Constructionism & Generating and Testing Hypotheses

The connection between constructionist theory and the instructional strategy of generating and testing hypotheses is almost seamless.  Dr. Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) defines constructionism as a theory of knowledge where each individual constructs his or her own meaning.  This occurs through the processes of assimilation, accommodation, equilibration, and schema.  Everyone has schema (background knowledge), but each individual’s schema is unique.  Additionally, we all try to live in the state of equilibration, or balance.  However, when we encounter new schema, we are thrown into a state of disequilibration and need to either assimilate (put the new schema in a current category) or accommodate (alter current schema to fit reality). 

There are numerous approaches in order to promote constructionist learning in the classroom: learning by design, project-based learning, problem-based learning, anchored instruction, and WebQuests.  Underlying all of these approaches is the fact that students are constructing knowledge and either creating new schema or assimilating new information into current schema.  When students are constructing this knowledge, they must generate a hypothesis as to how to solve a problem (or how to create a product).  The teacher acts as a facilitator and guide along this process, but the end product is that the student is the one creating and assimilating the knowledge. 

The following video shows a perfect example of constructionist theory being applied in an example of Charlie Brown.  In this example, Charlie Brown wants to understand how a Ferris wheel works.   Simply reading about how it works does not help him understand it, so he makes a hypothesis of how a Ferris wheel works, and tests it by creating a model.  By creating a model, he is able to understand the way a Ferris wheel works and understands that his hypothesis was accurate.  He takes this learning into school and his classmates learn that they are able to apply this theory to many other ways of understanding.

(Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAS49WBdr8k)

Technology can make problem-based learning and testing hypothesis much easier and attainable for students. Rather than doing many rote calculations, students are able to use spreadsheets to easily manipulate data. Many web resources also allow for students to do simulations that would they would not be able to run otherwise to test their hypotheses and knowledge. As Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) state, most technological applications help teachers use many effective instructional strategies to increase student achievement in one lesson.

In closing, the project and problem-based approach is certainly exciting and it is very easy to see that students will be motivated, engaged, and thinking critically in order to solve a problem. However, I foresee one big issue that was touched on briefly in the articles that I have read, and that is the issue of coverage of standards and time. This type of learning produces great results that students will likely remember for years to come, but it also takes a lot of time. The open-endedness of the approach does not guarantee that students will be led to learn about all the curricular contents and standards. It is sad, but in this day and age we are so focused on the state-wide exams, do we have time for this approach? Glazer (2001) states, “Because the scores of standardized tests are sometimes, unfortunately, used to measure learning and the success of a school, test content and question types send a message to teachers and students about what type of learning is valued” (p. 18). The approach presents students will realistic life-like problems that will help them be successful employees in the 21^st century, but there is so much pressure for students to pass the standardized testing before they get there. I know that in my state (Pennsylvania) they are restructuring the state tests to align with the common core. We have been told that they will require higher-level thinking of students, but I’m still not sure that it will align with project and problem-based learning. How do we provide the best of both worlds and give students the opportunities to construct their own knowledge and solve their own problems while preparing them for the tests they have to take?

References:

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on

learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 18 March 2013 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.

Cognitive Learning Tools

When examining cognitivist theory and the use of technology, the structural foundation lies upon students learning with technology and not “from” technology.  Cognitive learning theory focuses on information processing and encoding sensory input into short term memory and hopefully eventually, long-term memory.  As Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011) states, cognitive tools help students process information and create visuals and connections (which support dual coding) to help students retrieve information previously stored.  Virtual field trips also help encode information by creating an episode that students can connect to.  This becomes especially important for students who have limited background knowledge.

Although there are many instructional practices to encourage cognitive learning, the two I am going to focus on are cues, questioning, and advance organizers, and summarizing/note-taking. 

 

Most will agree that good questioning lies at the heart of all good teaching.  Questions encourage our students to think to inquire about the world around them.  There is no feasible way we can teach our students everything they need to know in the 21^st century, but we can teach them how to ask questions, discover answers for their questions and how to be inquisitive learners.  I think back to my first year of teaching when I kept a critical thinking questioning wheel in my plan book to ensure that I was hitting higher order questions.  As I reflect on this, I have moved away from that wheel (but know exactly where it is) and think it would probably be good to revisit every now and then.  Without explicitly thinking about the questioning, we tend to rely on low-level rote knowledge recall.  Cognitive tools help evoke these questions within our students and also give them the tools to find answers to higher level questions.  As Robertson, Elliot, and Washington (2007) state, “…by using cognitive tools, questions considered worthy of consideration evolved from those that required little effort to answer and even less to evaluate to those that provided opportunities to guide fruitful research and to sustain interest.”

Cues and organizers are also important for students to get an idea of what is important for them to take away from a lesson.  I think as adults we make organizers in our heads to store information in a logical manner, but for many students we have to teach them how to make these organizers and how they help us.  I absolutely love the Prezi software (www.prezi.com) and its interactive ability to include visuals, videos, text, etc. all in one place.  To me, it is much more appealing than a PowerPoint and engages the viewer. 

Here is a link to a Prezi I created with the help of my kindergarten students last year:

http://prezi.com/5quvxwbo0n0_/geo-connections/

Like many other software programs, Prezi allows learners to add and organize information as it is being introduced.  I think the part that sets it apart is the ability to create a path and zoom into various areas (and it is so easy to add/change a path when you learn something new!).  By providing students with these explicit connections, visual representations and multi-modality instruction, students are increasing the likelihood the concepts will be stored in long-term memory (the goal of cognitive learning theory).

 

The second instructional strategy is summarizing and note-taking.  Reflecting back on my days in school, I was always the student who thought it was necessary to write everything on every slide to study from.  However, this is not the most effective strategy (but I was never taught to overcome it).  Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski state, verbatim note-taking is probably one of the least effective ways of note-taking and students should be taught a variety of note-taking strategies.  Although the processes of using tracked changes and auto-summarize are a little advanced for my learning support students, they do need to know how to summarize and gather the most important information.  It would be interesting to compare (as a group) an auto-summary with a summary that students wrote to see what parts they were missing and analyze what the best summary is. 

Blogs (like this one) also present a great way of collaborative note-taking.  As I write this post, I am summarizing the information I learned this week, connecting it to my background knowledge and previous experiences, and wondering in advance the kind of feedback I will receive.  Wouldn’t it be a great opportunity to engage our students in an assignment they’ll LOVE and learn a lot from?

 

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). 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

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom

       instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Robertson, B., Elliot, L, and Washington, D. (2007).  Cognitive Tools.  In M. Orey (Ed.),

          Emerging Perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.  Retrieved 15 March

2013, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/   

 

 

 

 

Behaviorism in Today's Classroom

Although some view behaviorism as being outdated, it is still present in almost all of today’s classrooms in some way, shape, or form.  At the root, behaviorism stands on the foundation that all changes in behavior and learning come from a stimulus-response which is driven by reinforcement (to increase the likelihood of a preferred activity) or punishment (to decrease the likelihood of an event) (Standridge, 2002).  As I thought about how this applies to current classrooms, I immediately thought of several examples and would like to share the ones related to technology

1.) Xtramath.org (https://www.xtramath.org/) : This is a site that my students use daily.  It is similar to Rocket Math, but done on the computer.  I have an account and then each of my students has their own account with a 4-digit PIN number so they can access both in school and at home.  Students take a placement test and start working on the appropriate difficulty of facts(all my students are working on mastering addition facts).  Then, they do daily drill-and practice lessons/games.  The more correct answers they get, the more smiley faces they get at the end of each section.  Students didn’t make this connection at first, but now are excited to share with me (and their classmates) how many smiley faces they earned.

2.) Compass Learning (https://www.thelearningodyssey.com/)This is a site that my district subscribes to, but it has a TON of great lessons that are set up somewhere between a quiz and a video game.  I create learning paths for each student for the unit of study we are currently working on and they work through at their own pace.   If they do not score at least 75% on the quiz at the end of the lesson, they must go back and repeat it (and I am sent a progress alert).  If they score higher than 75%, they are congratulated and move on to the next lesson.

3.) Class Dojo (http://www.classdojo.com/): This is an online behavior management software where students have their own “dojo” and they are able to earn positive points as well as negative points if they are not following directions (pictures above and below).  I used this with a group of kindergarteners last year and it worked beautifully.  Unfortunately, due to the uniqueness of my learning support setting this year I haven’t found an effective way to use it with so many groups going on, but would love to get back to it.  Parents can also request to be sent weekly reports of how much positive/negative reinforcement students are receiving to keep track of their behavior.  The site is free and does all of that for you!  It’s also great to look at your class data as a whole and reflect upon how much positive versus negative feedback you are giving students. We all know, the more positive the better!

 

The use of Class Dojo (or a similar behavior management system) is a perfect example of a classroom strategy that involves behaviorism, reinforcing effort.  Student get a positive or negative response based upon the stimulus they provide.  The one area where the software needs additional support is linking classroom performance to their grades so students can be taught that their efforts pay off.  Pitler, Hubbell, Kuh, and Malenoski (2007) suggest using an effort rubric to teach students that hard work does pay off since many students attribute their success or failure to outside factors and not their personal effort.  This idea is made easy by the use of a spreadsheet, and one of the inputs to the rubric could be their number of “points” on the Class Dojo system. 

Homework and practice is another strategy that incorporates behaviorism.  This creates another opportunity for practice in order for the target skill to be reinforced.  .  Pitler, Hubbell, Kuh, and Malenoski (2007) comment on homework and additional practice: “Because it is easy for errors to slip in when students are practicing, teachers should give feedback as quickly as possible” (p. 188).  I experienced this first-hand during my first year of teaching where I was not checking and reviewing homework with students regularly.  Thus, the homework assignments that were completed became less and less and students started not to care.  Their behavior (doing their homework) was not being reinforced and as a result, they stopped doing it. 

While I don’t believe behaviorism is the only theory of teaching and learning present in the classroom today, I do believe it is a critical one which we call fall back on when things seem to be going awry.  When students get out of control and disorderly, we tend to fall back on a behavior management system.  If students aren’t getting it, we give them extra practice.  Students succeed and we reinforce their effort, or correct their inaccurate attempt and continue modeling and scaffolding in order for them to be successful.

References:

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 6 March 2013, from

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/