Begining at the End: Reflections on Learning

As I look at the past seven weeks in this course, I realize I have come a long way, technologically speaking.  I am walking away with a quiver that has many more technological arrows: VoiceThread, Lucid Chart, and Jay Cut to name a few.  At the same time, I have discovered new ways to use all of those “old technologies” in new ways.  For example, I have learned how to take PowerPoint off the screen at the front of the class and place into the hands of the students, allowing them to direct their own learning.  Beyond the tools themselves, I have learned about the theories behind their application.  For the first time in my career, I actually understand the accepted learning theories of the day enough to apply those findings to my classroom in a way that is transforming my teaching.  In the following blog, I would like to discuss several of these revelations and explain how they will affect my classroom.

After studying each learning theory in depth, I believe that there is not one clear winner.  By this, I mean that each learning theory, from Behaviorism to Connectivism, has pieces that are essential to any modern classroom.  To expand further, I do not believe a teacher can be successful by relying on just one of these theories.  If I only used Behaviorism in my classroom, I believe students would not only be missing valuable learning, but they would rebel at a structure that does not match everyday life.  On the opposite side of the spectrum, I do not believe a classroom can run strictly on Social Constructionism, as there is a time and a place for working on something alone.  Therefore, I see my own classroom as cycling through all of the learning theories we have discussed, as they all have value at different times.

That being said, if I had to choose the one that I rely on the most, it would have to be Constructionism proper.  Although I do not believe you can run a class using only this theory, I see great power in building upon your own knowledge in a way specific to you.  I believe there is a lot of power in creating a “tangible” finished product that you can be proud of and share with others.  This is reflected in my decision to integrate technology that allows students the ability to create and share their work.  It has also been beneficial to understand the learning theory behind various pieces of technology as this seems to make the tools purpose clearer to me, and therefore, my students.
 

This has created a paradigm shift in my instructional practice.  I have always felt that technology integration is essential in a modern classroom.  However, I let the technology dictate the learning strategy and guide instruction.  I now realize that this could be akin to a hammer guiding a carpenter; it just does not make sense.  My new plan is to select the learning strategy that will give my students the best chance at learning the information.  I will then determine what the best piece of technology is and how it should be used to target that strategy.

As previously mentioned, I feel as if I have a lot more technological tools to work with.  This is not only in breadth but also in depth.  In other words, I not only learned about new software, but also how to use the ones I already relied on in different, much deeper, ways.  One type of technological tool I would like to implement into my classroom has to do with concept mapping.  I have often used concept maps on paper.  However, this always has me in the driver’s seat and students simply filling out a worksheet.  I have now seen the power of software like Lucid Chart and Spider Scribe and can see how students could benefit from creating their graphic organizers.  I am also interested in the concept mapping presentation program Prezi and cannot wait to put it into the hands of my students.

 

A second set of technology I would like to get my students into is that of video creation.  Looking at websites like YouTube, this seems to be a trend that is not going away.  In terms of actual implementation, I think that the first step is to create some stop animation films using digital cameras.  In this way, students can think more about what they are doing while creating their artifact.  It will also give us a chance to get our feet wet with online editing software like Jay Cut before moving into actual footage.  I believe this type of technology not only increases engagement, but increases learning.

This all sounds great on paper, but how am I actually going to start getting all of this into my classroom?  I have come up with two long-term goals to help me with both the pedagogical and technological aspects of changing my teaching.  The first has to do with Marzano’s Nine Researched-based instructional strategies.  If the research is correct, and these strategies really do show as much growth as they claim, then they should be prevalent in my classroom.  However, as we have been warned, no one should try to implement all of them at once, as we will get overwhelmed and gain no mastery.  Therefore, I have chosen two of the strategies to focus on in my teaching: 1) Identifying similarities and differences and 2) Creating non-linguistic representations.  My first long-term goal will be to be intentional about implementing at least one of these every week during the next year.  This also means researching new ways and new technology that allows me to incorporate them into my classroom.

 

A second long-term goal has to do more directly with technology.  During the next year, I will implement technology at least once a week.  In defining the technology tool, I would like to make it clear that this does not mean I use PowerPoint in front of the class.  This means that the technology is used as a learning tool in the hands of the students.  If this goal matches with the previous goal then I believe that is even better. 

By posting these two goals on the wall in my classroom, I plan to follow through with them not just because I said I would, but because I feel that they will actually make a difference in my teaching and my student’s learning.  I also feel that their integration into my weekly planning will reinforce the learning theories and learning strategies that we have looked at over these past few weeks.  In addition, I hope that their implementation will allow me to add even more technological tools to my already expanded repertoire.  Now I guess it is time to stop writing about it and go do it!

Of the Nine, I'll Start With Two

This week we looked back at the nine clusters of instructional strategies that Marzano (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) has identified as those that have the largest impact on students learning.  Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) is clear about the point that we should only select one or two of these strategies to focus on in a year so that we may gain mastery rather than get overwhelmed.  Accordingly, I have chosen two instructional strategies that I think will be valuable to my teaching and my students.  Both of these happen to come from this week’s learning and they are: 1) Identifying similarities and differences and 2) Creating nonlinguistic representations.

According to Marzano’s meta-analysis (as discussed in Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) effectively using the instructional strategy “Identifying similarities and differences” leads to a percentile gain of forty-five.  If these numbers are accurate, and it truly has a percentile gain eleven points higher than the next, it is hard not to work on this strategy first.  This instructional strategy lends itself towards science as so much of what we do is comparing and classifying.  In terms of implementation, it will be a little different for each particular approach I use, but Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b) makes a few clear suggestions.  Essentially, she says we should work from the teacher modeling the strategy to completely independent practice.  Of course, this would follow a continuum where students do more and more on their own as they get more comfortable doing so.  Pickering is also clear that the use of graphic representations greatly increases the success of implementation.  She also stresses the fact that we must vary our approach, not just use one method every time.

What does this actually look like in the classroom?  That will depend on the specific application.  However, let me discuss several piece of technology that I believe will help make this strategy successful.  According to Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) when students identify similarities and differences: “They make new connections, experience fresh insights, and correct misconceptions” (p. 167).  They also believe that technology is an essential instructional element to make this process more accessible to both the students and the teacher.  The main technological resource mentioned by Pitler et al. (2007) is Microsoft Word.  Though somewhat rudimentary, in terms of tech, it is quick and easy for a teacher to create templates and charts that aid students in comparing and classifying things.  One downfall to this is that this usually means students are using pencil and paper to complete the organization.  In science, one of the most powerful pieces of technology for identifying similarities and differences is Microsoft Excel.  We often have data that can be easily compared in Excel.  Best of all, it is only a few quick clicks until you have a graphic representation of the data you are working with. 

Probably the most useful in terms of implementation is the use of organizing and brainstorming software.  Now, Pitler et al. (2007) hype up a program called Inspiration (or Kidspiration for the younger grades).  However, my district does not have a licensed purchased and I do not believe it is worth the money with free options available.   For example, programs like Lucid Chart (www.lucidchart.com) would be great for creating Venn Diagrams and other organizational charts.  Even programs like PowerPoint lend themselves towards the easy creation of comparison and classification templates, which students could manipulate. 

Generally, this instructional strategy seems to fit best with Cognitive learning theory.  According to Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c) cognitive learning theory is really a collective of theories describing how the brain processes and stores information.  Having students identify similarities and differences fits closely with this definition.  At the same time, certain activities involving this strategy could have students creating their own classifications and organizational charts.  This would start working more into constructionist learning theory.

The second learning strategy I will discuss (more briefly), is how to use nonlinguistic representations.  I believe that the same ideas from the last strategy will apply in terms of implementation; that is working from teacher modeling to independent practice.  Pickering (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) was a big fan of this strategy, describing it as a way to help students learn what to do inside of their heads.  The reason I am choosing nonlinguistic representations is that I like the technologies that can be used to support it. 

Pitler et al. (2007) devote more examples to this strategy than almost any of the others.  There are the more obvious word processing and spreadsheet applications, but it is here I want to go a little deeper than those do.  For one, the idea of time-lapse photography seems like a powerful tool for a science class.  Pitler et al. discuss them in terms of digital microscopes; however, it could be done with any camera.  Along the same lines would be stop-motion pictures.  The most common example is claymation, but I am thinking about other applications like mitosis cutouts and other processes.  The next logical phase is full video which I have seen used very powerfully in the recent months.  All of this requires a little bit more hardware and software, but with a few baby steps, I think I could get stop-motion movies going if I use some online editing software like Jay Cut (http://jaycut.com). 

However I end up implementing nonlinguistic representation, it is going to have students creating an artifact, and most likely in groups.  This ties into constructionism and social constructionism learning theories.  It would also not be hard to build this into problem or project based learning.  Now, I guess it is time to get planning!

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Instructional strategies, part one [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Instructional strategies, part two [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011c). Cognitive Learning Theories [DVD]. 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.