Social Learning

If human learning happens by adapting and assimilating new data into mental constructs (Piaget's Constructivism), then social learning is the next step in creating opportunities to learn.  According to Beaumie Kim from the University of Georgia, social constructivism pushes the importance of people's culture and societal context in helping construct knowledge (2001). To capitalize on this, teachers should take advantage of strategies that incorporate this theory.  Enter cooperative learning.

In my own experience, I have used collaborative learning.  And though there is a fine line, the differences I could have made through working with cooperative learning may have solved some of my frustrations.  Cooperative learning, like collaborative learning, requires whole group assessment.  What sets cooperative learning apart is that each student in the group is still accountable for their own piece of the project.

The value that cooperative learning places on the individual and the group is notable.  Within collaborative learning, all that a teacher would look at is the group.  I believe this opens up the unfortunate possibility of one or two students completing all of the pieces of a project while the remaining members of the group ride the coattails of the motivated students.  The possibility of learning for all members of the group could be limited because not all are pushed to contribute.  According to Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Work, the individual is every bit as important as the whole in cooperative learning.  Because each student in the group relies on the rest, a teacher can create a "sink or swim together" learning opportunity (Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007).

Cooperative learning fits well within social learning theory.  As a group, students must rely on individual expertise of the group members.  Take the video project mentioned by Pitler et al.  Within a group of five, there may be a student who is a very capable writer.  There also may be a student with some tech knowledge.   Each student may have something they can bring to the group, but they have to be able to work together to make it happen.  Cooperative learning opens up opportunities for students to support each other and resolve problems.  Group members are creating opportunities to learn through their socializing.  Each group member brings to the table a set of beliefs and ideas, and through collaboration and cooperation, they are helping to shape the context for understanding.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Voice Thread

In my classroom, I have been trying to create a learning opportunity that requires students to acknowledge that there is not always a clear answer.  My students are very argumentative (and what middle school student is not), but they do not always argue effectively and lack the understanding that there could be more than one perspective. 

A unit that I have taught in the past and will be teaching again in the next few weeks involves three different stories that take place during World War II.  Granted, one of the stories is a complete piece of fiction, but it is still a solid piece for getting students to recognize the varying perspectives of the time.  It is very easy for American children to vilify the Japanese people when discussing World War II.  That goes to the nature of people wanting clearly defined answers.  However, when we read the story of Yoko, a young Japanese girl living in Korea near the end of World War II, it makes you question your perspective on right and wrong.  Should all members of a group be held accountable for the actions of a few?

The ultimate goal is to create some sort of social justice project.  Each of the people that students meet during the course of our reading recognize some pretty major truths about the world.  Anne Frank's is belief is most likely the best known, that all people are basically good at heart.

Here is the link to my Voice Thread: Empathy, Understanding, and the World

Constructionism

I have encountered Piaget before, but I just never could wrap my mind around constructivism.  Perhaps it was where I was in my own development that created the barrier.  I believe now, however, that I have finally figured it out.  When a person encounters something new, they either have to make it part of what they already know (assimilation) or adjust their thinking to make they new information fit (accomodation).  Everything is about balance (equilibrium).  All of this is represented in our minds by mental constructs of how we view the world, ideas we have, and the actions that we recognize (schemata).  All of this in turn fits directly into constuctionism.

Constructionism assumes that students create their ideas as opposed to just having them.  Therefore, when working with material in class, they must either assimilate or accomodate what they are presented to create an equilibrium and form or reshape their schemata.  Learning by design and project-based learning are, in my mind, perfect ways to allow students to engage real world material, things that they must in someway assimilate or accomodate into their own ideas and beliefs.

I have long thought that I was a teacher pushing for project-based learning.  I have even talked about it throughout my coursework at Walden.  While I do not believe what I have said in the past was wrong, I do believe what I have been developing in my own classroom more closely resembles learning by design.  According to Seungyeon Han and Kakali Bhattacharya (Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 2012), there are seven components of learning by design.  These are:

Authenticity: tasks based on real-world applications

Multiple contexts for design activities

A balance of constrained, scaffolded challenges with open-ended design tasks

Rich, varied feedback for designers

Discussion and collaboration

Experimentation and exploration

Reflection

The pieces that I have tried to create are still not perfectly aligned to these seven components.  But if you consider that constructivism is all about people creating or shaping their schemata based off of assimilating or accomodating new data, then what better way to incorporate the opportunity for students to do just that.  The activities are clearly defined and based in the real-world.  Rather than trying to teach students through abstract ideas which they may not have any clue how to incorporate into their thinking, it only makes sense to take things that they may actually encounter (and perhaps already have to some degree) and let them build upon it. 

I believe all of this is true within project-based learning as well.  Students need clearly defined expectations.  They need the chance to work with others, especially those whose schemata differs from their own.  The only way to find the value in your beliefs is to have them challenged and see how you respond.  Upon reflection, you will either feel validated or you will know that you have to make adjustments.  This is, I feel, the way students need to be driven.  Teachers can provide a lot of material, and perhaps students will be able to remember it and apply some of it.  But the only way to truly push students and make what they learn have value and meaning is to put them in a position to create their own ideas.

Cognitivism and Technology

There are three pieces that I have learned about cognitivism that are at the core of what I want to talk about in this post.  These are:

1. people are actively involved in the learning process.  It does not just happen.
2. knowlegdge is organized in a learner's mind (through word association, images, etc)
3. learning is relating new information to prior information learned.

While I may not have exactly stated that as eloquently as some may, I found a lot of comfort in the fact that what I have been gathering from Dr. Michael Orey and Dr. Jeanne Ormrod are a validation of many of my own thoughts.  I am not someone that believes in absolutisms, and while last week I believe I stood rather strongly in support of behaviorism, cognitivism also has great many pieces that just make sense.  I suppose that is why there are cognitive-behavioral theories.

(Helpful site where I found information from Dr. Ormrod's Human Learning)

I suppose the reason technology fits so seamlessly into cognitivism is the relative ease with which students can use it.  If you think about what Dr. Orey spoke about with the way people store information, the dual processing, technology pieces such as Word, PowerPoint, and Excel feed directly into that.  Statistics may hold a small amount of meaning to a student, but in conjunction with a pie graph, it becomes something far more powerful.  Later, when a student is working with some similar problems, the number may not mean much, but a recall of the chart may be just the trick to push the student through to finding a solution.  It begins with basic knowledge and recall, and quickly, it finds it way to critical thinking and potentially analysis. 

Cognitivism and Podcasting

This past week, students in my honors class had the chance to read The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.  This began as a simple story reading, using basic pieces of technology to pose questions and chart out the plot.  However, by the end, students had developed an understanding of legends.  They were instructed to take the story and put it into a modern context.  After this, they were to create a performance of it and record it for a podcast that would be uploaded to our class site.  In doing so, there were several things happening.  They first had to grasp what a legend is.  Then, they had to take a story set  long before they were born and place it into their own time.  They were connecting prior knowledge to new learning and applying this to a format, podcasting, that would make the lesson more meaningful to them, especially since it was their own creation.

_______________________________________________________________

Since, according to cognitivism, learning is a process that requires active engagement, organization, and connection between new information and prior learning, it only makes sense to incorporate various pieces of technology to enhance this process.  If students are already creating separate entries in their minds (pictures and words), why not provide them with more control of this process.  It will add greater depth to what is being learned because students will be able to take the reigns on what they are learning and manipulate the information to best suit their individual needs.

Behaviorism and the Classroom

Behaviorism is really about what we can see when we observe others.   Specifically in the classroom, behaviorism is about controlling or attempting to control discipline and learning.  Through positive and negative reinforcement, as well as punishments, teachers attempt to mold and guide students to the completion of wanted objectives.

There are many that believe behaviorism is an outdated concept.  They say trying to control achievement by bribing students is harming education.  And if it is simple bribery or coercion to get a desired result, let us say, passing a state exam, then those people would have a valid point.  But if someone were to really look at what teachers are doing, many of us are shaping or attempting to shape our students.  Last April I had the opportunity to visit the Ron Clark Academy.  I recommend reading about what Mr. Clark has accomplished, and if you can, visit his school.  While what he is doing is completely unrealistic for public school teachers (he acknowledges this), there are pieces that can be applied.  From what I observed, he used behaviorist theory in much of what he does, from reinforcement strategies to punishments for behaviors.  It works, and his results are pure evidence.  (I am sure he does not need my endorsement, but if you are interested, here is a link to his website:  Ron Clark Academy)

Instructional Strategies That Work

Two instructional strategies that are great examples of behaviorism in the classroom are reinforcing effort and homework and practice.  These strategies are about taking observable behavior, whether it is the effort put forth in the classroom or the training students receive to achieve mastery of material. 

Reinforcing effort is invaluable to a teacher, especially in circumstances where students are not receiving support outside of the classroom.  These students tend to not notice that results on an assignment or project are related to the effort put into it.  As it states in Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, some students associate passing or failing with factors outside of effort such as gender, heredity, or race (Pittler, Hubbell, Kuhn & Malenoski, 2007).  Teachers must create that reference point, that piece inside of each student that shows that applying effort can lead to positive results.  Using spreadsheets or surveys, such as were suggested by Pittler et al, can create that observable and measurable piece that is behaviorism.  In my own school, the use of Survey Monkey has given a voice to the student body.  Where in the past students did not actively participate in the decision making process for fear of being ignored ("It's not like anybody listens to us anyway"), students now recognize there are others with similar ideas, interests, and concerns and that the only way to propogate change is to put their voices out to be heard. 

Homework and practice are necessary to promote student learning.  It sounds good to speak of project/problem-based learning to lead students to greater heights, and I would be remiss if I said homework and practice were enough.  Students cannot grow as effectively without practice as they can with it.  I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand for some people.  I know of administrators and even other teachers who say homework is on the way out.  Is it really?  It does not seem like we would apply such thinking to anything else, such as playing music.  The great musicians may one day no longer need practice, but to become great, surely they did not just sit around thinking critically about what makes great music.  That practice time was necessary.  I suppose it is truly about balance.  Giving homework just to give homework is worthless.  It must be purposeful, and that purpose must be known to students.  It has to be acknowledged and valued.  If we want to create life-long learners, students who can think for themselves, we cannot simply promote the critical thinking and large-scale projects.  Students need a toolbox of skills, and in order to master a skill, they must practice.  Without these skills, could they truly think critically?  Here is my favorite example from my own experience:  A colleague of mine, one that had 10 more years of experience, suggested that grammar practice was outdated and unnecessary.  "Just have students work with that stuff in their original writing pieces," she stated.  While I agree that nothing but grammar worksheets is a sign of poor teaching, how can you teach grammar to students that cannot create that original piece?  Yes, I could point out that a student wrote nothing but fragments and used incorrect punctuation, but how many pieces is this student going to be willing to create, especially if all I am doing is pointing out the mistakes in the writing.  Those practice pieces, especially now that educators have access to so much technology, allow the learning to take a step back from the personal to get in some learning that is focused specifically on skills.  Just think back on that paper your teacher handed back with all of those red marks.  It did not matter what the teacher wrote on the very last page.  All of those marks, crossed out pieces, and underlines overtook your mind and left you feeling like you simply were never going to get it.  Practice pieces, such as the ones offered at English Grammar 101, let students practice and get some reinforcement that shows their effort is paying off and that they are starting to develop the skills.  Homework, practice, and critical thinking should work in conjunction.