Good evening and Happy Mother's Day to everyone,

I am excited to be using this blog again... my class is still posting on our class blog but otherwise I just have not had the time to keep this one up. I'm glad this course is giving me motivation to do it again!

Lisa

Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction and Technology

          As stated in my very first application at the beginning of this course, the most important part of my Personal Theory of Learning is this:  Just as one size does not fit all regarding shoes, it certainly does not fit all regarding learning.  Managing the pieces of the puzzle that are the keys as to what works best with each unique student is critical to the success of each lesson and learning experience in my class. In the same assignment, I listed what I thought – and actually still believe – are the components of my Personal Theory. For this final reflection, I would like to begin by examining any new understanding or changes I have made in each part as a result of my participation in this course.

·       All students can learn. This belief statement is very important to me, because it is what keeps my trying new approaches when one does not work. In this course I have been exposed to technology approaches that may help me reach my learners in new ways. One example of this is the Voice Thread, which potentially will allow my learners to comment on a topic they see on their screen.

·       Many students understand best by constructing their own understanding. This belief was confirmed by the course materials on Constructionism and Social Constructionism. I feel I have improved my understanding of how this process works due to the explanations of this specific learning theory. In particular, I found Orey’s comments (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a, Program Seven) regarding the importance of creating a specific artifact to be very helpful.

·       For most students, actively participating in the process of learning solidifies their understanding. This statement was confirmed by the section on Cognitive Learning Theories in Week Three (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b, Program Five) and also in the Social Learning Theories section, where Orey states: social learning is when “students are actively engaged in constructing something” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a, Program Seven).

·       Students can be grouped broadly according to how they learn best. In fact, when I group students I change the groups for almost every activity. In addition, if I pick (and usually I let the students have at least some say in the construction of the group), I try to balance the strengths of the group members so it is unlikely that I would intentionally put together a homogenous group for cooperative learning. However, I do sometimes group students who learn in a particular way for small group instruction. This was not really covered in this course.

·       Specific discussion on what learning is and how it happens, coupled with an understanding of how it works best for you is helpful for a learner and critical for a learner who is struggling. The idea of metacognition, or thinking about thinking, was not specifically addressed in this course; however nothing I learned contradicts the idea and in fact many components of the instructional strategies Pickering outlines in her nine “clusters” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c, Program Eleven) are described in one of my favorite books on this topic, Costa and Kallick’s “Activating and Engaging Habits of Mind”.  This is a link to a blog that summarizes the Habits of Mind. www.edutopia.org/blog/habits-of-mind-terrell-heick

·       Repetition of information helps students to remember it, particularly if it is done in a variety of ways; mental manipulation of information is important in this process. This is an important part of Cognitive Learning theory. In this course I was reminded of the importance of “building numerous connections to information” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b, Program Five) and learned how to use several new ways to do this, including webquest, concept mapping and blogs to name but a few. I found the information on how to do mapping using technology to be particularly exciting and have used it several times since I tried it for the course.

·       Positive reinforcement coupled with an understanding of why something is important is critical for getting some students to want to learn (others just like learning). I also learned about the importance of using technology to help hook the students; Orey describes this as “leverage” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b, Program Five).

·       Technology offers options for differentiation and is a critical tool for both teaching and learning. Who would not want their classroom to be a “dynamic learning environment” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 2) ? The most important thing I learned in this course was to just go for it! Even though I might not be an expert in the technology, to some extent it manages itself. It is also good for my students to see me learning and trying new things – and sometimes they are the experts, and that is good too. All I need to do is ensure that I have a specific goal that matches standards in order to make an excursion into technology worthwhile. I made this statement because in a previous course we had read most of the Pitler text and I found it very useful; in this course we built on the concepts learned previously, activating our prior knowledge in fact, and I found it much easier to try some of the strategies suggested.

 

Immediate Change.

            As a result of this course, I have made some small but significant changes in my instructional practice.

            One is to try to use more images or non-linguistic representations in my presentations. I already used several graphic organisers, but had not done very much with concept mapping. We have now done some specific work with making metal pictures and with how to connect ideas in map format, and I have found both tools to be very powerful in just my few attempts so far. I found this link about how to make amazing presentations, and it really seemed to match what we learned about the importance of using images:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/08/steve-jobs-presentations-technology-meetings-09-tips_slide.html

            Another is really a reminder, but a timely one. I need to check myself in limiting “lecture” time. I know so much, and I really want my students to know all that I know and then some. However, as Orey says, “lecture is the least powerful teaching tool you can use” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011d, Program Thirteen). I do know this intellectually, but it is very good to be reminded of it frequently as it is an area in which I need to improve. It is not that I do not have student centred activities too, but I must do a better job of letting my classes discover content rather than giving it to them and then having them work with it.

            Having looked at the Week Seven information, I have a new technology goal. I want to learn how to make “prezis”. If I can make a great presentation like the ones shown, it will really help my students understand some important concepts. For example, I could make one to explain the difference between biotic and abiotic features of a habitat. The difference between a prezi and my current PowerPoint presentation for that topic is like the difference between a 2012 television and a black and white one from my childhood. Once I know how to do it, I can then teach them. Can anyone say “science fair project”? How about using one for a writing project? Or even to explain a mathematics concept as an assessment piece?

            I also want to learn how to use edumodo. Many of my classmates talk about its many amazing features and I am ashamed to say I have no experience with it whatsoever. I plan to spend some of my holiday time exploring it.

            I am proud however of my class’s work with book clubs and various other comments on our class blog. I also have tried several new things with Word and with Voice Thread that I will continue using, and I and most of my students are excited to think of what we might do for our next Webquest. I do not think I would have had the knowledge base for quite some time to explore these technologies, much less try them in my classroom, without the support and prodding of this course.

Long Term Change.

            Integrating technology into more of my lessons is an important goal for me, and this course has reminded me that using the smartboard more often for presentations is not the only way to go.

            The first change I would like to make in my instructional practice begins with the artefact for a unit when planning it. In an early Walden course, we were reminded to begin with the “end”, or the outcome in mind when planning. This is a normal part of my planning process, but I can boost the technology component, an important 21^st Century skill, by making more of my artefacts technology-based. Now that my repertoire has expanded to include concept maps, Voice Threads, blogs, podcasts and of course now prezis, among other things, I feel we can really work with the technology to create some exciting and relevant pieces the students will love to create.

            The second change I would like to make is actually regarding my smartboard use. I would like to design more student-centred activities for the smartboard, and look forward to using the Notebook 11 software recently installed on my class computer to help me do it.

 

In Conclusion…

            I would like to think this is not really a conclusion. I hope that I will continue learning new ways to bridge the gaps between instruction and technology, using my understanding of learning theory to construct lessons that are student centred, with my learners are actively engaged in in their own development. I anticipate that as technology changes, and as I become more confident in my use of it, I will find more and more ways to use it productively in my lessons. Like the image at the beginning of my post shows, there are many supports required for successful learning.

References.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Program five: Cognitive learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Program seven: Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Program eleven: Instructional strategies, Part one [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011d). Program thirteen: Technology: Instructional tool vs. learning tool [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver: McREL.

 

Connected Collaboration

Cooperative learning is defined by Wikipedia as “an approach to organizing classroom activities into academic and social learning experiences”.  If the task to be completed is carefully planned, it differs from basic group work because of the higher order skills required to complete the task. The link below cites Johnson and Johnson’s five elements that they deem essential for effective group learning and achievement; these elements sound very much like what we have been learning are the skills required for success as a twenty-first century learner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_learning

In our text, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007), Cooperative Learning is placed in a section entitled “Which Strategies Will Help Students Acquire and Integrate Learning?” Pitler et al quote Johnson, Johnson and Stanne then they state that it is the interaction that takes place during cooperative learning is how they “make sense of, or construct meaning for, new knowledge”. Further, successful cooperative learning and production is part of preparing our learners for the “fast-paced, virtual workplace they will inherit” (Pitler et al, 2007, p. 139).

This week, we explored several technological resources that combine learning with collaboration.  From Voicethread to blogs to Twitter, there are a lot of available resources that allow collaboration with people from across our planet.  I can find out about any topic I can think of, and discuss it with others to build my understandingI particularly enjoyed using Voicethread, and plan on using it as a tool to share my class’s learning about diabetes. It will be an excellent way to combine all of their different takes on the  presentation we created for a school assembly, in order to formulate a tool that may actually help people in the fight against diabetes (it is Diabetes Awareness Month, and this is a serious problem in our community). This activity checks all the boxes Orey mentioned in this week’s video presentation; the students will be actively engaged in constructing an artifact with others, bouncing ideas off each other as they get feedback and validation on their comments. I hope that, as he says, this will transform the “inert knowledge” they have acquired into knowledge that can be applied in a constructive way. In addition, this utilizes Connectivism. We will be  working together and sharing with others outside our classroom, building a network of people with an interest in, or a expertise in, this topic.

Connected collaboration, that’s the way to go!

 

Today I had some fun creating a voicethread about a concern I have at my school. If you would like to add your comment, here is the link:

http://walden.voicethread.com/share/3766841/

I will be writing some more tonight about my new understanding of the benefits of learning through social interaction.

Constructivism in Practice

            This week, we explored several related instructional strategies.  The thread they had in common was their relevance for constructionist practice in the classroom. Constructionism is a theory of learning based on the studies of Vygotsky, Piaget and Papert. Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) summarizes this approach as being the process of building “an external artifact or something they can share with others”. He notes that constructivism is usually regarded as more of an epistemology, and is based on the idea that, because of our individuality and unique experiences, the knowledge base we form in our own minds is distinctive.

This diagram is from edweb.sdsu.edu .

 

            http://www.innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/constructivism/index.htm

            The website above explains that the main idea of constructivism in teaching is that we should spend most of our time correcting and clarifying misconceptions. They state “Additional constructivist strategies include presenting others' viewpoints, promoting dialogue, and emphasizing conceptual understanding rather than rote learning”.  These strategies are especially important when you consider the specific needs of the 21^st century learner.

            Proponents of project-based learning feel that it provides a framework for utilising highly complex problem-solving skills using “both fundamental skills and 21^st century skills” (Edutopia, accessed 2012). In combination with a well-structured social component, and a driving question that “initiates and focusses” the inquiry (Miller, in Edutopia, accessed 2012), this kind of learning embodies the artifact creation espoused by constructionists.        

            In much the same way, the strategy of generating and testing hypotheses explained by Pitler (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007) results in the kind of analysis of data and personal involvement in product that guarantees high involvement by students.  Artifacts, or products, that are produced and shared under these conditions become a valuable part of the schema of the students that create them.

               One example of a very useful tool for creating an inquiry or project is the webquest. The original proponent of the webquest, Bernie Dodge, describes web quests as follows: "an inquiry-oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by learners is drawn from the Web.” According to Dodge, this kind of activity is an excellent use of time because it is focussed, it results in learners using information as opposed to searching for it, and, most importantly, it supports  “ learners' thinking at the levels of analysis, synthesis and evaluation."

            You can find out more about web quests on this site:  www.literacy.uconn.edu/56webqu.htm

            I have not used web quests in the past, but I have used other forms of inquiry-based learning. I look forward to trying a webquest, and in fact have selected a poetry one for my grade fives to try out next week. Constructionism in practice is not new to me, but the knowledge I am gaining in the arena of technology will help me to improve the delivery of information and the access the students have to content and to tools for creating those products.

References.

Edutopia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2012, from www.edutopia.org: http://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program four: Behaviorist learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Miller, A. (n.d.). Edutopia. Retrieved November 2012, from www.edutopia.org: http://www.edutopia.org/blog/pbl-how-to-write-driving-questions-andrew-miller

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver: McREL.

Cognitivism in Practice

            This week in our Walden class, we were asked to reflect on the strategies of “Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers” and “Summarizing and Note Taking” as explained in (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). How do these strategies relate to cognitive learning theories? In addition, we were asked to consider how Concept Mapping and Virtual Field trips correlated with both strategy and theory.

            Pitler et al state that the use of cues, questions and advance organisers focusses on “enhancing student’s ability to retrieve, use and organise information about a topic” (Pitler et al, 2007, p. 73). This mirrors Orey’s description (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) of cognitive learning theories as “information processing”, and elaboration as activity that “builds numerous connections to information”. Concept mapping utilises a main question as the starting point for the map, setting the scene for the hierarchical cascade of concepts, with the most inclusive or general at the top. This structure can be seen as an advance organiser, particularly if a skeleton map is used as a starting point. In addition, the “parking lot” described by Novak and Canas (2008), can be viewed as a set of cues.

            A Virtual Field trip can also act as an advance organizer, particularly because it limits the range of information the students will experience, based on the links you place in the field trip.  The Virtual Field trip can also be highly motivating, one of Novak’s (Novak & Canas, 2008) requirements for meaningful learning to take place. Such a field trip can also facilitate iconic (image) and archic (sound) learning due to its inclusion of specific images and sounds relating to the topic.

            Summarizing and note-taking are viewed by Pitler (Pitler et al, 2007, p. 119) as valuable because they enhance the ability of the students to “synthesize information and distill it into a concise new form”. In order to be effective at this skill, students must really think deeply about a concept.

            Building a concept into a map works with long-term memory rather than short term memory, reinforcing the networks that the brain creates to store information.  It utilizes the limited number of “pieces” (Orey in Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) short term memory can manipulate successfully, tying them together into what we might view as chunks.

            The skills  of summarizing and note-taking can harness the energy created by a Virtual Field Trip due to its connection with episodic learning and carefully selected informational images, as recommended by Orey.  Students use the life-like nature of the virtual experience to construct their understanding, and then apply this understanding and engagement with the topic to their summaries.

            Taken together, this information indicates that use of concept maps and virtual field trips can enhance the understanding and the ability of my students to recall the information taught and experienced.  After all, “concepts and propositions are the building blocks for knowledge in any

domain.” (Novak et al, 2008, p. 11)

            I found it interesting that Edutopia, a newsletter I subscribe to, had listed as one of its most popular blog posts this week one written by Rebecca Alber in 2011. This article speaks of the importance of scaffolding, and tied very neatly into this week’s readings.  Here is the link:

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/scaffolding-lessons-six-strategies-rebecca-alber

 

References.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program five: Cognitive learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollge.com/ec/default.learn?coureid=5700267&cpurl=laureate.ecollege.com&survey=1&47=2594577&clientnodeid=984650&coursenau=0&bhcp=1 .

Novak, J.D., & Canas, A.J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmaptTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from the Institute

for Human and Machine Cognition Web Site: http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.pdf .

Robertson, B., Elliot, L., & Robinson, D. (2007). Cognitive tools. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved <insert date>, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

 

Behaviorism in Practice: Instructional Strategies and Behaviorism

            As discussed earlier this week on our class discussion board, there is still a place for Behaviorism in the classroom.  Sometimes maligned as being somewhat passé, in fact Skinner’s ideas on operant conditioning can inform the observant teacher.  Understanding that a behaviour that is rewarded is likely to be repeated is the heart of this theory.

            This week we were asked to look at Behaviorism as it correlates with two specific instructional strategies.

            According to Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski ( 2007, p. 155), the “instructional strategy of reinforcing effort enhances students’ understanding of the relationship between effort and achievement”.  What teacher has not wished for their students to just try harder?  It is easy to see that most, if not all, of our learners would be more successful if they grasped this concept, making it a behaviour we would like them to demonstrate frequently. Basically, we would like for them to understand that an increase in effort – a behaviour - will result in improved grades – a positive reinforcement.  

Teachers can use technology to “track the effects of effort” (Pitler, et al, 2007, p. 156), highlighting the relationship in ways that are easy to see.  Data collection tools such as Survey Monkey, for example, make the compilation of information and its display fast and accurate with little time spent. In addition, spelling out the specific indicators of effort using a rubric is made much easier with technology, as is feedback for individual students.

Below are useful links for making a survey and also creating a rubric.

www.surveymonkey.com/

http://rubistar.4teachers.org/

            Another instructional strategy that has its roots in Behaviorism is that of Homework and Practice.  Pitler et al (2007, p. 189) state that “technology facilitates homework and practice by providing a wealth of resources for learning outside the classroom…that help students refine their skills.” 

            For example, I use a program called “Adapted Mind” ( www.adaptedmind.com ) with my class.  They do some work using it in class, but are allowed to select specific skills practices as part of their Mathematics homework.  This program gives immediate feedback for right or wrong answers, and provides significant positive reinforcement as the students earn badges for skill points and for effort points.  It also offers brief tutorials when students get off track.  It is a kind of programmed instruction that gives a small amount of information followed by brief assessment, which is responded to almost immediately.  My students get very excited over the badges and being able to track their progress.  They also find the tutorials helpful.  This kind of feedback and support is Behaviorism in action, as spelled out by Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  

            In my classroom, Behaviorism is not the main learning theory you will see in practice, but you certainly will see it applied to these two instructional strategies.

Resources

 Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program four: Behaviorist learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver: McREL.