Seven
weeks have come and gone, and with it, we have accumulated an abundance of
technological tools to assist us in our daily routines. We have also been exposed to a number of
different learning theories in order for us to shape and mold our own strategy. With the course now coming to a close, it is
worth looking back at how we viewed our own personal learning theories. Being exposed to a great number of
technologies has certainly shaped some of my individual lesson plans, but I do
not think that my overall view of learning theory has changed.
Upon
looking back at my initial post from week one, I claimed to follow a
constructionist model to my classroom. I
truly had only a moderate idea of what constructionist/constructivist theory
was, but it appeared to mesh more with my personal viewpoint. I do institute quite a bit of cooperative
learning, which also incorporates social learning theory. This course has certainly validated my
initial belief that I follow a constructionist approach. Week after week we were given resources and
exposed to a wide variety of different theories. None of them resonated with me in the way
that constructionism did. Our students
crave to create, and with proper guidance from a teacher, students can do just
that. If we make our expectations clear
to our students before they begin a lesson, students will indeed strive to
achieve those goals. Albert Bandura, who
developed constructivist ideas, believed that believed that outcome expectancies motivate students to imitate the
behavior (Lever-Duffy, 2007). In
essence, teachers who model a desired behavior or result will have their
students achieve that result. Modeling serves as a great focal point at the
beginning of lessons, and in a constructionist classroom, is necessary for
student success.
This
course has absolutely deepened my knowledge of constructionist learning
theory. In particular, I find the
VoiceThread technology that was introduced to us particularly helpful. Students can certainly construct their own
knowledge through a well-guided and maintained lesson including a VoiceThread
activity. By having them post responses
to original thoughts, they become accountable for what they say on this
VoiceThread, which gives them a piece of accountability. It also makes their learning experience much
more meaningful, and I think it can also be extremely fun for them to do. Of course, it takes a lot of practice on the
part of the educator in order for a lesson such as this to work. However, since the teacher is a facilitator
of knowledge, it is the responsibility of the educator to put the student in a
situation where they can create that learning experience. Looking back at the first week of the class,
this was my belief in regard to the theory of constructionism. I still strongly feel this way.
VoiceThread
is only one of many technologies that I became aware about during this
class. The website www.ePals.com is one that I am absolutely going
to use in my classes next year. This site
essentially allows for students to have virtual penpals in other areas of the
world. As a teacher of world cultures, I am thrilled for what this website is
going to be able to teach my students.
For the first eight years of my career, I have had the students
‘imagine’ that they are writing a student in another country. They can formulate their own opinions of what
the other student may say while returning their letter, but there is never a
concrete response. By using this
technology, my students will not only get answers to their questions, but also
they will be much more thoughtful and purposeful in their questioning. Since they will know there will be a return
letter coming back to them, students will certainly be much more heartfelt in
their questioning techniques. I am very
encouraged for what this site can do for my classroom, as it immediately takes
the place of my traditional pencil and paper writing that I have had my
students do. They can construct their
own knowledge in the conversations they will have with these other students,
and all parties will retain the knowledge much more efficiently.
This
course has also taught me more than I had ever dreamed of about
PowerPoint. Dr. Michael Orey and Dr.
Debora Pickering both seem to acknowledge its possible uses, as well as its
deficiencies. It can be a teacher-driven
instructional tool if an educator simply replaces lecture lessons with
PowerPoints. A traditional PowerPoint
may prove difficult for many learners to gather true knowledge out of the
topic. In its traditional form, a
PowerPoint can simply be another way for the lecture notes to be passed on to
students. I know that I have used this
method quite a bit in the past, where I attempt to give students visuals to
accompany the notes. However, if there
is not student-centered focus, many of my students will not be able to retain
the knowledge. Both Dr. Orey and Dr.
Pickering would likely applaud my attempt to integrate pictures into the
lesson, which would go a long way to helping support Pavio’s dual coding
hypothesis (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).
Even though the attempts have been there, I have continually missed the
mark.
I do think
that there is quite a bit of room for improvement in my teaching style, and
this course has certainly taught me ways to do that. In particular, the methods in which Dr. Orey
has presented his information have resonated with me. The PowerPoint, which I have mistakenly used
in my classroom, is one way that I can make an immediate change. For years, I have had my students do a
research report on a country, with a rubric that details what they need for the
project. As I look back, all I see is
information. One slide will be
words. The next will be more words, and
so on. Though each slide is required to
have a picture, what is lacking is true understanding of the topic. The picture can indeed by the vessel to allow
students to remember the topic. Dr.
Pickering suggests that we pull the information from the slide, and have the
students present the information through
pictures only(Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).
This would definitely show me if the students have retained what they
have researched, and will likely lead to more practice from the students. I am going to try this during our research
project next year. While I thoroughly
suspect mixed results, I am eager to see if the presentations themselves
improve.
The final
piece of technology that I cannot wait to introduce to my students, was the
afore mentioned VoiceThread. During our
discussions throughout the course, just about each member of our class seemed
to absolutely love this technology. I am
no exception. I think that the
possibilities are limitless. VoiceThread
is a dream technology for a constructionist such as myself. Students are given a resource, can create
their own knowledge points, and truly construct their own knowledge. In this manner, a constructionist is allowing
a student to create what needs to be created in order to learn the subject
matter (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).
The goal
of any educator is to get these technologies to work for them in the long
term. Having never implemented these
activities in lessons before this course certainly can cause for some anxious
moments leading up to these lessons.
However, having a long-term plan is vital for the success of each new
technological tool a teacher is to use in the classroom. In my case, I would like to implement the
change in my PowerPoint presentations.
The final project my students are to do next year is a PowerPoint on a
country from our curriculum. Instead of
presenting the information in the manner they had in past, with bullet points,
students will not be using any words on the PowerPoint at all. They will be using pictures, and presenting
the information on each slide while having only the picture on each slide. Throughout the year, students will be
preparing for this larger assignment.
Each marking term, students will create a PowerPoint, and as their
skills progress, I will challenge them.
They will start very simple, by creating a 2 or 3 page presentation
during the first term, using words only.
They will then progress through using both pictures and words, and
eventually to only pictures. Along the
way, I will model for them, as well as provide opportunities to practice
presenting.
Another
technology that I would like to implement is VoiceThread. This technology will be even more challenging
for the students than PowerPoint, because it is highly likely that they have
never seen it, or even heard of it before.
My long-term (multi-year) goal, is to be able to teach an in-service to
my faculty on this technology. I think
it is remarkably easy, and something that everyone can use regardless of
subject matter. I had never heard of
this technology before this course, and I plan on continually creating new and
unique VoiceThreads throughout the summer and into next school year. For my students, I would like to have them
create a VoiceThread by the end of the school year. In order to implement this technology, I have
to proceed in the same manner that I did with PowerPoint. Students will first be exposed to the
technology. They will then be required
to respond only in text to one of my VoiceThreads. From there, they will respond with Voice. Finally, before they create their own
VoiceThread, they will be asked to analyze one of my topics, and collaborate
with fellow students to respond. I feel
that these steps will ready my students to use this technological tool to
enhance their education.
I truly
feel that these technological tools can be used in any grade level and in any
subject. It is very exciting to have
practiced these skills, and I truly look forward to implementing these in my
classroom. With the summer rapidly
approaching, it is easy to simply put aside some of these valuable tools, and
tell ourselves that we can work on these when we get back to school. While I definitely plan on enjoying my
summer, I also plan on bettering myself in using these technologies. I want to be much more prepared for the
upcoming school year, and want my students to benefit from these
technologies. After all, that is why we
teach.
References:
Laureate
Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program eleven: Instructional strategies,
Part one [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 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
Laureate
Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program thirteen: Technology: Instructional
tool vs. learning tool [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
Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical
foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.).
Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
