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.

Technology That Supports Social Learning Theory

This week we looked at cooperative learning as an instructional strategy and technology that aids it.  Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) get right to the point by defining cooperative learning as: “Having students interact with each other in groups in ways that enhance their learning” (p. 139).  They go on to discuss the advantages of learning something socially over doing it alone.  All of this matches with Orey’s (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) description of social constructionism where: “Students actively engage in constructing artifacts and conversing with others.”  Though I hold the belief that students can learn by individual constructionism, I also believe that there are advantages to learning socially when the environment is set up properly.  For one thing, students are able to “leap frog” each other in their thinking.  By this I mean that learners build on each other’s thoughts in a way that speeds up and expands the thinking and learning process. 

Perhaps just as important, if not more so, is the theory of Connectivism.  As stated by Siemens (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b), in Connectivism: “Learning is the act of forming networks and navigating networks of knowledge.”  Even if some argue that this is not truly a learning theory, I believe Connectivism has a much a place in this blog as any other as it relates directly to the application and integration of technology.  It stresses not rote knowledge but the ability to find knowledge.  As mobile devices and computers make their way further and further into the lives of our students, and therefore, our classrooms, the line between memorizing information and accessing information begins to blur.  Connectivism also stresses the social nature of learning but more so in the context of collectively storing and accessing knowledge.

 He technological applications I would like to discuss this week target both social learning theory (social Constructionism) and Connectivism.  As Pitler et al. (2007) explain: “Technology can play a unique and vital role in cooperative learning by facilitating group collaboration, providing structure for group tasks, and allowing members of groups to communicate even if they are not working face to face” (p. 140).  In order to guide our discussion here I will break this post up into three major categories: Multimedia, Online Resources, and Communication Software.

Multimedia:

 Pitler et al. (2007) list several examples of multimedia that could be used in class.  In reality, the list of specific software and hardware is endless (and growing).  Be it PowerPoint, Video production, Photoshop collage, or anything else you can think of, the general idea is that technology is a great medium for social learning.  Set-up seems to be a key component of all cooperative learning and at the heart of that should be a well-designed rubric.  With this in hand, students will have a clear idea not only of what the final product should entail, but also what each individual’s part should be in its completion. 

As a multimedia project generally requires the construction of an artifact (or something that can be shown off) its use ties right into social Constructionism. 

Online Resources:

Webquest: Again we find ourselves discussing a topic that has an infinite number of resources and ideas.  However, I would like to discuss a few mentioned by Pitler et al. (2007).  One of these would be Webquests.  Though the term is already starting to feel antiquated in modern education, the idea behind it is sound.  Webquests can be very teacher intensive in terms of preparation.  However, they can help guide students through the onslaught of search engines to help them focus on the essential information rather than hunting (2007).  From my own experience with them, you almost always have to make your own as the ones I have found already created often go off on tangents and have links that are no longer good.  They also have a strong tendency to be made towards the early part of this century meaning that information is already getting outdated.

Web Site Creation: The idea of having students build their own websites is nothing new.  However, even in the last year it has become so much easier with Flash based online software such as Wix (www.wix.com) which allow students to easily design very modern and interactive web sites with only a little bit of knowledge.  Web site design is an area that lends itself towards cooperative learning as designing an entire site is almost too much for one person (trust me)!  AT the same time, elements of a home page carry over onto all other pages.  Learners have to work together to hammer out the key elements in terms of design and content, while at the same time there is room for personal expression.  Again, we are building a “tangible” artifact that students can walk away feeling proud about.

 Collaborative Organization: The biggest light bulb for me in all of this was websites that allow you to share information.  I know that sounds dumb in light of the Facebook and Twitter craze, but in terms of education there were several resources mentioned that seem very applicable.  One idea I really liked was that of shared calendars.  We all know that one of the most difficult things about collaborative work is the getting together.  Sure, there are technologies out there that make it so that people do not even have to meet face to face, but sometimes it is a requirement.  The shared calendars mentioned would also allow group members to all see do dates and I could see potential in having the students actually setting due dates for themselves to stay on track with a final project.  (ex: http://calendar.yahoo.com)

Shared bookmarking is intriguing as well.  With apps like Evernote these type of sites may be at the waning end of their life, however for collaborative work I can see a lot of advantages in being able to share web sites, videos, and books.

Communication Software:

I will end by briefly discussing communication software in terms of social learning.  We must remember that this book was published not long after the introduction of the first iPhone, and that communication has come a long way in terms of texts and software like FaceTime.  However, some of the tried and true tech is still king in collaborative efforts and does not depend on a family’s minutes and messages.  For starters there are blogs and wikis, which have been discussed on this very blog in length.  More notably we have Skype (www.skype.com) which now allows up to four people to talk “face to face” at one time.  It also allows people to talk for free despite time and distance, enabling communication with peers around the globe.

Put it all together and we have a bunch of technology that can help support teachers implement and manage social learning.  Even though most of the software discussed does not create collaborative learning environments outright, they are the forerunners of what is to come.  My advice is that we start implementing them now before we get left too far behind to catch back up. Any advice, suggestions, or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Resources:

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

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Connectivism as a 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.