Cooperative Learning

This week's material on Cooperative Learning from our text served as a good review and reinforcement for me. In Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, these recommendations serve as strong reminders that really do make sense:
1.  Use a variety of criteria to group students.
2.  Use informal, formal, and base groups.
3.  Keep the groups to a manageable size.
4.  Combine cooperative learning with other classroom structures (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). 

As I mentioned in my discussion post this week, cooperative learning was something I was trained in when I first started teaching in the 80's.  I started out with doing all the steps:  grouping in various ways, assigning (or letting the students assign) roles in the group, helping the students evaluate themselves and each other.  I believe there are many benefits to cooperative learning as well as some potential drawbacks.  Working with 9th and 10th grade students, I found most of them capable of working successfully in a group; in fact, this age can be especially fun, because they are, for the most part, mature enough to participate effectively, but still hold enthusiasm for such activities on which I can capitalize.  Of the recommendations mentioned above, the fourth one is especially important.  Cooperative learning needs to be done in combination with other structures and activities.  Too much of this design, and the students start to get complacent and bored with groups.  I think it needs to be done in moderation, and needs to be well-planned.  "Get yourselves into groups and work" is not enough.  When used purposefully and planned thoughtfully, cooperative learning does indeed "build trust, camaraderie, and teamwork" (Pitler et al., 2007).

The implications for cooperative learning and the infusement of technology are widespread and exciting.  As our text says, "It can help us realize the hope of schools as places that serve students anytime, anywhere, and facilitate their growth into lifelong learners" (Pitler et al., 2007). I am anxious to take what I have learned in the past weeks and start adding technology tools such as the Voicethread we have been working on.  Other tools I am interested in trying include the use of some sort of Keypals.  In my English 9 and 10 courses, written communication is key, and I can think of many ways we could use this telecommunication network to facilitate discussion, including current topics, literature, etc. 

 Below is a link to my Voicethread.  I must confess I had never even heard of one before.  It took some time for me to first become familiar with this tool, and then, secondly, to find an idea from which to create one. My ninth grade class reads the novel The Giver every year.  I made this Voicethread as a starting point for a class discussion on Sameness, a concept from the the novel's Utopian society.  I would love to hear anyone's suggestions for making is better and clearer for my students.  I would love to enhance it as well.

Also, the photo on my Voicethread is of the front cover of the novel.  I could not find a way to edit my second page in order to give credit for the photo, which I found on Google images.  I will change this as soon as I figure it out!  I am looking forward to seeing my colleagues' Voicethreads and receiving great suggestions about my own! 

http://voicethread.com/share/3148297/

Resource:

Pitler, H., Hubbell, Kuhn, Malenoski. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Constructionism

 In our class text, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, we spent the week examining the chapter on “Generating and Testing Hypotheses” and its correlation to Constructionism. 

This instructional strategy of generating and testing hypotheses correlates with what we have learned about the theories of constructionism.  Many of the activities described in our text are authentic learning activities, including project-based learning.  “These activities are designed to answer a question or solve a problem and generally reflect the types of learning and work people do in the everyday world outside the classroom” (“What is Project-Based,” 2012). 

Especially important is the fact that with technology helping to generating and test the hypotheses, the students have more time to spend interpreting the date instead of gathering the data (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, p. 203). For example, one method of gathering and manipulating date is an interactive spreadsheet.  Students can even use a teacher-created interactive spreadsheet to “compare their predictions to actually results without spending lots of valuable time doing calculations or designing spreadheets”  (Pitler, et al., p. 207).

Our text also describes an activity in which students seek to solve the answer to a question about whether or not their town has acid rain.  They find themselves collecting data, making predictions, and charting results.  “The data collection tool allows Mrs. Schwartz’s class to gather and graph data quickly and accurately, leaving more time for analysis and syntheses.  Their findings lead to further hypotheses and more inquiry”  (Pitler, et al., p. 211).   These higher level thinking skills such as analysis and synthesis are the very stuff of constructionism, along with the real-world lesson and the collaborative nature of the project.

Another avenue of technology for generating and testing hypotheses is the use of web resources and gaming software.  These interactive applets and simulations “allow students to use background knowledge, make decisions, and see the outcome of their hypotheses, often in virtual situations that would be impossible or financially unfeasible in real life”  (Pitler, et al., p. 213).  Students who used simulations and educationally-sound games  “not only recorded higher test scores but also – and perhaps more important – showed overwhelming enthusiasm while learning the material” (Pitler, et al., p. 214).

When I first glanced at the text assignment for this week, I thought this was material that probably didn’t pertain as much to my teaching.  Language arts and hypotheses?  Upon further investigation, I did realize there is relevance in other areas than just science.  For example, my tenth graders have a unit on Media Literacy, where they become more aware of all kinds of media and its relevance and safety, such as Facebook etiquette, web search strategies, opinion vs. fact, and validity of Internet sources.  Such material could be effectively investigated using data collection tools or a webquest.

When researching, I found this site to be particularly informative in regards to Constructivism.  There are a number of articles you may find enlightening.

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/index_sub1.html

Resources:

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

What is project-based learning? (2012). Retrieved May 22, 2012, from http://pbl-online.org/

Cognitive Thinking -- It's a Process

It was an interesting week as we studied cognitive learning and what we as teachers can do to enhance cognitive learning in our classrooms through technology.  We learned the cognitive learning plays an important role in the way students learn.  In the video “Cognitive Learning Theories,” Dr. Michael Orey discussed the Information Processing Model, originated by Atkinson and Shiffrin, as being a process:

1.     Sensory input of information takes place

2.     Information goes into short-term memory

3.     Rehearsal of information

4.     Information is stored in long-term memory (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).

Mark Smith described cognitive learning as that which “results from inferences, expectations and making connections.  Instead of acquiring habits, learners acquire plans and strategies, and prior knowledge is important” (1999, p. 1).  It is this process of acquiring plans and strategies, along with prior knowledge, that makes this week’s instructional strategies so valuable. 

First, in our class text Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works, there are “Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers.”  Of these, I think the advance organizers most closely reflect cognitive thinking.  “Advance organizers are structures that teachers provide to students before a learning activity to help them classify and make sense of the content they’ll encounter, particularly new content that is not well organized in its original format.  In essence, advance organizers help student focus their learning” (Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K., (2007, p. 73).  They provide a clear path toward the process of acquiring plans and strategies, as Smith described in the prior paragraph.

I am excited to implement some Advance Organizers into my ninth and tenth grade English classes.  This website Instructional Strategies Online provided me with a great article about graphic organizers, their purpose, and their implementation.  It also contains a list of links to other sites with graphic organizing ideas.

Secondly, our text discusses “Summarizing and Note Taking.”  These skills are difficult for my ninth and tenth grade students in general.  They have difficulty knowing what to include in their notes, what to exclude, and how to word it.  Any tools designed to help students with their ability to “synthesize information and distill it into a concise new form” will improve their cognitive skills (Pitler, H., et al., 119).  I must confess I never knew of the Microsoft Word AutoSummarize tool.  I can hardly wait until next year when my tenth graders and I start the iSearch paper.  This will be so valuable!

Thirdly, Concept Mapping “serves as a kind of template or scaffold to help to organize knowledge and to structure it, even though the structure must be built up piece by piece with small units of interacting concept and propositional frameworks”  (Novak, J. & Canas, A., 2008, p. 7).   My favorite source for concept mapping this week was Exploratree.  I found many great ideas for working with language arts, including templates for all kinds of writing processes.  I am anxious to begin implementing them.

Lastly, there are Virtual Field Trips.  According to Dr. Michael Orey, these are valuable in that the provide:

1.  Opportunity to “go” where you physically can’t.

2.  Opportunity to compare with other primary sources

3.  Opportunity to “witness” history  (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).

These virtual field trips are important, Orey stated. “We can create episodes, this episodic memory, this rich experience, which can be a foundational experience in the network of ideas” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  I look forward to working with a virtual field trip in my classroom tomorrow and learning about them even more as I go.

Regardless of the type of instructional strategy or technology tool we use to promote cognitive learning, we need to be reminded of important principles when implementing these strategies, including:

1.     Instruction should be well organized.

2.     Instruction should be clearly structured.

3.     The perceptual features of the task are important.

4.     Prior knowledge is important.

5.     Differences between individuals are important as they will affect learning.

6.     Cognitive feedback gives information to learners about their success or failure concerning the task at hand  (Smith, 1999, p. 3).

It has been another interesting week as we studied a second theory of learning.  So far, I would say there are elements of each in most students’ ‘thinking repertoire.’  We’ll see what happens by next week!

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). 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). (2011). Program six: Spotlight on technology: Virtual field trips [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

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/
TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Smith, M. K. (1999). The cognitive orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-cognitive.htm

Behaviorist Learning Theory -- Is It a Fit in Today's Schools?

In my current master’s course called Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, & Technology, my colleagues and I are examining different models of learning, relating to their use in classrooms of today as well as their relevance to educational technology.

According to Lever-Duffy and McDonald, (2008), the Behaviorist Learning Theory is based on external stimuli.  “The learner acquires behaviors, skills, and knowledge in response to the rewards, punishments, or withheld responses associated with them” (p. 15).   This theory of learning has some interesting implications regarding Instruction and technology in today’s classrooms.

One of our class texts, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, offers specific strategies that relate to Behaviorism.  Chapter 8, called “Reinforcing Effort” discusses “enhancing students’ understanding of the relationship between effort and achievement by addressing their attitudes and beliefs about learning (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 155).

I touched on this topic in my discussion post this week, as I feel strongly that this strategy is an important one.  How many of us as teachers have been frustrated with our students who expect much return, but put very little effort into their learning?    Melissa Standridge (2002) states, “The entire rationale of behavior modification is that most behavior is learned.  If behaviors can be learned, then they can also be unlearned or relearned” (p. 7).  If this is the case, we can teach students the value of effort through positive reinforcement, and by modeling effort as well.  Our text gives these two recommendations for classroom practice:

1.     Explicitly teach students about the importance of effort.

2.     Have students keep track of their effort and achievement (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 156). 

This is where the technology piece comes in.  The authors suggest using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to help students see the connection between effort and achievement (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  After examining an effort rubric, students could log on and keep an Effort/Achievement Spreadsheet Template to track progress in their effort. 

Another way technology can aid in reinforcing effort is through data collection tools such as Survey Monkey.  “This technology allows you to use a standard effort rubric and incorporate it into a survey that will give you insight into the character of your students and provide data you can use to encourage students to try hard and to underscore the connection between effort and achievement” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 162).   It is one thing for a teacher to tell his/her students to try harder, or to tell students about others who have succeeded through hard work.  It is entirely different when students are shown these facts through such data, which will hopefully convince them to try harder themselves.

Chapter 10 is called “Homework and Practice.”  Dr. Michael Orey explained in this week’s course DVD how Behaviorism involves operant conditioning, that is, the reinforcement of desirable behaviors and the punishment of undesirable behaviors (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  Orey claims that operant conditioning is found in programmed instruction, which is present in technology, especially tutorials and drill and practice.  To me, there is a link between what Behaviorism’s operant conditioning and what Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) say about practice: “Typically, students need about 24 practice sessions with a skill in order to achieve 80-percent competency (p. 188).  The authors recommend that teachers “design practice assignments that focus on specific elements of a complex skill or process” (p. 188).   Technology provides this crucial practice in the form of drills and online self-quizzes, as well as tutorials.  Thus, Behaviorism again plays an important role in students learning.

Other online sites I looked into included Bubble.us, where students can make online graphic organizers like bubble maps.  I thought this was particularly interesting for my ninth grade students, who practice all year for the MN GRAD writing test.  The pre-writing bubbles would be an excellent practice for them.

The other site I looked at was Classroom.JC-Schools.net.  I took a look at some of the language arts drill and practice links.  Though I haven’t used this sort of venue for practicing their skills, I do think my students would be more motivated if using online quizzes and other programmed instruction.

I found some interesting background material on Behaviorism and its use in education and technology.  This article is particularly good because of the specific examples author Melissa Standbridge provides of different kinds of reinforcement.  It is a great review of how we might be using Behaviorism in our own classrooms.

<http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Behaviorism>

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

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.

Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/