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

Cognitive Learning Theories, Week 3

The strategies  of “Cues, Questions, and Advanced Organizers” and “Summarizing and Note Taking” from  Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works correlate with the principles of cognitive learning theory because I feel they use the ideas of dual coding hypothesis and elaboration theory that we learned about in this week’s learning resources (Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenowski, 2007).  This week Dr. Orey talks about dual coding hypothesis in the context of using visual or other senses as well as text representations and he defines elaboration theory as the process of making connections to help remember content topics (Laureate, 2010).

One study I found that was particularly interesting about using advance organizers to supplement repeated lectures and how it affected what material students remember while taking notes.  In the experiment Kiewra and Mayer (1997) compared students simply hearing a lecture to groups of students using different types of advanced organizers: linear, matrix and (what they call) conventional.  In this study they explain that linear and matrix organizers lead students in one direction with their notes, only allowing them to write about the pre-listed topics, whereas the conventional organizer allowed students for more freedom in their notes.  This study showed that simply repeating the information over and over did not affect retention.  It was only when students were given a linear or matrix organizer that they were able to “integrate ideas across topics” (Kiewra and Mayer, 1997).  This study made me think about how much students need help when they take notes and how much advanced organizers can provide assistance.  This is an area I personally need to improve on to improve retention and promote cognitive processing of new information. 

These instructional strategies will help me to teach for understanding because using them will help my students to make more connections necessary for them to commit the content to long term knowledge.  One strategy that I feel could most help accomplish this are online advanced organizers such as the one I am trying with my students this week for our application assignment.  Using these organizers will support what I learned through the study I read about as well. 

Another technology tool I would like to learn more about in note taking is Microsoft One Note.  My school district loaded One Note on the computers and it seems like a good place for students to store notes and create reference pages.  There is a feature with that program that notebooks can be saved online for later review of notes.  This may solve the problem of students losing all their notes but may create a problem if I cannot sign up for enough computer access for my students.

This week the ideas of different note taking strategies and advanced organizers made me think deeper about how the brain makes connections and how we, as teachers, can support that process.  Cognitive strategies paired with technology tools are a remarkable resource to promote these connections.  

References

Kiewra, K. A. & Mayer, R. E.  (1997). Effects of advance organizers and repeated presentations on students' learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(2).

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). [Webcast]. Cognitive Learning Theories. Baltimore: Laureate Media.

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