What should cell phone policy look like in a wireless school?

This week, my class is experimenting with Voice Thread, which provides a place for people to have conversations about problems, places or topics of interest.  The issue that I would like feedback on is the issue of cell phone use in the classroom.  My school is going wireless next year and we need to change the school policy to accomodate personal devices such as cell phones and kindles.  I would like input from both teachers and students on what that policy should look like.

Here is the link to the URL:  http://voicethread.com/share/3141354/

I invite you to share your thoughts, questions, and recommendations.

Connectivism and Social Learning Theory in Practice

This week I was taken aback by the complexity of learning theories.  Social constructionism was added to the mix and a new idea was presented as part of social learning theory and that was the idea of connectivism.   Social constructionist learning theory was distinguished from constructionism by Dr. Orey and George Siemen’s theory about networked learning environments was described.   The readings and videos this week involved discussing a variety of ways to integrate technology using social and cooperative learning strategies in the classroom.  When using cooperative learning in the classroom it is important to group students in a variety of ways and utilize multimedia, web resources and communication software.  Using technology with cooperative learning strategies will prepare students for competing in a global economy and the 21^st century workplace.

Social constructionism is described by Dr. Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) as collaborative learning in which students are actively engaged in constructing things and actively engaged in conversations about what things they are building.  He discusses Lev Vygotsky’s ideas about the ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) and MKO (More Knowledgeable Other) and how those ideas support learning.  I love Vygotsky’s work and see the ZPD and MKO in action every day when I work with struggling readers.  The ZPD basically describes that there are three levels of learning, one in which the child can do something, such as possess phonemic awareness (that each letter represents a sound), one level in which the child is on the verge of learning something new such as phonics (that letters chunk together to make word parts), and the higher level is what the child is not ready to learn, for instance reading polysyllabic words fluently.  A child needs asocial interaction with someone (a peer, a teacher, a parent) who knows more than they do (MKO) to scaffold their learning and begin to understand how to chunk those word parts to sound out words (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a).  Of course we use this theory in education all of the time, to teach math, to model our thought processes before we let our students try, to show how to complete a task.  Cooperative and social learning strategies use Vygotsky’s ideas too.  As students collaborate on projects or problem solving and discuss their ideas and perspectives, they are scaffolding each other’s learning, too.  Dr. Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) tells us that when we use cooperative and collaborative learning to have students build something together, whether it is an artifact or whether they are conducting research to solve a problem, and they construct knowledge together and then share that information with others, it is learning at its best.  This makes sense to me because cooperative learning provides students opportunities to elaborate on what they are discovering and as they discuss what is important and bring in individual ideas and perspectives this is what creates connections to long term memory and retaining and recalling information.

Cooperative learning can be daunting when it comes to planning and implementation, however, and that is where technology comes into play.  Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) provide various strategies in which cooperative learning can be enhanced through technology (p. 139 – 154).   George Siemen’s connectivism theory focuses on the cultural and social dimension of learning as people interact with the abundance of information that is available and that there is no way that people can possibly keep up with the changes that develop day to day unless they connect with a larger community (Laureate Education, Inc. 2011b).  That is why he suggests that individuals need to network with communities of people as well as use computers, databases and phones to connect with information.  According to Pitler et al. (2007) we need to prepare our students to learn and produce and work cooperatively in a fast-paced, virtual workplace (p. 139).  The best way to do that is to use cooperative learning strategies that utilize technology to make things more efficient, more organized and more global.

Pitler et al. (2007) recommend that teachers use a variety of criteria to form informal, formal, and base groups and keep them at a manageable size.  They also recommend that a variety of classroom structures and strategies be used so that cooperative learning does not get ‘overused’ (p. 140).  Informal groups are used all of the time in classrooms, especially at the secondary level.  We often ask students to turn to a tablemate to discuss what they just learned or to find a partner and compare notes for two to three minutes, but formal groups need to be more carefully selected and should be intentionally designed in order to create a sink or swim interdependence in groups where students support one another in their efforts and individually contribute ideas as well as communicate and reflect on what they learn (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 140).  Groups that are student and peer centered will facilitate learning as students share what they have found or created with one another and with other groups (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a). 

Multimedia tools can help the teacher design lessons that are clear in terms of what is expected and the roles and responsibilities of each individual.  Pitler et al. (2007) suggest the use of rubrics and advance organizers to make expectations clear (p. 141).  I know one of the biggest complaints that my colleagues make about cooperative learning activities is that kids do not stay on task and it is difficult to assess individual effort in a group situation, a rubric and the use of advanced organizers will help maintain clear expectations.  Multimedia resources support cooperative learning as students work to create movies, prezi presentations, and other artifacts as well as supporting the teacher in assessment.  

Web resources provide a wide array of tools to facilitate students as they ‘cooperate to learn’ (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 143).  Students learn in a networked environment as they connect with students near or far using email pen pal programs.  Two of our social studies teachers use email correspondence and collaborate on projects with students in other countries.  Webquests are another great tool for keeping students focused on gathering information and interacting in small groups to solve a problem.  I found a great website that shares several ideas and links for online collaborative projects:  http://www.tltguide.ccsd.k12.co.us/instructional_tools/Projects/projects.html.   Collaborative organizing tools support cooperative learning by providing a more efficient way to share information and organize responsibilities (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 149-152).  Communication software has the amazing potential to expand on formal cooperative learning experiences as students use Skype or instant messaging to work on projects anywhere, anytime. 

Social learning and connectivism is facilitated by technology and allows students to practice the skills that they will need to compete in the 21^st century workplace using multimedia, web resources, and communication software.    Have you used cooperative learning in your classroom?   What kinds of opportunities do you have to help your students network with a larger community as they work collaboratively on projects or to solve problems?  Do you find that cooperative learning intimidates you or your colleagues?  If so, in what way?

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Program eight: Social learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program nine: Connectivism as a learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

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

Contructivism/Constructionism in Practice

I learned a lot last week about cognitivism and how elaboration plays a key role in the individual’s ability to retain and recall information as students use strategies that help them make connections, collaborate, and use technology to help them retain and recall information. The knowledge that I have gained from our readings this week has helped me make the connection that constructivism/constructionism really works hand in hand with cognitivism and behaviorism because it utilizes background knowledge, collaboration, reflection, and feedback enhanced by technology to aid in the construction of knowledge. 

Dr. Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) does a nice job of differentiating between constructivism, which is how an individual actively constructs his/her own meaning, and constructionism, which has to do with providing first hand experiences where students build an artifact or share something with others to facilitate learning.  The words are often interchangeable and since I am going to be discussing strategies that enhance how individuals build knowledge, I am going to use constructionism.

The instructional strategies discussed by Han & Bhattacharya (2001) and Glazer (2001) are Learning by Design (LBD), Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Problem-Based Learning.   The common thread that connects these strategies is that students construct knowledge using real life applications and the teacher acts as facilitator.  They are uniquely different in that LBD and PBL require students to create an artifact to be presented or shared with the class and Problem Based Learning requires students to solve a problem.   Higher level thinking is the name of the game as students combine cognitive skills, such as making connections to background knowledge and participating in elaborative experiences as students collaborate,  with constructionist practices, such as information seeking, questioning, and reflection.  All require higher level thinking and all of the strategies will help students make connections to their long term memory.  The challenge with constructionism is providing students with enough time for all of that collaboration, elaboration, and reflection.  Technology can be the solution to that dilemma.

Chapter Eleven of our text this week is called Generating and Testing Hypotheses and presented recommendations on how to implement this constructionist strategy in all content areas using technology (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 202 -216).  The beauty of using technology to facilitate constructionism is that it maximizes instructional time and meets learning objectives (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 207).  Problem-based learning and project-based learning through generating and testing hypotheses helps students construct knowledge in a meaningful way and engages them in real world tasks.  This type of open-ended task allows students to test their hypothesis and get a different answer than other groups.  Offering the opportunity for students to collaborate as they gather information, make predictions, evaluate and share the results and get feedback are important steps in constructionism practices. When students generate and test hypotheses it is important to use a variety of structured tasks to guide them and give them an opportunity to explain the hypothesis and the conclusions that they make (Pitler et al., 2007, p. 203).  Following that recommendation, teachers should vary the use of technologies that enhance the generation and testing of hypotheses such as spreadsheet software, data collection tools, and Web resources. 

I found the Web resources in the book most interesting and helpful this week.  I was able to share a couple of the links with my colleagues.  The links that got the most rave reviews from my peers was www.primaryaccess.com and www.explorelearning.com.  I also really liked the real world applications that a webquest can provide.  One webquest I recently did with my students was an inquiry into fast food and healthy eating.  I set up a scenario where students were left in charge of the family meals for a week and had to make sure their overweight little brother and their elderly grandmother, who has hypertension, ate healthy.  Both individuals in the scenario just love fast food, so the students had to conduct research via the webquest on healthy options from fast food restaurants as well as the risks of hypertension and obesity.  The webquest was done by teams of students and after the teams collected all of their information they had to share their recommendations with the other groups.  It illustrates how constructionism can be used in the classroom.  Now that I have learned about data collection tools and interactive spreadsheets, I am working on adapting the lesson to take advantage of that technology.

Over the last few weeks I have learned about behaviorism, cognitivism and now constructionism and I have a better understanding of how these learning theories are interrelated.  When teachers plan lessons utilizing background knowledge, collaboration, reflection, and feedback enhanced by technology to aid in the construction of knowledge, they are applying all the learning theories at their best.  Do you have a favorite learning theory?  What challenges or benefits have you experienced when using constructionist strategies?
The information at this site provides a wealth of PBL resources to check out in a variety of subjects:  http://www.internet4classrooms.com/project.htm.

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved May 22, 2012 from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved May 22, 2012, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program seven: Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

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

Cognitivism in Practice

Last week we took a peek into behaviorism and the effect of external stimuli on student learning and discovered that behaviorism is alive and well in today’s classrooms, not only for behavior management, but also to motivate and reward student effort in the form of tracking data and progress.  This week I have been learning about cognitive learning theory, which looks into how an individual’s mental processes contribute to learning, (Smith, 1999) and the instructional practices and tools that support cognitive learning theory.

In the video clips this week, Orey discusses cognitive learning theories from the perspective of the Information Processing Model originally proposed by Atkinson-Shiffrin (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  Individuals use all of their senses to take in information which is then processed by the short-term memory, but in order for the information to be retained in the long term memory, some things need to happen.  Learning takes place when individuals make connections to prior learning or experience and the learning is retained and recalled more easily when there are several different experiences working with the information.  Teachers need to provide elaborative experiences that allow students to work with the information so that there are enough connections made that they can easily retrieve it later.  According to Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) elaboration is the primary mechanism by which information is stored in the long term memory and elaboration occurs when students are engaged in a variety of modalities that require them to think about the information. 

 “The instructional strategy cues, questions, and advance organizers focuses on enhancing students’ ability to retrieve, use, and organize information about a topic,” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 73).  This strategy expands on the old KWL charts used in classrooms to activate prior knowledge.  Providing cues or explicit reminders about what students are going to learn, creating questions that help students make connections to other experiences or knowledge, and providing advance organizers that help students focus on their learning are enhanced by the use of technology.  This strategy works because it activates prior knowledge and experience and helps students focus on and make sense of their learning which is instrumental in retaining and recalling information in the long term memory.  According to Pitler et. al (2007) advance organizers are wonderful tools that help students prepare to learn by focusing on the essential concepts and themes (p. 76).  Technology can enhance these learning experiences by providing students with hands on experience and tools with which to learn.  A variety of applications can be used to create advance organizers including Microsoft Word applications, spreadsheet software, and organizing and brainstorming software, each of which serves the purpose of creating memorable and engaging activities that will help students make stronger connections and use higher level thinking skills.  Orey (Laureate Education, Inc. 2011b) also refers to dual-coding hypothesis which basically says that individuals remember images way better and longer than just text.  Using computer applications as well as multimedia tools such as advance organizers offer students opportunities to work with information in both graphic and textual formats.

“The instructional strategy Summarizing and Note Taking focuses on enhancing students’ ability to synthesize information and distill it into a concise new form,”  (Pitler et. al., 2007, p. 119).  The main recommendations for note taking and summarizing are to provide support to students as they struggle with selecting essential information and putting it into their own words.  Many students do not receive any formal instruction on how to do that, so providing them with templates, teacher prepared notes and summary frames for scaffolding students in the use of the strategy will enhance their learning and retention of information.  Using technology for note taking and summarizing can further motivate and engage students and scaffold their learning.  One of the recommendations for note taking was to teach students how to take notes in a variety of note taking formats ((Pitler et. al., 2007, p. 120).   Using Microsoft Word, combination notes in Power Point, multimedia, and communication software for collaboration provide the elaborative experiences for students that create connections using a variety of senses in the long term memory. 

Another strategy that is supported by cognitive learning theory is the use of concept mapping.  According to Wolfe (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a) the brain is a pattern seeker and concept mapping organizes information into meaningful patterns as it hooks new information to prior knowledge.  Dual coding theory is supported by concept mapping because it provides a framework by which students can combine text and visuals to organize information and help to retain it through the act of creating maps and will be able to recall information as they recall the patterns or structures of the maps (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b).  Concept mapping serves as a scaffold to help students organize knowledge and structure it into smaller units in a framework, (Oxendine, C., Robinson, J., & Willson, G., 2004, p. 7).  There are several tools for creating concept maps both individually and collaboratively which also supports elaborative learning, a key mechanism for transfer of information to the long term memory.  One of the most useful websites provided in class for concept mapping tools was http://www.mindmeister.com/.  It has a free option and can be used to collaboratively create a concept map.  One last benefit of using concept mapping with students is that it provides a powerful evaluative tool, (Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J., 2008 p. 5).   Another interesting website on concept mapping is www.thinkingmaps.org.  You will find a variety of resources, training materials, and video clips about the benefits of using Thinking Maps in the classroom.

Finally, the use of Virtual Field Trip Tours is a very exciting strategy because it provides students with an opportunity to go places where they might not normally get to go.  Virtual field trips create a rich experience that engages students in critical thinking as they choose which information is essential to their learning and make connections to information they have learned from other sources.  Students can work collaboratively to gather and organize information and choose what they will elaborate on for a presentation.  This connects to cognitive learning theory because students are using higher level thinking and communication skills as they begin to construct knowledge.

I have learned a lot this week about cognitivism and how it is incorporated into classroom strategies using technology to scaffold learning.  Elaboration plays a key role in the individual’s ability to retain and recall information and occurs when students are engaged in a variety of modalities that require them to think about the information.  Using strategies that help students make connections to background knowledge, gather and interpret knowledge collaboratively with other students, and share what they have learned with others, using technology to scaffold their learning and make meaning contribute to a student’s ability to retain and recall information

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011a). Program two: Brain research and learning [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011b). Program five: Cognitive learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008).The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Web site: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Oxendine, C., Robinson, J., & Willson, G. (2004). Experiential learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved <insert date>, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

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

Smith, M. K. (1999) 'The cognitive orientation to learning', the encyclopedia of informal education,
           www.infed.org/biblio/learning-cognitive, Last update: May 16. 2012.

Behaviorism in Practice

         In an effort to keep abreast of educational theory and technology, I am continuing work on my Graduate Certificate in Integrating Technology in the Classroom at Walden University.  I am currently enrolled in EDUC 6711:  Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology.

It is amazing to me how learning theory has evolved over the years and has been integrated with educational technology.  I took my first education classes in 1983 and was so busy with the business of teaching those first years that I did not really synthesize learning theory in a way that informed my teaching practice at a satisfactory level.  However, getting my Masters in Literacy Education reignited my interest in current research and how it can be used to improve teaching, and the journey continues with my technology classes at Walden. 

In class this week, our reading assignments allowed us to revisit the behaviorist learning theory.  With all of the strides we have made in educational practice, why would we even consider using behaviorism theory in our classrooms?  Certainly, behaviorism has its uses in terms of behavior and classroom management practices, however, one might think that as far as classroom teaching is concerned there is no place for old, outdated ideas like operant conditioning.  To my surprise and delight, I discovered that behaviorism is alive and well in today’s classrooms and is being used to motivate and reward student effort in the form of tracking data and progress. 

One of the strategies we learned about this week looks at the relationship between effort and achievement.  Students must have a sense of self-efficacy if they are going to make an effort to engage in a task and believe it is possible.  According to Marzano, Pickering & Heflebower (2011) students can develop a sense of self-efficacy through tracking and studying progress which would include tracking achievement, setting personal academic goals, and examining effort and preparation.  That’s where motivation and behaviorist theory comes in; Skinner’s behaviorist theory of operant conditioning has manifested itself in the form of reinforcing effort using technology (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p. 155-164).  Spreadsheet software and data collection tools are used by students to track the effort they make on studying and assignment completion and then compare that data to the scores they receive; the results give immediate feedback and show students that there is a direct correlation between the amount of effort they put toward studying and the grades they can achieve .  If students can see that making an effort will pay off such as being successful, getting better grades on a project, or receiving positive reinforcement from a teacher or parent, then they are more likely to make an effort in their classes (McREL as cited in Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p. 155).  That reinforcement, or payoff, along with immediate feedback from using technology to track the effects of their behavior and the grades resulting from that effort, will serve as motivation.  Hartley believes that “reinforcement is the cardinal motivator” (as cited in Smith, 1999).   When I read how this strategy was used by combining data from surveying peer groups and sharing that information with incoming freshman as a tool for motivation to do well in school, my mind was reeling with ideas on how I could use this same strategy to help with freshman transition in my high school.  Forty percent of our freshmen have failing grades during the first trimester.  We already have access to Survey Monkey and now I have access to information on how to go about asking the right questions and gathering data with a purpose in mind.  I am taking this idea to the next Student Achievement Leadership Team and am very excited by the prospect of trying this.

One behaviorist strategy that I have used that involves technology with students and promotes self-efficacy is to instruct students on how to use the readability statistics in Microsoft Word when writing a paper for their classes.  This strategy is discussed in Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski (2007, p. 190).  This is an excellent motivational tool for students to use to improve their writing because they can get immediate feedback on what they might need to do to improve, particularly if they are writing far below their grade level.  In fact, one of the members of my cohort did a similar project for her Master’s thesis in Literacy Education.  This chapter has a plethora of links and resources that support using technology to help students with the rote rehearsal of concepts they need for success in math, science and language arts as well as resources for students to use for collaborative projects which would help students make deeper connections to what they are learning (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007, p. 192-201).  Behaviorist theory supports the use of technology with students as they practice, review and apply learning because it has several key principles to reinforcing learning:  students are learning by doing, practicing frequently through repetition, and receiving immediate feedback using programmed instruction (Hartley, 1998 as cited in Smith, 1999).  With all of the strides we have made in education, of course we should use behaviorism in our classroom.

One of my favorite blogs is http://www.freetech4teachers.com/, it has won several awards including “Best Resource Sharing Blog”.  It is written by Richard Byrne, who is a teacher, writer and consultant and is passionate about using technology to engage students and help them achieve.  If you would like to learn more about how to engage students in the classroom using motivational strategies, I recommend that you check out www.marzanoresearch.com/, it has a variety of free resources for teachers as well as a considerable amount of research to peruse.

So, what are you waiting for?  Try out a little behaviorism in your classroom and reap the rewards.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Heflebower, T. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

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 2012, May 8, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/