Cooperative learning is an integral part of classrooms. Partners and small groups are used frequently in most classrooms. From the basic Pair-Share to full blown projects, students benefit from working together. A key to cooperative groups is the need to meet an objective that can only be accomplished cooperatively (2001). With this goal in mind, everyone benefits when everyone is successful. This would elicit support from team members who may not otherwise be socially friendly. In Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works the authors gives a theoretical framework for cooperative learning that includes motivation and cognitive learning.
Technology allows cooperative learning to happen anytime, anyplace. It empowers the team to fully take charge of the project and eliminates the need for the dependence on the teacher for leadership. It expands the project outside the classroom. In fact, it explodes any limits. Teams not only don’t need to be homogeneously group – which is recommended against by the authors of our textbook – but they don’t even have to be in the same country. It would be possible for a team to be composed of students from different countries. A science project could conceivably be done by students in different countries using technologies such as Skype, wikis and Google documents to discuss strategies and compare data. Students in different states could compare their geography, culture, weather or whatever they are studying by using Google docs to create a multimedia presentation together. For the research project in my class, students must individually choose from a set list related to their social studies curriculum. But students in different classes could share information about a shared topic through the class wiki to make their own work more efficient.
For most students, cooperative learning is an activity they actively request. They want these types of activities because it comes naturally to most of them. As teachers we can see the benefits to having students actively engaged and motivated.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
VoiceThread
"Extra Credit Assignment: Cyberbullying" presented through VoiceThread.
http://voicethread.com/share/1894508/
http://voicethread.com/share/1894508/
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Constructionism in Practice
A central component of both constructivist and constructionist learning theories is that learning isn’t imparted from teacher to student, but must be developed by the learner him or herself. Constructionism expands to include the necessity of the creation of something tangible to allow the learner to make connections to allow for assimilation or accommodation. This practical application and connection to self allows the learner to find relevance in the challenge and motivation that allows for learning.
Constructionism supports the method of having students generate then test a hypothesis. The sciences have used this approach very successfully. Technology has been developed to support the activities so students can concentrate on the results and analysis rather than the mundane tasks needed to generate data. Problem-based learning and webquests allow for more discplines to use the hypothesis concept.
Students could identify a real-life problem then using the hypothesis-test mode explore answers. Through the process, students are assimilating information and possibly even accommodating new thinking. The process isn’t explicit, but rather implicit. It’s not necessary to point out that students are learning to compare and contrast, test and analysize, manage expectations and time, and the multitude of other skills required to work through the process. Students may blunder, but it is through these missteps that they can self-analyze and self-correct. A well-designed webquest could also provide the same type of exploration. A student or team can be given a problem, goal or purpose then given the leeway to find the end result. It is important to the constructionism theory that the students are allowed to chart their own way and to produce their own artifact at the end.
I personally believe in constructionism. It allows the student to become the teacher and the teacher take on the role of facilitor. Brain research has proven that memory is developed through concrete experience. Earlier in the class, Dr. Wolfe shared findings that the brain is good at remembering what was seen and experienced. She also explained how emotion can impact learning and memory. The more emotional connection to the problem or project, the more the student will engage and learn.
Constructionism supports the method of having students generate then test a hypothesis. The sciences have used this approach very successfully. Technology has been developed to support the activities so students can concentrate on the results and analysis rather than the mundane tasks needed to generate data. Problem-based learning and webquests allow for more discplines to use the hypothesis concept.
Students could identify a real-life problem then using the hypothesis-test mode explore answers. Through the process, students are assimilating information and possibly even accommodating new thinking. The process isn’t explicit, but rather implicit. It’s not necessary to point out that students are learning to compare and contrast, test and analysize, manage expectations and time, and the multitude of other skills required to work through the process. Students may blunder, but it is through these missteps that they can self-analyze and self-correct. A well-designed webquest could also provide the same type of exploration. A student or team can be given a problem, goal or purpose then given the leeway to find the end result. It is important to the constructionism theory that the students are allowed to chart their own way and to produce their own artifact at the end.
I personally believe in constructionism. It allows the student to become the teacher and the teacher take on the role of facilitor. Brain research has proven that memory is developed through concrete experience. Earlier in the class, Dr. Wolfe shared findings that the brain is good at remembering what was seen and experienced. She also explained how emotion can impact learning and memory. The more emotional connection to the problem or project, the more the student will engage and learn.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Cognitive Learning and Technology
Cognitive learning theories dovetail with what we already know about our students. We know that our students must make connections to the new information in order to process it. Cognitive theories explain this process even deeper.
Paivio’s dual coding theory especially makes sense for our students. Today’s digital natives are accustomed to visual stimulation through multimedia devices. For them to make connections, the senses need to be engaged. A static presentation won’t engage them, but, more importantly, it doesn’t provide them with the necessary connections. Using technology to allow students to manipulate their learning through graphic advance organizers or concept mapping will allow them to make the connections on their own. Virtual field trips and other experiences will allow them to create the dual coding. As Dr. Orey explained, the student may retain the information but not be able to access it without cues. By providing cues, be it a video, photo, clip art, sound bit, movement or other device, teachers are furnishing a structure for their students to build multiple connections to the bit of information. A very simple example would be how I use clipart. The same clipart on the PowerPoint slide will be on the note sheet and will appear again on the study guide and quiz. This helps with simple fact retrieval. Deeper understanding comes from allowing the student to make the connection him or herself. Providing experiences such as videos or virtual field trips allows the student to take away what is most important to him or herself.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2001). Cognitive Learning Theories. [Video webcast]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/ crs/default.learnCourseID=4889554&Survey=1&47=7434473&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Paivio’s dual coding theory especially makes sense for our students. Today’s digital natives are accustomed to visual stimulation through multimedia devices. For them to make connections, the senses need to be engaged. A static presentation won’t engage them, but, more importantly, it doesn’t provide them with the necessary connections. Using technology to allow students to manipulate their learning through graphic advance organizers or concept mapping will allow them to make the connections on their own. Virtual field trips and other experiences will allow them to create the dual coding. As Dr. Orey explained, the student may retain the information but not be able to access it without cues. By providing cues, be it a video, photo, clip art, sound bit, movement or other device, teachers are furnishing a structure for their students to build multiple connections to the bit of information. A very simple example would be how I use clipart. The same clipart on the PowerPoint slide will be on the note sheet and will appear again on the study guide and quiz. This helps with simple fact retrieval. Deeper understanding comes from allowing the student to make the connection him or herself. Providing experiences such as videos or virtual field trips allows the student to take away what is most important to him or herself.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2001). Cognitive Learning Theories. [Video webcast]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/ crs/default.learnCourseID=4889554&Survey=1&47=7434473&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Behaviorism in the 21st Century
Though the behaviorist learning theory is supposedly out of style, there are important concepts that will always be part of education. The benefits of behaviorist instructional methods to teach the lowest levels of Bloom’s Taxomony seem obvious since repetition is necessary for some skills. Parents and teachers both instinctively and intentionally use behaviorist methods to reward and encourage certain behaviors. Additionally homework and practice fall within behaviorist learning theories and those methods are not only accepted but expected in education.
Technology can bring the drill and practice methods into the 21st century. Games and software can make repetitive practices more engaging for students and easier for teachers to implement. Software can gave the user immediate feedback and calculate the results of the practice for the teacher.
McREL’s research supports the need for teachers to not only reward effort, but to teach students about the benefits of effort (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). Dweck’s research correlates the belief in a set ability or intelligence that discounts the value of effort is detrimental to a student’s growth and learning (Krakovsky, 2007). Behaviorist theories are important to understand as negative behaviors can be invertently taught as well as positive ones. We are now learning about the dangers of overpraise when that praise is not aligned with a desired behavior. In other words, using a behaviorism method without giving the child the ability to repeat the behavior is detrimental to the child’s growth. Dweck demonstrated the harm done by focusing praise on the child’s ability rather than the effort during a research study in New York public schools (Bronson, 2007). In summary, students who were praised for their efforts at a task continued to improve their results on subsequent tasks. Conversely students praised for their intelligence in solving the first task choose the easy way out in subsequent tasks.
Some time-tested techniques will never be replaced, but educators can use research on the brain and learning to best understand how to use the techniques effectively and can marry those best practices with technology to engage the learners in their own learning experience.
Bronson, P. (2007, Feb. 11). How Not To Talk To Your Kids. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/.
Krakovsky, M. (2007). The Effort Effect. Stanford Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.htm.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Technology can bring the drill and practice methods into the 21st century. Games and software can make repetitive practices more engaging for students and easier for teachers to implement. Software can gave the user immediate feedback and calculate the results of the practice for the teacher.
McREL’s research supports the need for teachers to not only reward effort, but to teach students about the benefits of effort (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). Dweck’s research correlates the belief in a set ability or intelligence that discounts the value of effort is detrimental to a student’s growth and learning (Krakovsky, 2007). Behaviorist theories are important to understand as negative behaviors can be invertently taught as well as positive ones. We are now learning about the dangers of overpraise when that praise is not aligned with a desired behavior. In other words, using a behaviorism method without giving the child the ability to repeat the behavior is detrimental to the child’s growth. Dweck demonstrated the harm done by focusing praise on the child’s ability rather than the effort during a research study in New York public schools (Bronson, 2007). In summary, students who were praised for their efforts at a task continued to improve their results on subsequent tasks. Conversely students praised for their intelligence in solving the first task choose the easy way out in subsequent tasks.
Some time-tested techniques will never be replaced, but educators can use research on the brain and learning to best understand how to use the techniques effectively and can marry those best practices with technology to engage the learners in their own learning experience.
Bronson, P. (2007, Feb. 11). How Not To Talk To Your Kids. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/.
Krakovsky, M. (2007). The Effort Effect. Stanford Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2007/marapr/features/dweck.htm.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)