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.

Voice Thread - An Incredible Resource

I have spent some time this week messing around with an online resource called Voice Thread.  If you have never seen it before it is a resource that is definitely worth checking out for many applications, but especially in the classroom.  Essentially, you upload a series of images (or videos) and add audio and/or labeling to it that plays as people view the presentation.  That doesn't sound all that exciting until you realize that anyone (depending on how you set the privacy level) can add audio, video, or text comments to the show you have posted.  It sounds chaotic, but is actually pretty neat.  There are many ways I can think of using this in my own classroom!  To give you an idea of how this works, I created a Voice Thread on Estimating Populations to get my students thinking about how and why would go about figuring out how many individuals there are in a population.  This question is set up to promote problem-based learning as we work into a lab where we count the population of crickets by painting them. Check it out by clicking the link below!

Voice Thread - Estimating Populations or http://voicethread.com/share/2903736/

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.

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.

Technology That Supports Cognitive Learning Theory

Last week we looked at Behaviorism as a learning theory and established that much of its ideas are still very alive in everyday classrooms, and life.  However, by the latter half of the twentieth century, scholars like Gagne, Bloom, and Anderson began looking beyond what was simply observable in a lab.  As opposed to Behaviorism, Cognitivists believed that: “Changes in behavior are observed, but only as an indication of what is occurring in the learner’s head” (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012).  In other words, we are not just programmed to spit out a specific response to every stimulus.  Rather, there are cognitive processes that actively occur.  According to Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) cognitive learning theory is really a collective of theories describing how the brain processes and stores information.  This week we looked into two instructional strategies based around cognitive learning theory.  I would like to take a moment to review these strategies as to their relation to the learning theory and application into my own classroom.

The first broad instructional strategy we will look at is called Cues, Questions, and Advanced Organizers by Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007).  By their own definition this strategy: “Focuses on enhancing students’ ability to retrieve, use, and organize information about a topic” (p. 73).  This definition lends itself directly toward the cognitive learning theory as it focuses on information processing and storing.  Though the name of the strategy may seem daunting, it really comes down to different ways of organizing information so that students may access it more efficiently and make important links. The “cues” and “questions” are really built in to various forms of “advanced organizers.”  Though Pitler et al. discuss many technologies we can use to do this, they can essentially be summed into three larger categories.  

The first of these is Word Processors.  As an educator this is what most of us use to create the charts and tables we may call advanced organizers.  One idea I have not thought of is the use of a brochure for a field trip or other learning experience.  According to Pitler et al. (2007), a teacher could have students add all sorts of information from maps to agendas to interesting facts.

A second technology they discussed was the use of spreadsheets as advanced organizers.  Pitler et al. (2007) recommend this mostly in conjunction with a rubric.  Easy to set up formulas would allow students and teachers to plug in scores for categories established in a rubric.  This format is now easily calculated, saved, and duplicated for further use.

  Finally Pitler et al. (2007) discuss technologies that organize information for us.  At one end of this spectrum, we have programs like Inspiration that allow students and teachers to create all types of graphic organizers.  This is where the use of explicit cues and proper questioning techniques is essential.  From these, students are able to expand and analyze information while seeing the connections between it all.  They all discuss the use of other media that allows student to make visual-mental links to information, whether they are video sites, interactive tutorials, or maps of the stars.  This works well with Orey’s (2011) explanation the dual coding hypothesis, as students are able to link visual images with the linguistic data they are processing.  This visual image does not only have to be a picture (ex: of a cat), but could also be an image of a graphic organizer which allows them so see connections).

The second strategy we will look at is titled by Pitler et al. (2007) as Summarizing and Note Taking.  As the name says, this technique focuses: “On helping students separate important information from extraneous information and state the information in their own words” (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 119).  Again, we find this strategy to be in line with cognitive learning theory as it focuses on students’ processing and storing information.  As I am focusing primarily on the technologies that assist in this, I will again break this learning strategy into three broad categories.

Yet again, the first deals with an educator’s weapon of choice, a Word Processor.  They encourage the use of multiple note taking formats for maximum retention.  For example, students may write down notes supported by pictures.  In addition, they have to summarize the information, which helps improve comprehension.  This technique is called using “combination notes.”  Similar note taking techniques are described using other mediums, such as PowerPoint, but the main idea is the same.  One feature I was unaware of in Word is the AutoSummarize tool.  Though I have not tried it yet, it supposedly does exactly what the name explains.  I am a little weary of this, but am excited to try it out, especially on the newer versions Word. 

The second general category, and the one I am most excited about is the use of organizing and brainstorm software.  Pitler et al. (2007) describe several specifics ways to use concept maps to improve student understanding.  All of them start out with key questions or topics that branch into smaller sections.  I am not going to go into each type, but rather discuss them all as great ways to: “Help learners visualize ideas and connections between ideas” (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  The best techniques appear to involve the teacher setting up the main nodes of the graphic organizer.  From here, they leave holes for students to either fill in, create, or expand on.  In any case, it moves notes from a linear, often hard to follow, format to one that more closely resembles the connections our minds make when accessing and storing information.

Finally, Pitler et al. (2007) describe the use of communication software to help students organize and summarize learning, namely: wikis and blogs.  As I have discussed these at length in this blog already, I will not go into a ton of detail other than saying that these are great mediums for requiring students to take a chunk of knowledge, analyze what is important, and summarize what they have learned.  The advantage of these programs is that they are interactive, allowing for input from people anywhere in the world to help continue the conversation and advance learning.

In the end, I feel we have seen many great examples of learning strategies that closely align with cognitive learning theory.  We have also seen that technology appears to be paramount in maximizing these strategies effects.  Even though many examples were covered, I believe we are only scratching the surface in terms of both software and applications.  I encourage you to continue exploring what is out there and ask that if you find any golden nuggets you return to share with us here.

Resources:

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

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2012). Cognitivism at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved March 14th, 2012 from http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitivism.html

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