Constructivism in Practice

Dr. Michael Orey describes constructivist theory where each individual constructs meaning of his/her own (Laureate Education, 2009). This theory is further described as one in which the learner is actively involved in building knowledge rather than it being taught from the teacher (Orey, 2001a). Similarly, constructionist learning theory explains that people learn from first-hand experience creating something that can be shared (Laureate Education, 2009). Generating and testing hypotheses directly correlates to the constructivist and constructionist learning theories. When students are generating hypothesis they are using what they have learned through their own experiences to develop a hypothesis. As students test their hypotheses they are gathering resources, questioning, and problem solving (Pitler, et. al., 2007). This is improving their learning through hands-on experience. Students are constructing their own meaning and creating a way to demonstrate their own learning, or a final project. I thought it was amazing how Excel Spreadsheets are utilized to display data (Pitler, et. al, 2007). The way it is described in the textbook it sounds easy enough for the fourth graders in my school to be able to use the program. This program would help students gain a deeper personal meaning from their research. As students are generating and testing hypotheses, they are aiming for a state of equilibration (Laureate Education, 2009). As new information is learned, either assimilation or accommodation will be used to reach equilibration (Laureate Education, 2009). These constructionist characteristics are applied as students fine-tune their results and create an end project to share. Students who are generating and testing hypotheses are motivated and excited to learn (Orey, 2001a).

Learning by Design is an example of the constructionist learning theory (Orey, 2001a). Students are learning through being actively involved in solving authentic problems. This is constructing learning through personal experiences. Misconceptions are recognized through experimentation and exploration. These misconceptions are corrected, which brings students back to a state of equilibration (Laureate Education, 2009). Students create an end project that they share with peers and receive feedback about. This feedback sparks the student to alter their product based on the feedback, which brings them back to the state of equilibration (Laureate Education, 2009). At the end of students’ learning they will have a project or artifact to show, which is what constructionists would identify as learning (Orey, 2001a).

Another method of instruction is project-based learning. This is very similar to learning by design, but it is broken up into three different phases (Orey, 2001a). Learning by design, in contrast to project-based learning, begins with clear expectations and assessment guidelines (Orey, 2001a). In project-based learning the assessment comes at the end of the learning (Orey, 2001a). Both methods include collaboration and feedback in order to modify and improve the end artifact. In constructionism the collaboration and feedback would encourage students to either assimilate or accommodate the new information in order to reach the stage of equilibration (Laureate Education, 2009).

Problem based model is another constructionist method of instruction. In this model students are given an authentic problem in the form of a question (Orey, 2001b). One of the differences in using this model is that there is not a definite solution to the problem, so students’ thinking can take them in a multitude of directions without being “wrong.” In line with constructivism, problem based learning is learner specific. Students learn based on what they already know and believe (Orey, 2001b). In constructionism this refers to students assimilating or accommodating information to reach a state of equilibration (Laureate Education, 2009). Similar to the collaboration in project based learning and learning by design, students learn through interactions with their peers or members of their community (Orey, 2001b). One of the major differences between this model and project based and learning by design methods is that construction or presentation of a final product is not mandatory (Orey, 2001b). This differs from the constructionist view of learning. Anchored instruction is very much like problem based learning except the problems they are given are based upon an anchor (Orey, 2001b). Students still learn based on their individual experiences and feelings, but in this model they begin with a common experience such as an article or a virtual field trip. Also, in anchored instruction students create an end presentation to demonstrate their learning (Orey, 2001b). This is a constructionist component.

Webquests are an amazing instructional resource. They are structured, collaborative and engaging. A problem or situation is introduced and students go through steps on the sites that lead to a final conclusion. Students are expected to have an end product to share, which is constructionist in nature.

There are many instructional methods that exemplify constructivist and constructionist learning theories. These methods can be used where students create their own meaning and demonstrate their learning with a product they share at the end. They are very effective models of instruction but they are not widely utilized due to many current parameters existing in classrooms today.

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories. Baltimore: Author.

Orey, M.(Ed.). (2001a). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page on January 21, 2010.

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001b). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Problem Based Instruction. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page on January 15, 2010.

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

Cognitivism In Practice

The instructional strategies we learned about this week correlate and integrate well with the Cognitive Learning Theory. Each of these strategies assist in making learning easier and more connected to previous knowledge.

Cues have a strong relationship to what we learned this week about cognitive learning theories. They set the stage for students to be open to new learning and may help students begin to think about the topic and what they are going to learn (Pitler, et al, 2007). Cues can be in the form of video clips or concept maps. They can be both visual and auditory in nature. They are previews or hints about what they are going to learn. In cognitive learning theory this may be a sensory input of information to move the learning to the short-term memory (Laureate Education, 2009a).

Questions are either auditory or visual. They encourage students to access previous knowledge and begin to think about how the new knowledge is connected (Pitler, et al, 2007). They may spur thinking to further encourage network connections of information as described in the Information Processing Model (Laureate Education, 2009a).

Advanced organizers are visual tools that help create sequential networks to organize learning so it makes sense to the brain. This facilitates greater understanding of content and how topics are interrelated. It is an excellent example of the Information Processing Model where connections between subtopics are made (Laureate Education, 2009a). Paivio’s Dual Coding Hypothesis indicates that people remember visual images more easily than written text (Laureate Education, 2009a). The visual layouts of the organizers, such as concept maps, create a more lasting impression on the learner. Advanced organizers also serve as an elaboration tool. In concept mapping, for example, the nodes may be interconnected. This helps the learner make associations between concepts (Laureate Education, 2009a).

Two of the strategies we explored this week reach higher level thinking skills. When students are summarizing or using note-taking skills they are analyzing what they are learning to determine what should be included. Summarizing can take the form of a blog or may be done through a tool in Word. Students must sort through what they have learned to find the most important details. This review of the information is a type of rehearsal to bridge learning from short-term memory to long-term memory. Students use a variety of formats for note-taking to organize information to make it easier for the brain to learn. When students are taking notes they are making connections between concepts. Note-taking may be a form of elaboration where associations are made and combined in a visual format (Laureate Education, 2009a).

Virtual field trips are an experiential or episodic learning experience (Laureate Education, 2009a). They build background knowledge and share visual images that are easier to retrieve in memory (Laureate Education, 2009a). Virtual field trips provide the next best thing to being there experiences. Learning can be tied to these shared experiences as students analyze and compare what they already know to their new information (Laureate Education, 2009b).

Concept mapping is an organizational tool to introduce, conclude, analyze or assess new information. They can also be used to present learning in an organized format (Novak & Canas, 2008). It follows the Information Processing Model where memory consists of a network of information that relates to other bits of information (Laureate Education, 2009a). The maps show how concepts are interconnected through nodes and connecting lines. It is a visual example of Paivio’s Dual Coding Hypothesis (Laureate Education, 2009a). Also, concepts maps are an indicator of whether or not a student has any misconceptions or gaps in learning about the topic (Novak & Canas, 2008). Since concept maps are never finished, the learner must assess and reassess new learning to see it if still fits in on the concept map (Novak & Canas, 2008). Concept maps are an excellent way to visually chunk learning so it is not too much for the short-term memory (Laureate Education, 2009a).

The strategies we learned this week enhance learning and should definitely be incorporated into the classroom.

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009a). Cognitive learning theories. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009b). Spotlight on technology: virtual field trips. Baltimore: Author.

Novak, J.D. & Canas, 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 the Instituted for Human and Machine Cognition Web site: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf on January 15, 2010.

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

Behaviorism In Practice by Lynne Krewson

The most important characteristic of a learner is effort. In order to ensure the continuation of effort, it must be recognized and reinforced. Students will not realize the importance of effort unless they are taught about its importance (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). There are predesigned effort checklists that can assist students in learning what the definition of effort is (Saphier, 2008). I adapted materials from an educational resource book to create a math effort checklist. I distributed this chart at my first math data grade level meeting. I need to follow through to see if teachers are using it. It is much more simplistic than the one in our text since I am in an elementary school setting (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). The effort checklist can be introduced through shaping (Orey, 2001). One characteristic can be taught at a time and then more may be added to the chart a little bit at a time (Orey, 2001). I thought the graphing and keeping track of the effects of effort were exceptional, however I do not visualize that working well in elementary school. The checklist I developed, however, would serve as an excellent self-monitoring tool for students in third and fourth grade. When students can understand and experience the value of effort, they will put forth more effort and have more success with their learning. Initially, students will need praise and other extrinsic rewards to reinforce their effort. According to the behaviorist learning theory, these will be the positive reinforcement (Laureate Education, 2009a). The positive reinforcement is what increases the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated. Eventually, as students internalize the value of effort and the effects on their grades and learning, intrinsic motivation will take over and praise or extrinsic rewards may no longer be necessary. Lessons that incorporate technology are interesting to students. The interest level increases students’ desire to put more effort into working hard and doing well since they are enjoying learning with technology. Also, students incorporate technology when they are creating their own projects. Students take ownership of projects they choose and they design. More effort is applied for projects such as this. Currently, our school is using a math program called First In Math. The more effort our students put into this program, the more virtual rewards they earn. They earn stickers and points on the computer program. At the end of each week I post the top players for the week in each grade and the class that scored the most points. These students receive certificates and the top class of the week houses the large trophy. Winners are announced over the school system weekly too. Students enjoy this program and put forth a lot of effort on it. “Online educational games have an inherent appeal and generate immediate feedback that allows a student, parent, and teacher to monitor progress toward mastery” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p. 195). Since learning how important it is to connect effort with learning, I am going to talk to the teachers to recommend they praise the effort of their students and explain how their effort is paying off academically for their students. I gladly admit that technology, in combination with behaviorism, is improving effort with mathematics in my school.

Homework fits in well in the behaviorist learning theory. Homework should be independent practice of skills or lessons that were taught during the school day. The purpose of homework is two-fold. First, it allows the student to review and practice what they are learning. We know from brain based learning that the more a concept is repeated, the more it is learned (Laureate Education, 2009b). Secondly, homework informs parents about what their child is working on in school and how well their child understands these skills. Therefore, according to the behaviorist learning theory, homework reinforces what students are learning. Completing homework will most likely result in good grades, which is positive reinforcement to do the assignments (Laureate Education, 2009a). In addition, homework may be graded and completing it will make the teacher happy. The negative consequence of not completing homework is that either your grades will not be good or you may have to stay in for recess or serve a detention to complete it (Laureate Education, 2009a). Technology can facilitate homework in many ways. Students may need to respond to a blog for homework. Their responses can be reinforced and rewarded by others responding to their blog posts. My own children really enjoy the blog communications with their classmates. Also, when teachers give students a homework choice about how to demonstrate their learning using technology, students are motivated to do well (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007). Creating a project about which they feel pride positively reinforces them. They will receive further positive reinforcement from teacher and peer comments as well as their grade. Plus, technology has changed how homework papers are written. Not too long ago students hand wrote papers to hand in. These papers took a long time to write and correction fluid had to be used when a mistake was made. Nowadays students use word processing to complete their homework. After a paper is typed in, students can use a spelling and grammar check to give immediate feedback about their work. The typed paper is very clean and nice to look at. If an entire paragraph was forgotten, it is easy to go back and edit the paper. Feedback is immediate and adaptations are very easy to make. Students receive reinforcement in how to improve their paper prior to handing it in to be graded. There are programs, such as turnitin.com, where students submit their papers online and another student edits the paper (providing feedback) and returns it. The student may choose to make changes to his/her paper, based on the feedback, prior to handing it into the teacher to be graded. Technology is often utilized for homework assignments. Students receive immediate feedback and reinforcement from technology to improve their work. This increases the chances that homework will be completed since the student receives helpful feedback to improve their work.

In conclusion, students “change behaviors to satisfy the desires they have learned to value” (Orey, 2001, p. 5). It is our responsibility to teach students the value of effort and homework. Behaviorism is an educational tool to reinforce positive behaviors we want our students to develop. These positive behaviors will benefit the students their entire lives. Technology assists students with effort and homework. The use of technology to improve student achievement will continue to grow.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009a). Behaviorist learning theory. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009b). Understanding the brain. Baltimore: Author.

Orey, M.(Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Multiple Intelligences and Learning Styles. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page on December 31, 2009.

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

Saphier, J. (2008). The skillful teacher (6^th ed.) Acton, MA: Research for better teaching.

Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology

Hi Colleagues,

This is my new blog for this course. I look forward to collaborating with you here.

Lynne