My cohorts and I continue on our journey to understand ways to blend technology with instructional and learning theories. This week, our focus is on Social learning theory, which is the foundation for cooperative learning. There are still strong elements of constructionism at play here, as students are actively engaged in creating something, that is their means of acquiring information.
The difference with social learning is that you add the element of socialization. It seems obvious, but I understand it to be constructionism + interaction with other learners. We looked at several ways to use technology to accomplish this. The most promising look to be voicethread.com, webquest, and various website creation sites/programs, such as Publisher or coolpage.com. Secondlife and Facebook could probably be the most engaging for students, but I don't know that the environment can be controlled well enough for them to be feasible to use in classrooms.
Taking the example of voicethread, students could post images related to their assigned topic, then have other group members surround the images with comments, both audio and text, thus all working together, interacting and learning from one another, and constructing an artifact to share with others (the rest of the class, school, world, whatever is appropriate). Webquest could be used in combination with software to create an artifact, and a similar finished project could be created and shared.
This approach is, in my opinion, the best of all worlds with learning theories. Appropriate behaviors are simple when students are engaged, there is cognitive learning happening, and construction of artifacts is taking place. Add to all of that, the students are interacting and learning from one another, as well as their available resources, and the addition of technology tools brings it all together for a seamless execution!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Contructivism, Constructionism, and Technology
My cohorts and I dive into yet another week full of information this week: Constructivism and Constructionism (What's the difference, you ask? More on that in a second, I'm trying for suspense here!) and quite a few technology tools that we can use to get our students actively creating things to help enrich their learning experiences.
Constructivism, humorously referred to in one of our videos as the "v-word", is a theory of learning. It says that everyone basically "constructs" their individual knowledge of things. The example we were given was that of a chair. We each have hundreds of associations in our minds that make up our idea of what "chair" actually means. We have each come up with, or construct, our individual reality of what a chair is, and it is a little different for each of us.
Constructionism, or as Dr. Orey refers to it, the "n-word", has far more to do with what we do in the classroom. It focuses on students being actively engaged in constructing things. This could be any sort of project, from a story board to a wiki, as long as they are a part of the learning. They look at the external reality, or the information they are learning, and try to balance it with their existing schemas, or what they currently believe and understand. Something has to give here: either they make reality fit with what they already know (assimilation), or they alter what they know to fit with reality(accommodation). What is important about constructionism is that students are "constructing", they are actively engaged in learning, and this way of learning fits with constructiVism in that they are creating their own individual knowledge. And it should be a deep understanding of the concept at the end of the process of creating an artifact.
We looked at several tools that we can use to integrate technology using constructionism. We could use spreadsheet software to have students look at relationships between variables, exploring the correlations. We could use data collection tools to have students collect information (our example was a digital pH probe). We could use software such as Power Point or Microsoft Publisher (or similar software) to have students create digital projects that are not simply a report of what we have taught them, but require that they discover new knowledge to create. And we looked at several web resources: web quests, sites that explain problem-based learning and how to create a project, and some simulation sites where students try their hand in a virtual creation setting, and discover what effect their manipulations have. All of these resources, provided they are used to have students actively engaged in creating their personal knowledge of the material, tie in with Constructionism.
A lot of the sites that we looked at turned out to be dead ends, of sorts. There was some explanation of how to create problem-based learning activities, but I was so hoping for lots of activities to be at our fingertips, without us re-creating the wheel, so-to-speak. The one thing I would like to see is more sites like http://astroventure.arc.nasa.gov/ that we reviewed. I tried this out, and it was not only engaging, I think I got stuck there for at least an hour, trying to manipulate variables to figure out what size planet needed to be what distance from which type star "sun" to support life! And I'm not a science teacher! I teach Spanish! But I can see the potential for true learning with children on this site, and if it can be done to explain red dwarf stars, red giant stars, blue stars, and yellow stars to me, and what mass/distance is needed for planets to support life, then surely sites like this can be developed to teach any number of concepts! Of course, this one was created by NASA. Maybe they could donate just a few of their scientists to create more sites like this one... :-)
Constructivism, humorously referred to in one of our videos as the "v-word", is a theory of learning. It says that everyone basically "constructs" their individual knowledge of things. The example we were given was that of a chair. We each have hundreds of associations in our minds that make up our idea of what "chair" actually means. We have each come up with, or construct, our individual reality of what a chair is, and it is a little different for each of us.
Constructionism, or as Dr. Orey refers to it, the "n-word", has far more to do with what we do in the classroom. It focuses on students being actively engaged in constructing things. This could be any sort of project, from a story board to a wiki, as long as they are a part of the learning. They look at the external reality, or the information they are learning, and try to balance it with their existing schemas, or what they currently believe and understand. Something has to give here: either they make reality fit with what they already know (assimilation), or they alter what they know to fit with reality(accommodation). What is important about constructionism is that students are "constructing", they are actively engaged in learning, and this way of learning fits with constructiVism in that they are creating their own individual knowledge. And it should be a deep understanding of the concept at the end of the process of creating an artifact.
We looked at several tools that we can use to integrate technology using constructionism. We could use spreadsheet software to have students look at relationships between variables, exploring the correlations. We could use data collection tools to have students collect information (our example was a digital pH probe). We could use software such as Power Point or Microsoft Publisher (or similar software) to have students create digital projects that are not simply a report of what we have taught them, but require that they discover new knowledge to create. And we looked at several web resources: web quests, sites that explain problem-based learning and how to create a project, and some simulation sites where students try their hand in a virtual creation setting, and discover what effect their manipulations have. All of these resources, provided they are used to have students actively engaged in creating their personal knowledge of the material, tie in with Constructionism.
A lot of the sites that we looked at turned out to be dead ends, of sorts. There was some explanation of how to create problem-based learning activities, but I was so hoping for lots of activities to be at our fingertips, without us re-creating the wheel, so-to-speak. The one thing I would like to see is more sites like http://astroventure.arc.nasa.gov/ that we reviewed. I tried this out, and it was not only engaging, I think I got stuck there for at least an hour, trying to manipulate variables to figure out what size planet needed to be what distance from which type star "sun" to support life! And I'm not a science teacher! I teach Spanish! But I can see the potential for true learning with children on this site, and if it can be done to explain red dwarf stars, red giant stars, blue stars, and yellow stars to me, and what mass/distance is needed for planets to support life, then surely sites like this can be developed to teach any number of concepts! Of course, this one was created by NASA. Maybe they could donate just a few of their scientists to create more sites like this one... :-)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Cognitive Learning Theory with Technology (Educ 6711)
This week, we are looking into cognitive learning theory. At the same time, we are exploring strategies that bring technology into how we employ these theories. We looked at many strategies and tools: concept mapping, virtual field trips, advance organizers, word processing software functions, organizing and brainstorming software, and web resources such as blogs and wikis. How are these related to cognitive theory?
In the videos that we watched, Dr. Orey explained parts of cognitive learning theory. He said that one of the key things to remember is that a student's short term memory has 7 (+/- 2) digits of space. Given that, we can help them sort information into groups by using concept maps. Another key idea in cognitive learning theory is the strength of episodic memory. Virtual field trips allow students to learn information through "experience". It may not be quite as good as going to the place, but it is certainly getting them closer to episodic memory than a traditional lecture would do! Dr. Orey also mentioned dual-coding, and using not just terms but images or other sensory information paired with the terms to increase recall and understanding, and many of the tools that we have looked at this week lend themselves to this: concept mapping, virtual field trips, and organizing software like Inspiration.
It is much more intuitive for me to connect technology with cognitive learning theory than it was to connect it with behaviorist theory. I have to admit that this week's strategies have gotten me far more anxious to get back to school in a few weeks and try them out!
In the videos that we watched, Dr. Orey explained parts of cognitive learning theory. He said that one of the key things to remember is that a student's short term memory has 7 (+/- 2) digits of space. Given that, we can help them sort information into groups by using concept maps. Another key idea in cognitive learning theory is the strength of episodic memory. Virtual field trips allow students to learn information through "experience". It may not be quite as good as going to the place, but it is certainly getting them closer to episodic memory than a traditional lecture would do! Dr. Orey also mentioned dual-coding, and using not just terms but images or other sensory information paired with the terms to increase recall and understanding, and many of the tools that we have looked at this week lend themselves to this: concept mapping, virtual field trips, and organizing software like Inspiration.
It is much more intuitive for me to connect technology with cognitive learning theory than it was to connect it with behaviorist theory. I have to admit that this week's strategies have gotten me far more anxious to get back to school in a few weeks and try them out!
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Behaviorist Learning Theory in Technology-Employing Strategies
This week in Educ 6711, we looked at strategies that use technology to reward effort and to make homework and practice more effective. We looked at use of spreadsheets and rubrics to show students how their effort correlates to their success (of lack thereof correlates to their failure). We also looked at ways to use various types of programs such as word processing, spreadsheet-generating, or multimedia editing software for practice of skills, or for homework assignments. Surely these strategies are far too sophisticated to be using behaviorist learning theory, simple operant conditioning that is comparable to dog training... or are they?
When looking at the effort rubric presented in our text, it is clear that, provided students give honest feedback about the amount of effort put forth, it will show them that it results in higher grades. It may not be a connection that the students make on their own, but when faced with the black-and-white data, they should see that their effort (desired behavior) results in higher grades (reward). This strategy seems more complex than the operant conditioning that we learned about in our undergraduate study, but when broken down to its essential elements, it is just that. Just like dog training, if they "sit" (put forth effort), they get a "cookie" (higher grades).
The resources discussed for homework and practice, however, are based more on other learning theories than they are on behaviorist theory. Most especially, the creation of multimedia projects, most effectively employs constructivist theory. These resources can employ behaviorist theory, especially when used for tutoring, but can best be used by students to create, and use the possibilities for social interaction that technology provides.
It has been tempting for me to dismiss behaviorist theory as too simple to meet the needs of my students, but it is important to realize that not all of my students come to me with perfect behaviors. Some need their observable classroom behavior modified through behavior contracts and a system of rewards and consequences. Other students, whose behavior seems to be to standard in the classroom, I now see, can also benefit from a system that gives "cookies" for desired behavior, in that they can clearly see the fruits of their "effort labors".
Resources:
Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
When looking at the effort rubric presented in our text, it is clear that, provided students give honest feedback about the amount of effort put forth, it will show them that it results in higher grades. It may not be a connection that the students make on their own, but when faced with the black-and-white data, they should see that their effort (desired behavior) results in higher grades (reward). This strategy seems more complex than the operant conditioning that we learned about in our undergraduate study, but when broken down to its essential elements, it is just that. Just like dog training, if they "sit" (put forth effort), they get a "cookie" (higher grades).
The resources discussed for homework and practice, however, are based more on other learning theories than they are on behaviorist theory. Most especially, the creation of multimedia projects, most effectively employs constructivist theory. These resources can employ behaviorist theory, especially when used for tutoring, but can best be used by students to create, and use the possibilities for social interaction that technology provides.
It has been tempting for me to dismiss behaviorist theory as too simple to meet the needs of my students, but it is important to realize that not all of my students come to me with perfect behaviors. Some need their observable classroom behavior modified through behavior contracts and a system of rewards and consequences. Other students, whose behavior seems to be to standard in the classroom, I now see, can also benefit from a system that gives "cookies" for desired behavior, in that they can clearly see the fruits of their "effort labors".
Resources:
Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
