned the importance of the Social Constructivist approach to teaching. I feel this aligns amazingly well with that which I presented at the beginning of the course. My previous mental construct was that of me as teacher being the only one that can help to scaffold and support each and every student's access and growth through the ZPD. However, in a way social constructivism makes my job easier because I can now rely on and expect students to push each other to learn more through their own interactions. Glazer (2001) states this about constructivism in the classroom, “new ideas are most likely to be created when learners are actively engaged in building some type of external artifact that they can reflect upon and share with others.” Sharing with others helps students to open up their own schema's to different ways of thinking and processing information. The simple notion that it is coming from a peer seems to make students more open and receptive to new information. Rather than it coming from an "expert" teacher who has studied this way more than they have. I have seen this social constructivist approach actually broaden the ZPD of some of my most resistant students. In class they have been more actively engaged and readily dive into information they might not have in the past.
As a result of what I learned in this course I would like to make two long term goals of incorporating this into my teaching.
1. Use a social constructivist approach in every unit either as an introduction, exploration or culminating activity.
2. Ensure the use of technology as a tool to encourage students exploring knowledge on their own and producing external artifacts to share with their classmates.
Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 2-20-11, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Social Constructionism in the classroom?
I like the general concepts of social constructionism as presented by this link. The idea of having students work together to construct knowledge is very appealing as it is a skill and strength that students and learners at large will need in the global market. our world is progressively becoming "smaller and smaller" as technology gets better and better at connecting human beings. Students need the skills of collaboration and team work to be able to succeed in this world. As a teacher I feel that project based learning, inquiry, and group work all support the social constructionism approach to learning. By providing structured space for students to share their realities, explore their "zone of proximal development", and allow for one person to be the "more knowledgable other" students will be engaging in social constructionism as described by Dr. Michael Orey (2001).
Web 2.0 products like wiki's help students to share their knowledge more efficiently and to create a jointly produced external artifact that can be discussed and processed by the group at large. These are all great strategies to be used with students to increase engagement and enhance the social network of learning.
One draw back of these approaches is the lack of accountability. Unless all the students have created a common reality that everyone has their own strengths and they actively seek those out, some students will be viewed as less important and will not be able to become the "more knowledgable other" in a lot of circumstances. In this case the type of projects or artifacts produced are dependent on the classroom community and how learning is collectively approached.
Another draw back is the lack of individual assessment. In this model is it assumed that if groups are working on a product that all students are sharing, engaging and learning from one another. Thus assessing the group would equal assessing each individual separately. This is very challenging for me as a teacher to embrace as a sole approach to learning. Only using groups does not allow for full mastery of all topics presented. I feel that it assumes that some information will be absorbed by some members of the group and it is ok if they other rely on that person for this information.
In today's assessment driven classroom this is not an acceptable assumption or approach. Every student is treated as an individual and not simply a part of a larger social community/reality. Thus our teaching needs to reflect this and ensure that, while teaching sometimes in the social constructionism model is good, we are ensuring that EVERY one in the classroom is learning ALL information.
In this way I like the ideal of Social constructionism being used either at the beginning of a unit as an engagement and semi assessment or at the end as an extension beyond the base required knowledge has already been gained by ALL students.
M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved Feb 2nd 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
“Social Learning Theories” Dr. Michael Orey, Laurete Education
__
Above in the post I mentioned something about the importance of students collectively deciding its important to acknowledge that everyone has strengths and something to contribute to the over all community. I have currently been struggling with one class that I teach where the students have steadily degraded to a view that no one is knowledgable enough to succeed. Because of this view point the are breaking each other down for any attempt to succeed instead of supporting and encouraging success in learning and sharing. Please check out my voice thread about this topic and comment/ reflect on some strategies of how to approach this problem. Thanks! http://voicethread.com/share/1703820/
Web 2.0 products like wiki's help students to share their knowledge more efficiently and to create a jointly produced external artifact that can be discussed and processed by the group at large. These are all great strategies to be used with students to increase engagement and enhance the social network of learning.
One draw back of these approaches is the lack of accountability. Unless all the students have created a common reality that everyone has their own strengths and they actively seek those out, some students will be viewed as less important and will not be able to become the "more knowledgable other" in a lot of circumstances. In this case the type of projects or artifacts produced are dependent on the classroom community and how learning is collectively approached.
Another draw back is the lack of individual assessment. In this model is it assumed that if groups are working on a product that all students are sharing, engaging and learning from one another. Thus assessing the group would equal assessing each individual separately. This is very challenging for me as a teacher to embrace as a sole approach to learning. Only using groups does not allow for full mastery of all topics presented. I feel that it assumes that some information will be absorbed by some members of the group and it is ok if they other rely on that person for this information.
In today's assessment driven classroom this is not an acceptable assumption or approach. Every student is treated as an individual and not simply a part of a larger social community/reality. Thus our teaching needs to reflect this and ensure that, while teaching sometimes in the social constructionism model is good, we are ensuring that EVERY one in the classroom is learning ALL information.
In this way I like the ideal of Social constructionism being used either at the beginning of a unit as an engagement and semi assessment or at the end as an extension beyond the base required knowledge has already been gained by ALL students.
M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved Feb 2nd 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
“Social Learning Theories” Dr. Michael Orey, Laurete Education
__
Above in the post I mentioned something about the importance of students collectively deciding its important to acknowledge that everyone has strengths and something to contribute to the over all community. I have currently been struggling with one class that I teach where the students have steadily degraded to a view that no one is knowledgable enough to succeed. Because of this view point the are breaking each other down for any attempt to succeed instead of supporting and encouraging success in learning and sharing. Please check out my voice thread about this topic and comment/ reflect on some strategies of how to approach this problem. Thanks! http://voicethread.com/share/1703820/
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Instructional Strategies: Constructivism (constructionism)
As a teacher there are many people with different beliefs about how it is that we are supposed to teach the youth of today. These beliefs vary from project based learning, to inquiry learning, to teaching to the test, to wrote memorization etc. There are thousands of teaching strategies out there each with someone advocating for them in some form. A recently published article in the New York Times by Pam Belluck (January 20, 2011) stated that "students who read a passage, then took a test asking them to recall what they had read, retained about 50 percent more of the information a week later than students who used two other methods." She was citing a paper published in Science Journal. This paper compared one study session, concept mapping, retrieval practice (test taking), and repeated study techniques for retaining knowledge. The overwhelming results where that retrieval practices or test taking helped to produce the highest percentage of knowledge retention. (Hans 2001)
All of this is an interesting contrast to information I am currently learning in a course I am taking online about Educational Constructionism. This article states that learning (in the constructionist point of view) is more complex than just simply transmitting knowledge from teacher to learning, rather it is built or constructed by the learner by building an external artifact. This lends itself directly toward project based learning where a learner tackles a real world problem and "provides opportunities to address broader learning goals that focus on preparing students for active and responsible citizenship" (Glazer 2001). Both constructionism and project based learning are student centered approaches the rely on student engagement and ensuring that the project or artifact is meaningful to the student. In the constructionist model the student assimilating or accommodating new knowledge into preexisting schema (Orey 2001). For each student there is a different base of schema and so the learning process is individual and should be treated as such. In project based education the intent is to "engage students in relevant, realistic problems" (Hans 2001).
Now, I am struggling with the contrast of these three resources. On the one hand the NY Times/Science article that just came out states that all this concept mapping and study groups is for not. As simply studying for the test is enough 'engagement' that is needed to retain information. On the other hand I know as a life long learner the information I have retained the most is that which has personal meaning to me. When knowledge I have gained as real world application and I can see it, I tend to remember it more. Like coefficient of friction from physics. It recently snowed here in New York City and I can't help my dorky side but remember how the coefficient of static friction is always higher than that of sliding friction... What that really means is that when your tires are spinning they have less ability to move you forward. So all these people spinning their tires on ice should just slow down and wait for them to catch before punching the gas. That being said I still do remember the Pythagorean theorem because I was tested relentlessly on it.
My bottom line is as it almost always is: The solution lays somewhere in the middle of it all. A combination of all techniques is probably the best approach to learning and educating. This is why being a life long learner as a teacher is ever important. We should always continue to learn and incorporate new strategies into our "schema" as teachers.
Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 1-26-11, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Orey, Michael (2001) “Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories”, Laureate Education DVD,
All of this is an interesting contrast to information I am currently learning in a course I am taking online about Educational Constructionism. This article states that learning (in the constructionist point of view) is more complex than just simply transmitting knowledge from teacher to learning, rather it is built or constructed by the learner by building an external artifact. This lends itself directly toward project based learning where a learner tackles a real world problem and "provides opportunities to address broader learning goals that focus on preparing students for active and responsible citizenship" (Glazer 2001). Both constructionism and project based learning are student centered approaches the rely on student engagement and ensuring that the project or artifact is meaningful to the student. In the constructionist model the student assimilating or accommodating new knowledge into preexisting schema (Orey 2001). For each student there is a different base of schema and so the learning process is individual and should be treated as such. In project based education the intent is to "engage students in relevant, realistic problems" (Hans 2001).
Now, I am struggling with the contrast of these three resources. On the one hand the NY Times/Science article that just came out states that all this concept mapping and study groups is for not. As simply studying for the test is enough 'engagement' that is needed to retain information. On the other hand I know as a life long learner the information I have retained the most is that which has personal meaning to me. When knowledge I have gained as real world application and I can see it, I tend to remember it more. Like coefficient of friction from physics. It recently snowed here in New York City and I can't help my dorky side but remember how the coefficient of static friction is always higher than that of sliding friction... What that really means is that when your tires are spinning they have less ability to move you forward. So all these people spinning their tires on ice should just slow down and wait for them to catch before punching the gas. That being said I still do remember the Pythagorean theorem because I was tested relentlessly on it.
My bottom line is as it almost always is: The solution lays somewhere in the middle of it all. A combination of all techniques is probably the best approach to learning and educating. This is why being a life long learner as a teacher is ever important. We should always continue to learn and incorporate new strategies into our "schema" as teachers.
Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved
Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 1-26-11, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Orey, Michael (2001) “Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories”, Laureate Education DVD,
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Behaviorism in the classroom.
Is it ok to use behaviorism in the classroom? First lets look at what behaviorism is, and what it was originally used for.
BF Skinnner was the first one to implement operand conditioning into what he called Programmed instruction. This is where the student begins working on a concept, is then assessed on the concept and based on the answer being correct or incorrect they are directed one of two ways. If they are correct they are reinforced and told that they are correct and here is why. If they are incorrect they are told so and then the concept is reexplained in a different way.
According to Orey this programed instruction has evolved and turned into what we call the tutorial. It is based in a similar format:
1. present a small amount of information
2. Ask a series of questions that gets a learner to have a behavior, make a decision about what the right answer is.
3. then based on the response the student either works towards building the behavior or moves onto a new behavior.
Dr. Orey says that behaviorism is really Operant conditioning which is founded on two major tenants; Reinforcement and punishment. Behaviorism is incredibly good at classroom management. This helps to specify what are undesired behaviors and punish them while also specifying what are good behaviors and rewarding them. The key to this use of behaviorism to to ensure that the later is being done. Very often teachers forget the most important and as Orey states "more powerful of the two mechanisms" is the positive rewards. Keeping things positive and reinforcing desired behaviors, not simply expecting them, is all to often forgotten or slips away in the classroom.
For things like Tutorials and Classroom management behaviorism is an appropriate technique to use. These are both based on the understanding that the behavior needs to be an "Observable behavior rather than internal thought process" (Smith 1999). In order for behaviorism to work in these instances the behavior needs to be observable. In the case of the tutorial the behavior can be demonstrating a skill on the computer or software. In the case of classroom management the behavior can be correctly following the classroom proceedures and being rewarded with 5 min of free time at the end of class. Either way the behaviors need to be clearly defined in order for this approach to work.
Behaviorism falters in the case of content knowledge where observable behaviors are harder to track and determine. The demonstration of knowledge is hard to judge in terms of behaviors. Although this can be clarified as Smith (1999) states that "learning is helped when objectives are clear". Clarifying objectives and framing the content into activities where the learner needs to demonstrate their knowledge in some sort of way.
In conclusion, I feel that behaviorism has a place in the classroom. I very clearly defined and limited place. In terms of student behavior in the classroom and how that relates to classroom management, there is a clear connection. Reinforce the positive behaviors and punish or ignore the negative ones. In terms of content knowledge and though processes the connection becomes a little bit more harder to negotiate. However, by designing objectives and lesson plans to illicit students to demonstrate their knowledge through a behavior or activity a teacher can then implement the behaviorist approach. This approach is best used in a one-on-one basis. As all too often a whole class is punished for the behavior of a few. This is the oposite of what behaviorism suggests.
Dr. Michael Orey, “Behaviorist Learning Theory”
Smith, K. (1999). The behaviourist orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm
BF Skinnner was the first one to implement operand conditioning into what he called Programmed instruction. This is where the student begins working on a concept, is then assessed on the concept and based on the answer being correct or incorrect they are directed one of two ways. If they are correct they are reinforced and told that they are correct and here is why. If they are incorrect they are told so and then the concept is reexplained in a different way.
According to Orey this programed instruction has evolved and turned into what we call the tutorial. It is based in a similar format:
1. present a small amount of information
2. Ask a series of questions that gets a learner to have a behavior, make a decision about what the right answer is.
3. then based on the response the student either works towards building the behavior or moves onto a new behavior.
Dr. Orey says that behaviorism is really Operant conditioning which is founded on two major tenants; Reinforcement and punishment. Behaviorism is incredibly good at classroom management. This helps to specify what are undesired behaviors and punish them while also specifying what are good behaviors and rewarding them. The key to this use of behaviorism to to ensure that the later is being done. Very often teachers forget the most important and as Orey states "more powerful of the two mechanisms" is the positive rewards. Keeping things positive and reinforcing desired behaviors, not simply expecting them, is all to often forgotten or slips away in the classroom.
For things like Tutorials and Classroom management behaviorism is an appropriate technique to use. These are both based on the understanding that the behavior needs to be an "Observable behavior rather than internal thought process" (Smith 1999). In order for behaviorism to work in these instances the behavior needs to be observable. In the case of the tutorial the behavior can be demonstrating a skill on the computer or software. In the case of classroom management the behavior can be correctly following the classroom proceedures and being rewarded with 5 min of free time at the end of class. Either way the behaviors need to be clearly defined in order for this approach to work.
Behaviorism falters in the case of content knowledge where observable behaviors are harder to track and determine. The demonstration of knowledge is hard to judge in terms of behaviors. Although this can be clarified as Smith (1999) states that "learning is helped when objectives are clear". Clarifying objectives and framing the content into activities where the learner needs to demonstrate their knowledge in some sort of way.
In conclusion, I feel that behaviorism has a place in the classroom. I very clearly defined and limited place. In terms of student behavior in the classroom and how that relates to classroom management, there is a clear connection. Reinforce the positive behaviors and punish or ignore the negative ones. In terms of content knowledge and though processes the connection becomes a little bit more harder to negotiate. However, by designing objectives and lesson plans to illicit students to demonstrate their knowledge through a behavior or activity a teacher can then implement the behaviorist approach. This approach is best used in a one-on-one basis. As all too often a whole class is punished for the behavior of a few. This is the oposite of what behaviorism suggests.
Dr. Michael Orey, “Behaviorist Learning Theory”
Smith, K. (1999). The behaviourist orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
