Class Reflection

My personal learning theory has changed through my learning in this course because in this course I realized that I feel that students construct their own knowledge by creating products but they also need practice and feedback, both positive and corrective in nature.  I believe that many strategies must be used to assure content acquisition and classroom management.   Before this course I felt that I needed to choose one strategy and stick with it but after this course I do not feel that teachers use just one strategy and I feel that each person has their own unique idea of how student learn so they use their own unique mixture of approaches.

After taking this course I have a much better idea of how instructional strategies and technology work together.  I appreciate how this class has given me very concrete examples of strategies and technology I can use with those strategies in my classes. I particularly found the book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works by Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn and Malenoski (2007) helpful because in this text they discuss the nine categories of instructional strategies that have been shown to show a large effect on student learning and specific technology applications that can enhance the implementation of each one.  I feel that in this class I was given the opportunity to think about what each of these strategies look like in my content area and what technology tools I can use to help my students learn more effectively.

This course also allowed me to see the ruts I was in regarding these nine categories of instructional strategies.  I tend to have students use the strategies of “identifying similarities and differences,” “homework and practice” and “summarizing and note taking” the most whereas I could be using more “non-linguistic representations” and “cooperative learning” to make my classroom more student centered (Pittler Hubbell, Kuhn and Malenoski, 2007).  I learned that I need to take a look at the nine strategies we learned about in this class more closely and purposefully use them because as Pittler Hubbell, Kuhn and Malenoski point out, they are proven to be beneficial.

The immediate adjustment that I will make to my instructional practice after taking this course is putting the technology in the hands of students more.  This class has made me more aware how much I was using technology as an instructional tool instead of as a learning tool.  Dr. Michael Orey pointed out that technology instructional tools are more teacher focused whereas technology learning tools are student centered (Laureate Education Inc., 2010a).  This class has made me realize that when you put technology in the hands of the students not only is learning more differentiated but learning also becomes an experience that helps students own what they are learning which helps to form stronger neural connections (Laureate Education Inc., 2010b). 

I plan to use this new knowledge to change how my students learn.  At the end of our school year the principal at my school has asked us to think over the summer about whether or not we are truly being innovative and student centered in our classrooms as our school mission states.  He is challenging us to try new strategies and do things differently by putting the learning in the hands of the students.  I believe that applying technology learning tools I can achieve a more innovative and student centered environment where students use both constructionism and constructivism to learn Spanish more deeply.

Two technology tools that I am eager to put in the hands of my students are podcasting and Voice Stream.  I want to use them because I feel both of these tools allow students to practice and rehearse their spoken Spanish.  Of the four modes of communication speaking Spanish often causes my students the most anxiety.  As they use podcasting and Voice Stream technology students will be able to hear their own voice speaking in the language, they will be able to interact with others and they will be able to self-assess their strengths and areas for improvement.  I feel that these technology tools will help students to feel more comfortable producing the language in the real world.

Two long term goals that I would like to make to my teaching in regard to technology integration are: making all my assessments technology based using authentic resources and allowing students use at least one different technology tool each quarter in my classes to enhance their learning and technology proficiency.

I have already started implementing my strategy to achieve my first goal.  I recently joined a committee where we are looking for authentic resources on which to base our quarterly district assessments.  I plan to continue to work on this committee to give our district assessments an authentic context.  As our committee completes these assessments I plan to create a technology based assessment using authentic resources that can serve as practice for our district assessments.  Authentic technology based assessments will help students to feel more comfortable with their Spanish as well as more comfortable with technology applications.  Because our district assessments will not be fully changed for one more school year and I will need time to prepare preparatory assignments I feel that I can have this goal achieved in three years. 

My strategy for achieving the second goal is to look at the curriculum maps this summer for the courses I will teach next year and see how students can use technology in each quarter to make learning more meaningful for my students.  According to Lever-Duffy, McDonald and Mizell (2003) for technology usage to be effective it must be integrated with the “teaching and learning it supports”. This is why I will use the learning outcomes, topics and nine strategies discussed in our course text to make learning with technology tools contextualized.  I plan to look at technology tools I have learned about in my Walden studies such as Voice Stream, podcasts, blogging, social media, ePals and wikis as well as additional suggestions online. By exposing my students to different technology applications I hope that they will be able to use them beyond my classroom.

When I look back on this class I am thankful for the solid examples this class gave me about brain based strategies and best practice strategies I can use to positively affect student learning using technology learning tools.  I feel this class gave me the tools to be a more innovative and effective teacher for the 21^st century.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). [Webcast]. Technology: Instructional tool versus learning tool. Baltimore: Laureate Media.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). [Webcast]. Brain research and learning. Baltimore: Laureate Media.

Lever-Duffy, J., McDonald, J. & Mizell A.P. (2003) Teaching and learning with technology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

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

Social Learning Theory and Cooperative Learning

In the learning resources this week Siemens describes how social constructivist learning and technology interact.  For me his explanation shed light on how much we need social learning.  He explains that information is abundant, more plentiful than the human mind can process so we must share learning with others (Laureate, 2010).  Also Siemens states that technology networks are rich.  Rich technology networks help people to create richer communicative networks.  These strong communicative networks allow for social constructivist learning that Orey describes in the learning resources this week as a model of learning where students construct meaning by collaborating with others (Laureate, 2010).  Social learning is centered in working with others, and so is cooperative learning.

According to Johnson and Johnson cooperative learning has several key pieces.  Cooperative learning requires positive interdependence where each group member realizes they are accountable for the success or failure of the whole group, individual and group responsibility, encouraging interaction, interpersonal skills and processing to ensure goals are met (Johnson & Johnson, n.d.).  According to our resources, McRel also suggests that these five components are critical in the cooperative learning process.  In the cooperative learning model each student must realize that each group member plays an important role when working together in order to achieve success.  The same can be said for social learning.  Working with others requires a symbiotic relationship. 

The tools that Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn and Malenowski discuss in the learning resources this week can help forge and promote this type of synergy.  Their suggestions include creating a multimedia project such as a movie or building a website, using the internet, ePals, collaborative organizing tools such as shared calendars, and collaborative simulation games (Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenowski, 2007).  Along with these ideas students can use blogs, wikis, podcasting software, Microsoft Office programs or even Voice Thread technology like we used in our course this week.  All of these tools can promote cooperative learning where students work together to create a common product.

The question then becomes how to group and assess students to maximize social learning.  In our learning resources they suggest informal, small groups of varying ability levels (Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenowski, 2007).  Traditionally I have used very random grouping such as numbering off or assigning students a number then drawing numbers to avoid ability grouping but I wonder if I should group students with more purpose.  What grouping techniques do you favor or suggest?  I welcome any feedback from my Walden colleagues.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). [Webcast]. Connectivism as a learning theory. Baltimore: Laureate Media.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). [Webcast]. Social learning theories. Baltimore: Laureate Media.

Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T. (n.d.) An overview of cooperative learning. Cooperative Learning Institute and Interaction Book Company. Retreived from http://www.co-operation.org/?page_id=65

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

My Voice Thread

Here is a link to the Voice Thread I created for Week 5 of our course: https://voicethread.com/share/3134046/

Constructivist and Constructionist Theories: Week Four

The strategy “generating and testing hypotheses” clearly denotes inquiry based learning where students come up with ideas and check to see if they are correct by trying them out.  In Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works the authors suggest using several different types of technology such as spreadsheets with pre-loaded information and web tools to promote inquiry and exploration learning.  In our course resources we were also introduced to ideas for technology based project learning this week.  It is evident that technology has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for students as they create and test hypotheses.

This strategy of “generating and testing hypotheses” uses constructivist learning which, as Orey describes, is a type of learning where students learn from experiencing content in different contexts (Laureate, 2010).  Furthermore Lever-Duffy and McDonald (2008) explain that in in constructivist learning students individually construct their own meaning through encountering information, often in a collaborative group.  As students test their ideas and find some of their ideas to be either correct or incorrect they adjust their thinking and come up with their own meaning.

 In this way “generating and testing hypotheses” can also coincide with constructionist learning because in constructionist learning students create a meaningful product to show their learning but change their ideas as they develop their artifact based on what they learn in the process.  In other words as students test hypotheses they learn and change their perception of what ideas they are testing and learning or, as Orey said, “assimilate” and “accommodate” in the experience (Laureate, 2010).

Although I use constructionism in my content area as students create projects and authentic products, I have always struggled with how students can generate and test hypotheses in lower levels of Spanish in regards to the language.  Somehow I feel this mental block about how to get students using inquiry methods to explore a language. According to the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (2005) “generating and testing hypotheses” can be supported in the classroom by using questioning techniques, role play, asking for explanations, pointing out patterns and connections, scaffolding and watching for misconceptions. 

These techniques make me wonder if I students are already testing hypotheses in my class in some respects as we apply grammar concepts to real situations or when students read and listen in the target language.  Perhaps this strategy just looks a little different in my content area.  Just as all students are unique every content area is as well.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). [Webcast].  Constructionist and constructivist learning theories. Baltimore: Laureate Media.

Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005).  Generating and testing hypotheses.  Retrieved from http://www.netc.org/focus/strategies/gene.php