Problem-Based Learning: Technological Aids

 “One must learn by doing the thing; for though you think you know it, you have no certainty, until you try.”  - Sophocles

And so it is that several millennia later we discuss what many tout as a new(er) theory of the way we learn.  In modern education, this is known as constructionism, an extension of its cousin, constructivism.  Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) summarizes it well by calling it: “A theory of learning that state people learn best when they build an external artifact or something they can share with others.”  Both of my grandfathers were incredibly good at getting me to do this.  Instead of teaching me all of the steps to a job, with minute details and special orders, they would hand me a tool and a piece of wood and tell me to get to work.  Through those trials and tribulations, I learned skills with more understanding and depth than I ever would have by reading a book or even watching someone else do it. 

This constructionist lens of learning is how I would like to take a look at a teaching strategy that Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) call “generating and testing hypothesis.”  Though it may sound all shiny and new it is really just a collection of ideas and resources that teachers can use to teach by using problem-based learning (PBL) with their students.  According to Glazer (2001), problem-based learning: “Is an effort to challenge students to address real-world problems and resolve realistic dilemmas.”  In other words, a problem is either discovered by or presented to students, and the process of solving that problem is used to teach students content within the context of the solution.  

Today we are going to look at specific techniques involving problem-based learning.  More specifically, we will how technology can aid students learning this way by allowing them: “To spend more time interpreting the data rather than gathering the data” (Pitler et al., 2007, p 203).  As a science teacher, I am well aware of this pit fall, having spent extra days, and even weeks, trying to sort out data from a lab to make it accessible for students.  Pitler et al. (2007) offer up three general categories of technologies to aid constructionist learning which I will follow in this analysis: 1) Spreadsheet software, 2) Data collection tools, and 3) Web resources.

Spreadsheet Software:

There are many spreadsheet programs out there; however, the king of them all seems to be Microsoft Excel.  I will mention that there are a few benefits to using Google Spreadsheets in terms of accessibility online and a few other features, but almost every computer I have touched in schools has Excel loaded on.  Despite your brand choice, there are huge advantages for teachers to use this software in class. 

The obvious advantage is data analysis whether it is lab results or test scores.  Numbers can be easily compiled, crunched, and plotted with only basic knowledge of the program.  However, today we are not discussing a spreadsheets ability to count; rather we are looking at its use in helping students learn in a manner consistent with constructionist theory.  

The examples shown by Pitler et al. (2007) do not involve number crunching.  Rather, the teacher sets up a spreadsheet that allows students to test a hypothesis.  Students are told that they inherit ten thousand dollars and must decide how to invest it to maximize their yield.  To bring this back to the learning theories, students are given a realistic scenario for which they must figure out the best solution.  As a science teacher, I can see many advantages to spreadsheet software in testing hypotheses.  For example, students could use the software to determine how large of a sample size they would need to get an accurate picture of population.  Alternatively, they could devise a plan to decrease pollution levels for families by calculating current levels.  Of course, I am spouting out examples without having done them, but I see some potential for uses of spreadsheets in problem-based learning especially.

Data Collection Tools:

A hypothesis is not a hypothesis unless it can be tested.  Pitler et al. (2007) are spot on when they discuss the importance of data collection in testing a hypothesis when they describe how: “Students research problems, form a hypothesis, and collect data to confirm, deny, or revise their last hypothesis” (p 210).  However, they way they apply data collection tools, from Probeware to the internet, it is not a teaching strategy, rather a teaching aid. 

Almost all of the problem-based learning I have directed in my classroom requires the collecting of data.  This data is often used to help solve a problem, though occasionally, and perhaps more effectively, it has been used to determine the problem itself.  For example, while working in Montana with the Watershed Education Network (WEN), middle school students first pointed out rapid decline in the health of a local river through their monitoring of the river itself.  Data collection tools can greatly speed up this process.  In the case of these middle school students, these Probeware devices made monitoring streams feasible during a normal school day. 

I have a great example of internet-based data collection tools used by students tracking the migration of certain species across the continent.  Students from across the country input dates and counts of sightings.  This data was collected into charts that show where different species are in their migration.

Web Resources:

This category is really the dumping ground for anything found online that has not fit into the other two categories.  However, Pitler et al. (2007) discuss their importance in allowing: “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” (pp 212-213).  In science, I know of many simulators that allow students to test the hypotheses they have derived from other parts of the class.  There is an added benefit to these in terms of student buy-in and engagement, which helps with learning and motivation (2007).

It is easy to fall into the pitfall of thinking every simulation online fits into constructionist learning theory.  However, we must make sure that students are actually able to create stuff and not just fill in preset boxes.  As the line is fuzzy between these two, I would encourage teachers to aim hard towards the side of design, rather than just manipulation.  On that note, I believe Pitler et al. (2007) gave us many great resources to aid students in implementing Problem-based learning.  We just have to understand the importance of making learning relevant to students.  This means leaving things open ended enough for students create things on their own.  Though technology can be an incredible aid in constructionist learning, it is also very easy for teachers to design something that is really just a digital worksheet.

Resources:

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 21, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Constructionist and constructivist 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.

Behaviorism: Practical Applications

Climb into any circle of educators and you will see that the term behaviorism is not in vogue.   However, as I have discussed in my post “Behaviorism: Dead or Alive?” the term may not be popular, but the learning theory itself is very much a part of our every day classrooms.  I would now like to expand on that epiphany by looking into two “techniques” that we can use in our classes that take advantage of the piles of data that people like Watson and Skinner became so fond of.  I will be discussing each from the approach of technology integration (the point of the whole blog)!

The first, titled “Reinforcing Effort” by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007), aims to enhance: “Students’ understanding of the relationship between effort and achievement by addressing their attitudes and beliefs about learning” (p. 155).  According to Pitler et al. (2007), this strategy for learning assumes that effort is not important to every student but they can be taught that effort pays off.  The idea is to show students how effort affects them by having them collect and compare how their effort and its associated achievement compare.  Before looking any further into this strategy we can see the backbone of behaviorism appear.  In it, we are going to ask students to chart their effort and compare it to their results (stimulus) in order to solicit a change in their effort (response).  In other words, we hope to reinforce the behavior of applying effort to what they are doing in our classes.

 Pitler et al. (2007) offer two technology methods to achieve this.  The first is by means of a classic spreadsheet analysis.  Students would essentially score themselves each week based on criteria predetermined in a rubric.  They would score themselves in categories such as participation, attention, homework, studying, and grade (Pitler et al., 2007, pp. 158-159).  The advantage of using a digital spreadsheet (for example: Excel) is that it is very easy to add, average, and graph data.  It always amazes students when they stop looking at numbers and start looking at graphs.  Having students input their data digitally also allows teachers to compile all of the students data together.  As Pitler et al. (2007) put it: “When students see that others have faced many of the same difficulties they face and have overcome these obstacles and achieved goals with strong effort and good attitude, they too can see the connection between effort achievement” (p. 161).  Though it may not look like it, this is a practical application of classic operant conditioning.  Reinforce the good behavior by showing students the positive effects of their effort. 

In some ways, the teaching of effort seems like it fits more into the realms of elementary education.  However, I can see the practical applications at the secondary level as well.  I have worked with several students on behavioral contracts much like those described by Standridge (2002).  However, these contracts are taken one step further as they not only use the data as a motivator but also have rewards for certain scores.  These types of data are submitted by the teachers rather than the students, but the idea still stands.  At the secondary levels there is much more room for understanding and growth, even if the curriculum itself does not lend itself towards teaching effort outright.

The second learning strategy we will look at is aptly titled by Pitler et al. (2007) as “Homework and Practice.”  As you can probably guess, this strategy deals largely with homework and other ways of practicing and applying the concepts learned in class.  The benefits of homework are not new knowledge.  The question is how behaviorism plays a role in its successful completion (note that this is different than simple “completion”).  Too often in our classrooms, homework is seen as “busy work.”  It often goes ungraded by the teacher, or at least not in a timely manner.  However, Pitler and his colleagues caution us about homework stating that: “Because it is easy for errors to slip in when students are practicing, teachers should give feedback as quickly as possible – ideally, early in the practice sessions, before students internalize erroneous processes” (p. 188).  As students practice with the content we have taught them, they are reinforcing skill sets.  If they continue to do something wrong, the theory of behaviorism says that they will continue doing it until there is no longer reinforcement or there is a negative response (ex: wrong answer, or no answer).  The key word for educators has to be “Feedback.”  It is through feedback, be it positive or negative, that we are able to adjust the track of behavior.  The earlier we can provide this feedback, the more likely students will attain the correct responses and patterns in the future.

Technology is giving teachers (and peers) more and more opportunities to provide feedback to students early and quickly.  The most obvious pieces of tech is a word processor.  The new versions of these, such as Microsoft Word, allow educators or peers to insert comments and make changes.  In this way we can direct the behavior of a student by providing reinforcements (both positive and negative).  Online tutorials are also becoming more and more popular.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) explains, these tutorials provide instant feedback to guide behavior.  The best of these tutorials provide instant remediation for incorrect answers.  Pitler et al. (2007) discuss how students, or teachers, can provide similar experiences by creating PowerPoint games using action buttons and hyperlinks.  Even better are the ever advancing abilities to work collaboratively online through programs like Wikis.  Through these, students can instantly modify and provide feedback to a peer.  Teachers can monitor changes and redirect (reinforce) groups who need guidance.  There are many more ways technology can be used to support homework and practice, and this list is only going to continue to grow.  I also hope you have seen several examples of how behaviorism plays a key part in modern education.

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Behaviorist learning theory [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. 

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Behaviorism: Dead or Alive?

As much as we try to deny it, modern education is built around behaviorist learning theory.  If you go into any lunchroom, teachers are most likely not talking about the learning of the students, but rather the behavior.  According to Standridge (2002) behavior is must be directly observed to be counted.  She also asserts that behaviorism is based upon: “Changes in behavior that result from stimulus-response associations made by the learner.”  If you are one who does not believe that behaviorism is not alive and well in a classroom, take a bag of candy into a middle school classroom and see what you can get them to do.

All day every day, we run our classes based on Skinner’s idea of operant conditioning.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) explains, we use: “Reinforcement of desirable behaviors . . . [and] punishment of undesirable behaviors.”  This is generally done in the manner of “holding carrots.”  Some examples may be: getting music, sitting by your friend, no homework, a good grade, piece of candy, etc.  We bargain with students every day to come up with things that will reinforce the behaviors and answers we want to see. 

Even though: “Reinforcement is the cardinal motivator” (Smith, 1999) in most classes, punishment is also alive and well.  As a current substitute, this unfortunately seems to be the one I reach for when a class gets rowdy.  Holding the class after, detention, picking up trash; each teacher has their own favorite deterrent for behavior they deem undesirable.

So far, all I have talked about is the typical “behavior” associated with lunchroom chatter.  However, in a science class, I find behaviorism as a must.  No matter how hard I have tried, constructivist learning theories just do not help with reinforcing how to hold a microscope.  First, you threaten financial consequences for dropping a microscope.  You may reinforce proper technique by allowing students access to the best specimens, while simultaneously making students who use improper technique start over and try again.  Getting more into learning strategies, if you want students to use the specified steps of the scientific method (even if you initially taught it using other learning theories and strategies), there are few things more effective than drill and practice.

Let me also discuss grades as a whole.  Contrary to popular belief, grades have two purposes.  The first, more widely acknowledged purpose is to tell the student (and others) how well they are learning the content.  However, at the daily level, these are the primary rewards and punishments we have as teachers.  Why else would students stay after school for several hours the day before grades are due to get a good grade?  They are either afraid of the consequences or motivated by the rewards.

In terms of technology, Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) makes a good case that programmed instruction, as defined by Skinner: “Is ubiquitous with online learning.”  Technology has not done away with behaviorist learning theory, but revitalized it.  In this very program, we have taken quizzes where you choose between answers and get immediate reinforcement or remediation for our answers.  When working with any piece of technology there is a certain series of steps involved for everything we do.  Do them right, and the task will be completed as desired.  Do them out of order (or have no idea what to do) and you will wind up frustrated (and cursing at Bill Gates . . . we have all been there).  Despite our belief that behaviorism is outdated and long gone, it is actually alive and well.  In fact, the technology that we so praise and rely on may actually be bringing back behaviorism rather than move us away from it.

One final note after pondering Pavlov’s experiments (in Standridge, 2002); do our students not salivate at the sound of the lunch bell?

Resources:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Behaviorist learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

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

Standridge, M.. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved March 7, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/