Group Summary:
Several principles for learning invariant tasks were accomplished with the group Alice and Scratch projects. Stephanie’s project reviewed the legislative branch using association with basic recall. Christ took cognitive load theory into consideration when incorporating a simple user interface for her project. Rachel related our use of the flowcharts and repeated practice before designing our own project to the principles of chunking and using visuals.
Most of our group members used the routine procedure of presentation, practice and feedback for our Alice or Scratch project. Stephanie’s project also incorporated the aspects of enrichment by requiring the learner to redo questions that were wrong and motivation by rewarding the learner with cheers when questions are answered correctly. Additionally, Christa’s project addressed application by requiring the learner to apply the presented concepts.
The two strategies that our group would employ if we were required to redesign our Alice or Scratch projects are pre-assessment and chunking. Pre-assessment would be used in the analyze phase to identify needs and analyze learners while chunking would be used during the design phase to ensure we do not overwhelm the learner with information.
Rachel’s post prompted a discussion on our use of the flowcharts in the design process. We all felt that they aided in our understanding of the task and see their benefits in the classroom. I wanted to extend the discussion by researching the use of digital graphic organizers as an instructional tool.
Research:
A New Use for Semantic Maps outlines the use of concept mapping as a pre-assessment technique in science. The author outlines the seven steps to use the maps effectively and provides the analysis for two science concept maps.
Wolfinger, D. M. (2006). A new use for semantic maps. Science and Children, 43(4), 48-51
Comparing Hand Drawn and Computer Generated Concept Mapping presents the findings of a 2004 study to find out if concept maps created with computer software are more complex than concept maps created with paper/pencil tools and if students prefer to use computer tools or pencil/paper tools to create concept maps. I want you to read this article to see if your classroom experiences support the author’s findings. This article can be found in the Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson) of EBSCOHost in SHSU’s Newton Gresham Library.
Royer, R., & Royer, J. (2004). Comparing Hand Drawn and Computer Generated Concept Mapping. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(1), 67-81.
Using Technology to Support Visual Learning Strategies presents the research base for using digital visual learning tools to organize information, clarify relationships between concepts and develop high order thinking skills in students. Visual learning techniques as well as adaptations for students with special needs are outlined.
O'Bannon, B., Puckett, K., & Rakes, G. (2006). Using technology to support visual learning strategies. Computers in the Schools, 23(1/2), 125-137. doi:10.1300/J025v23n01•11.
Discussion Question for Group:
On page 69 Royer, R. and Royer, J. (2004) suggest that if meaningful learning occurs when students identify relationships, more meaningful learning occurs if students have access to tools that provide them the opportunity to create more complex maps. Do you agree or disagree with this position? As classroom teachers time is valuable. Is the time needed to introduce and demonstrate technology tools worth the benefits or can we get the same result with a paper and pencil?
That is an excellent question. So many of my own lessons have hit snags when there are technical difficulties with equipment or the users. If a student is already comfortable with the program, I see software such as Inspiration or Kidspiration as effective tools for increasing students opportunities to identify meaningful relationships. Students can add graphics, photos, videos, and links easily, creating a more complex map of relationships between concepts (Royer & Royer, 2004).
ReplyDeleteIt's true that classroom time is so valuable. In schools or classes where project-based learning is encouraged, the use of technology tools and the time it takes to train students will not be wasted.
Royer, R., & Royer, J. (2004). Comparing Hand Drawn and Computer Generated Concept Mapping. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(1), 67-81.
In a correspondence to districts from TEA in respect to House Bill 3, students are not longer required to complete technology applications as a graduation requirement. How do we take a step forward into the 21st century and technology integration without the requirements of basic technology concepts as a course and graduation requirements?
ReplyDeleteIntegrating technology into classroom instruction means more than teaching basic computer skills, it also requires professional development of the instructor. Effective tech integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that research shows deepen and enhance the learning process. Effective technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is routine and transparent and when technology supports curricular goals.
I agree with both of you ladies and in my current position I see both sides of the arguement. If I'm the language arts teacher then it's hard to devote time in class to teach the kids to use a technology tool when they are reading 40-50 wpm in 4th grade. I want to focus on the reading skills. By the same token however, I know that there are ways that technology can be used to help this student increase their reading fluency. Making technology use routine and transperant in the classroom as Christa said is the challenge. Teachers have to be willing to learn and experiement (often on their own) and schools or districts have to provide them with quality training and the resources to meet the needs of their learners.
ReplyDeleteAs I reflect on "technology integration" into the curriculum, I think of the "time needed" being already accounted for and allotted in the scope and sequence of the subject. In addition to the professional development (and willingness) of the teacher.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience the teachers on my campus do a pretty good job of integrating technology into the delivery of instruction. They use websites or multimedia to reinforce or address skill deficits, introduce new topics or play review games. I have a select number that even use Mimio or Smartboards for guided practice on a regular basis. The common thread is that all of the current technology use is centered on the teacher. My goal is to put the technology in the hands of the students and that’s where I get resistance. The teachers often say that the kids “can’t do anything” and that is just not true. They have to be willing to put in some time learning the technology so they can modify things for their level. How do I get teachers to have 1st grade students draw and label a plant on the computer (which will take a week to finish) instead of using the same cut & paste paper activity they can complete in 30 minutes that they have been doing for the last 10 years.
Delete