In this final blog entry for EDUC 6711 we were asked to reflect on our Personal Theory of Learning formed in week one of this course. As I read through my initial application paper I am still of the mind that leaning is unique to the individual which is at the heart of constructivism (Lever-Duffy & Mcdonald, 2008). Additionally, I still maintain that behaviorism does not provide the best model for the teaching of higher order thinking skills. This is not to say that additional insights were not gained.
I would say my strongest “aha” moment came from Marzanos Non-Linguistic Representation instructional strategy. The definition seems plain enough “enhance students’ ability to represent and elaborate on knowledge using mental images” (Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K.,2007 pg. 9). After viewing the media segment Instructional Strategies and seeing Dr. Pickering use this approach to summarize information, I knew I wanted to try it. I pulled a group of my lower students and we read an informational Science text which identified the different classifications of living things. The five kingdoms were listed. I used a white board to draw pictures and added one or two words. My students were able to explain the section without turning back to it. In the past I have read informational text with this group and then initiated small group discussion which provided for limited success. I plan to implement this approach in other areas as well. This scenario seems to support Paivio’s dual coding hypothesis which maintains that individuals will process and recover information easier if the information is presented through images (Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool, 2010).
This course offered many examples of technology tools which could be easily used to enhance learning. The two tools I plan to make use of immediately are my promethean board and VoiceThread. I am fortunate enough to have an interactive white board in my classroom. I am dismayed to admit the board was used primarily as an instructional tool and not a learning tool. I used it to present information quickly and allowed for minimal student interaction. As a result of this course, I have begun to call more students to the board and have turned the pen tool over to them, thereby changing the board from an instructional tool to a learning tool as defined in our media resource Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool. The second technology VoiceThread has allowed my students to take charge of their presentations. Even my struggling students are able to upload photos and post comments. The two technologies will allow my students more opportunities to interact with the material I am presenting thereby firming connections for stronger understanding.
The two long term goals I would like make are developing a classroom resource wiki and creating a webquest for the Three Fires tribes of Michigan. Currently my grade level partners and myself are in the beginning stages of creating this wiki. I have established an account on wikispaces and we have added a few content area website links. Our vision is to include the worksheets associated with each lesson and video presentations of our lessons for students who are absent. The second long term goal was selected out of a need for resources for a particular content standard. I teach in a predominately Native American school in Michigan. In our grade level standards we are required to teach about other cultures. It is my opinion the students would feel more connected to the content if they were learning about tribes in our region. I have visited Webquest.org to obtain guidelines on the initial set up. I am in the process of researching appropriate sites.
Although at times the workload seemed heavy this has been a very rewarding experience for me.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Instructional Strategies Part I.
Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In Teaching and learning with technology (3rd ed. pp. 2–35 ). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Connectivism and Social Learning in Practice
In this week’s resources the focus was on Social Learning theories. Constructivisim, Constructionism, and Connectivism were examined. Dr. Orey discussed the subtle differences between Constructivisim and Constructionism. The basic premise of these two theories is that “knowledge is derived from interactions”. Connctivism as discussed by George Siemens maintains that a “learner is in a networked world”. Learning is forming networks (connections) and navigating these networks. All three theories site the importance of learners interacting with each other to form stronger understanding of a concept.
One such teaching strategy that lends itself well to social interaction is Cooperative Learning. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski caution, “Cooperative learning is not so much learning to cooperate as it is cooperating to learn”(pg. 143). This is an important point. Simply placing students in groups and hoping for learning to occur is not cooperative learning. In order for cooperative learning situations to be successful a great deal of planning must be done. Everything from group make up, how the work will be assessed, and specific roles of each group member must be developed.
Technology allows for a richer cooperative learning experience. Students are no longer limited to their classroom. Through the use of the internet they are now able to communicate effectively with classrooms around the world. Vociethread is one such technology tool which is easy to use and provides a forum for pictures, video, and voice recordings. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski state, “When students work in cooperative groups, they make sense of, or construct meaning for, new knowledge by interacting with others” (pg. 139). The quality of these interactions can be magnified by utilizing web resources.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Program Eight. Social Constructivism. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA:ASCD
One such teaching strategy that lends itself well to social interaction is Cooperative Learning. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski caution, “Cooperative learning is not so much learning to cooperate as it is cooperating to learn”(pg. 143). This is an important point. Simply placing students in groups and hoping for learning to occur is not cooperative learning. In order for cooperative learning situations to be successful a great deal of planning must be done. Everything from group make up, how the work will be assessed, and specific roles of each group member must be developed.
Technology allows for a richer cooperative learning experience. Students are no longer limited to their classroom. Through the use of the internet they are now able to communicate effectively with classrooms around the world. Vociethread is one such technology tool which is easy to use and provides a forum for pictures, video, and voice recordings. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski state, “When students work in cooperative groups, they make sense of, or construct meaning for, new knowledge by interacting with others” (pg. 139). The quality of these interactions can be magnified by utilizing web resources.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Program Eight. Social Constructivism. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA:ASCD
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)