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.