January 24-28

Constructionism Learning Theory and Technology....If they build it, they will learn

For all of this week’s resources, I found Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works to be the most insightful for my purposes of understanding how technology could relate to constructionism in the classroom.

In chapter 11, the authors describe various situations in which a hypothesis could be proposed and tested in order to facilitate learning through construction.  In the beginning of the chapter, the authors make two key suggestions to help facilitate the learning process when using this model

1.    Make sure students are able to explain hypotheses and conclusions

2.    Use structured tasks to guide student learning

The authors go on to provide several examples of how various tools and techniques can be utilized in the classroom to promote constructionism learning.  While those methods were really great, the more I read, the more I came to a single conclusion.  Constructionism isn’t really about what you create.  It’s how you create it.

Let’s take a look at constructionism through a teacher’s eyes for a moment.  According to Dr. Orey, the constructionism model is one in which the learner must actively create something, specifically an artifact, that serves to facilitate learning through forced assimilation as well as demonstrate gained knowledge through the final product.  The obvious example is a PowerPoint.  For our purposes here, let’s say that the students are being asked to create a PowerPoint that details information on the life and political career of a certain president.  The teacher may choose to provide very strict guidance, requiring that the student include specific information (significant dates, political views, major accomplishments, family life) and have a corresponding slide for each.  This is probably a great technique for younger students who are new to PowerPoint.  The goal for these students is going to be to learn important facts about a president, learn how to do some research, and get a taste for how to organize information.

Now let’s take a look at the same project done in an AP US History classroom.  Students are given an assignment that says, “Choose a president, tell us what is important, and present the information in a way you see fit.”  By providing the student with fewer requirements of how the presentation is to be made, the student is forced to think about what information to focus on, what it should be organized like, and how to most effectively present it all in a timely and engaging manner. 

These two examples show the versatility of constructionism learning.  By changing just a few details of the assignment, we can adjust it from a 4^th grade level to a 12^th grade level relatively easily.  As with anything else in education, there is a caveat.  When asking students to create something you have to consider one question.  What will the student have learned when this is completed?  Occasionally, in my education support classes, I give assignments with the intention of having them get information from each other.   I’m not terribly concerned with whether they Googled it or found it on their neighbors paper.  The point is that they figured out a way to find the information.   In the same way, learning by construction really needs to be designed by first looking at what you intend to have learned.  If you make your instructional decisions based on that question, you really can’t go wrong.

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

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010). Program Seven. Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page

Cognitive Learning Theory and Technology....in Special Education

In this week’s resources regarding cognitive learning theory, Dr. Robert Orey presented evidence for how we learn most effectively.  The first thing he presented was the theory that we learn better when we have an image to connect to whatever we are trying to learn.  He goes on to present the theory of elaboration, by which information is stored to our long term memory and follows that up with a model of how this can be effectively presented in the classroom.  This is the basis for some very powerful connections between how students learn and some pieces of technology that we can use in our classroom to make learning more relevant to our students. 

In Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, the authors identify the skills of summarizing and note-taking as two of the most important skills that students can use to increase learning.  Unfortunately for many students, there really isn’t a set age or grade that teachers present note taking, so most students end up learning on the fly or never really grasping the skill.  By utilizing technology, we as teachers can develop our students note-taking and summarizing skills in a way that is simple and straight forward for any student.  Additionally, many of the tips and techniques described by the authors can be utilized through programs like Word or PowerPoint, which most school systems have access to already. 

Another strategy put forth by the offers is the practice of using cues, questions, and advanced organizers.  In my special education bubble at school, I so often see students who come to me with a folder full of notes, a test review sheet, and a list of page numbers to read.  Now I don’t know what happens in their classrooms, and I’m not trying to place blame on the general education teachers, but it seems as though these students have no idea what they are supposed to be learning, let alone whatever they had been presented for the last 2 weeks.  The best strategy I have found for helping them understand the material is to turn it into questions and have them try and find the answers to those questions, using guided notes and adjusted reading amounts in their books.  Teaching this way plays into the cognitive learning theory in the sense that a person who is simply given information will have a hard time remembering that information in the future.  A person who at the very least connects what they are hearing or reading with the attempt to answer a question that they find at least somewhat relevant increases the chances of long term memory storage significantly.

So now the big question that has haunted me since I started taking tech courses.  What does this mean for special education students? The good news is that this understanding of a link between technology and learning is exactly what the special education community is always looking for.  While there are some old standbys that work most of the time for most of the students, these technological “weapons” add a little more firepower to the special education teacher’s arsenal.  How much would these students benefit from learning how to take notes combined with pictures and important information?   I’d like to believe that in many of these student’s cases, it is not so much a case of whether or not they can learn, but more a case of they don’t know how THEY learn as an individual.  This could help close that mysterious gap once and for all.  

Resources

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Program five. Cognitive Learning Theories. [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

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

In the book, Using Technoloyg with Classroom Instruction that Works, the authors suggest several strategies for teaching students that appropriate levels of effort can lead to success.  This, of course, ties in nicely with the behaviorist learning theory that we have been discussing as part of our graduate studies.  What The authors suggest is that we teach students the importance of effort by actually helping them to track how much effort they are putting into something and then comparing it to the results of that effort (Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., Malenoski, K. 2007).  By having concrete evidence right in front of them, students will be much more likely to find the connection between effort and success.  Additionally, if a student and teacher are looking at the student’s records together, the teacher may be able to make inferences about how that particular student learns most efficiently, thereby improving instruction for all students.   I think you will agree that this is a very behaviorist model of learning; especially considering that many “experts” feel that behaviorism in the classroom is obsolete.  Not only can students learn from what they are doing, but teachers can make curriculum changes based on what works or doesn’t work as well. 

                From my own perspective,  I have found that while the behaviorist model of learning can be a helpful tool, as a special education teacher, the model presents some difficulties when dealing with practice and repetition.  Behaviorism suggests that the more a student practices a skill, the better he or she will become at it.  I’m here to tell you that there are exceptions to this rule, and we know them as students with learning disabilities.  I have had students who could practice the same math problems every day for 2 weeks and the next day that skill is just nowhere to be found.  My question is this: If I as a teacher or he as a student could find a reason ( a really good reason) for him to feel like he had to learn this, could he?  According to a purely behaviorist model, there should be some reward, extrinsic or otherwise, that would make it worth retaining that information.  What should we do for a student like this?


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