Week 2 My GAME Plan

As an educator, it is important to keep up with current technology to better prepare students with 21^st century skills.  I know it is important to not only learn how to integrate technology into the classroom, but to select best practices in doing so.  After viewing the ISTE website, I selected two NETS-T indicators that I want more proficiency with.  This will require me to set goals, take action, monitor progress, and evaluate my achievement of those goals.  With this being said, here are my two GAME plans.

GAME Plan for Indicator 4a

Goal: To model and teach safe, legal, and ethical use of digital information and technology.

Action:  I will make sure I cite sources in my instructional materials (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a).  I will use various resources to promote discussions and activities with my students about online safety.  I will provide my students with links on our class website to images I know that they can use legally in their work (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2009).

Monitor: While students are working in the computer lab, I will be closely observing and questioning my students about where they got their information and images.  I will expect to see them citing sources within their digital products to give credit to those who influenced their work (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b).  I can also observe what sites students are accessing when online to ensure they are appropriate.  Lastly, I can give informal assessments about cyber safety and copyright issues that we have discussed previously in class.

Evaluate: I can evaluate if I achieved my goal by the behaviors and products of my students.  If they start to cite their sources without prompting and if they safely research online I will know that I achieved my goal.  I can extend my learning on this topic by learning more about the fair use policy and Creative Commons so I know what myself and my students are allowed to use legally online (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b). 

GAME Plan for Indicator 5a

Goal: To participate in a local learning community to explore creative applications of technology to improve student learning.

Action:  My district has a technology committee that includes at least one teacher or administrator from every school.  However, I want students to openly discuss how they would like to be taught (Prensky, 2008).  I plan to invite students of different ages and technology abilities to participate in the district technology meeting.  If that is not possible, I will hold just a school forum where parents are invited as well.  This opportunity will allow students that freedom to share what and how they learn best with technology as we no longer can decide for them but need to decide along with them (Prensky, 2005).  The staff can take their ideas and suggestions to determine the direction our school and district should go with technology integration to improve student learning.

Monitor:  Once certain ideas and suggestions have been accepted by the district committee, various technologies will become available (perhaps only pilot programs) and select trainings will be offered for teachers.  Administrators or technology committee members will need to monitor how teachers are using the technology put into place.  I would suggest that educators record notes on how implementation with their students went and that these findings are then shared at future meetings.  Also videotaping these instructional changes could prove beneficial as well.

Evaluate: One way to evaluate this is to look at how students are performing in the classroom due to the new technology and instructional strategies that have become implemented.  To have accurate findings, teachers must be willing to implement the new technology strategies and share their new data and observations with their colleagues.  I can extend this topic by considering having students on other school or district committees.

By implementing both GAME plans, I can gain confidence in my ability to integrate technology into the classroom.  The achievement of both goals above improves student learning as well as promotes best practices for teachers.

References

Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). National education standards for teachers (NETS-T). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program 10:  Informational Literacy: Ethical practices [DVD]. Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program 12:  Safe and ethical practices [DVD]. Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.

Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.

My New Learning Theory

At the beginning of this Master’s course, I was asked to describe my personal theory on how students learn.  My theory had three primary components: learning styles, activating prior knowledge, and social interaction.  Although I still support these three methods, I have modified my personal theory of learning.  I have developed a better understanding of how to use social learning in the classroom and I have also integrated a few other elements into my learning theory.  All of these methods have encouraged me to adjust my instructional practices and set goals for better integration of technology into my classroom.

Social learning has always been a part of my personal learning theory, but I have developed a better understanding of why and how to use it in the classroom.  The central idea of cooperative learning (CL) is students working together in a way that enhances their learning (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  I always thought that as long I had students placed into groups I was implementing CL, but I was far off.  Palmer, Peters, & Streetman (2003) explained that in CL students are working collaboratively to achieve a goal that they could not attain by themselves.  This information reconfirmed to me why I support CL, but also has inspired me to do better in how I am implementing this method into my classroom. 

Two additional elements I have now added to my theory of learning are reinforcing effort and artifact construction.  Parkay & Hass (2000) mentioned that behaviorists believe a desired outcome needs to be rewarded for learning to take place in the classroom.  Positive reinforcement is a powerful instructional strategy that I should use more often with my third graders.  In the book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works, it discussed teachers helping students see the connection between effort and achievement to change their attitude and to do this by primarily showing them data (Pitler et al., 2007).  One easy way I can let students see data is through the use of Promethean responders.  These devices immediately let my students know if they got an answer correct and I can use the Promethean software to make graphs displaying class progress and accuracy.  The second element I have added to my learning theory, one supported by constructionists, involves students creating external artifacts to demonstrate their learning.  I like the idea of my students being more engaged and active in their learning as they create something to share with others (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).  I already have thought of many ways I can use technology to support this theory, such as having students create their own PowerPoints, wiki pages, and VoiceThreads.

Voice Threads are one technological tool I want to begin using immediately with my students.  I can easily create VoiceThreads to present material to my students in a visual and auditory style.  I have already created one about the explorer Hernando Cortes and I want to try to make one for each person in my Explorers unit.  In addition, I would love to put this tool into my students’ hand and have them create their own VoiceThreads.  Each year my students research an animal in the ocean biome and create a PowerPoint to present.  I could easily have them make a VoiceThread using images from online and then record their presentations.  I liked the idea that Kevin Jarrett suggested on letting students record a story with uploaded images instead of writing one (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009b).  Often my students complain about writing and they are too young to type well, so I think they would really enjoy recording a story.  There are many other applications for VoiceThreads in the classroom that I hope to discover over time.

Another technological tool I want to try use in my classroom immediately is concept mapping software, such as Kidspiration or IHMC CampTools.  Concept maps require the learner to show they understand the relationship between topics in the map, how these topics connect to the focus question, and it helps identify the knowledge a learner has gained after instruction (Novak & Cañas, 2008).  I used a concept map recently in the classroom for a Master’s assignment on cognitive learning.  I believe my students benefited from filling in a concept map because they are very visual learners and this way they organized the content they were learning in a way that can help them better recall it later.  Utilizing concept mapping software makes it easier as the user can color code the map, add images, and easily move around concepts.  I can see myself and my students using concept mapping software more often in the near future to help in organizing information and for assessment purposes where students fill in missing elements.

Although those are two technological tools that I plan to implement immediately, I have two long-term goals for my classroom as well.  The first goal I have is to integrate virtual field trips into my classroom.  These are an effective tool to let students see and travel to places they otherwise could not go (Laureate Education, 2009a).  Students can read, see, and hear about a place we are learning about, deepening their understanding of the material.  I recently traveled to Rome, Athens, and Pompeii, all of which I teach about to my students.  How exciting it would be if I put all my photographs into VoiceThreads or onto a website and make a virtual field trip for each place.  I could record comments telling my students what they are seeing and have links to other sites with additional information.  This would take time to organize, so I would begin with just one and see how it turns out.  I can view other virtual field trips to get an idea of how to organize mine.  When I actually use one with students I would ask them what they liked and what needs improving.  I am hoping to make at least three virtual field trips to use this school year for my Government and Ancient Civilizations units.

Another long-term goal I have for my classroom is to make it more learner-centered.  This is not something I cannot change overnight, but I need to gradually make a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered lessons.  One way I can accomplish this is to remember the difference between instructional tools and learning tools (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009c).  I need to make sure I put technology into my students’ hand instead of always being the one using it.  Often I just present a PowerPoint and lecture while it is on the screen.  However, there are various ways I can make students more active participants in the lessons.  I can have them come up to the SmartBoard more often and I can let them share the artifacts they have created.  Furthermore, we can spend more time on the computers where students can contribute to our class wiki, play online games, create items in Microsoft Publisher, and complete WebQuests.  I know it will not be easy for me to completely give up my lecture-style, but I am going to try to have more student-centered lessons during the rest of my teaching career.

This class has shown me new technological tools I can use in the classroom.  It has also helped me modify my personal learning theory.  I look forward to using the new methods and tools I learned about in my classroom this year and in the years to come.  However, I will always be open to learning about new resources available to me because I realize that the learners’ environment is changing so the way we teach should as well.

References

Han, S., & Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 6: Spotlight on technology: Virtual field trips [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 10:  Spotlight on technology: VoiceThread [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 13: Technology: Instructional tool vs. learning tool [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Palmer, G., Peters, R., & Streetman, R. (2003). Cooperative learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

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

Voice Thread Assignment

This week I learned about social learning and tools that support this theory (see previous blog post for more information).  One technological tool is a Voice Thread.  I created a Voice Thread about the explorer Hernando Cortes.  After my students learn about how he conquered the Aztec Empire, they will work in partners to create a new ending to Cortes' story.  They will show a peaceful way that Cortes could have gotten the Aztec gold and land without violence.  After creating a solution, they will create a Voice Thread recording their story and using images they either find or make.  Let me know what you think!  In the past I have always had students write a new ending yet I think they will enjoy this much more!


Link to my Voice Thread: http://voicethread.com/share/2150883/

Social Learning Theories

This week I learned about social constructivism which is simply a theory of how students engage in a construction of knowledge that they create through interactions with others and their environment (Kim, 2001).  The information I read focused specifically on cooperative learning as an important instructional strategy of social learning.  In addition, I learned about the theory of connectivism which shifts the idea of how students learn socially due to technology-enhanced environments.

The central idea of cooperative learning (CL) is students working together in a way that enhances their learning (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  I always thought that as long I had students placed into groups I was implementing CL, but I was far off.  Palmer, Peters, & Streetman (2003) explained that in CL students are working collaboratively to achieve a goal that they could not attain by themselves, and that although the group is assessed, individual students are also held accountable for their work.  My favorite form of CL is the jigsaw method.  This requires each student to learn the material and then teach it to a small group.  Dr. Michael Orey mentions how teaching others gives the learner a deeper understanding of the material and how the jigsaw method focuses on individual responsibility even though students are in groups (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009b).

In the book, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, it discusses a few tools teachers can use to support cooperative learning in the classroom through technology.  I enjoyed learning about the website www.epals.com.  This tool encourages students to collaborate with students from around the world via e-mail.  I could see myself using this in the classroom to have my students learn about other cultures and to work on their communication skills.  I am curious how this will work with third graders who do not currently have their own e-mail accounts.  I am hoping that the program provides them with one. 

Another tool the book mentioned was WebQuests.  I have always thought of WebQuests as an individual activity supporting the constructionist theory; however, Pitler et al. (2007) mentions that students in the classroom or from far away can work together on the tasks.  I spent time viewing www.webquest.org and found some already created WebQuests that I can begin using immediately in my classroom.  This tool still requires that each student contribute, but it promotes social interaction and makes students active participants in learning the material (Palmer et al., 2003). 

A third tool I want to mention that I feel supports cooperative learning is a VoiceThread (see www.voicethread.com for more information).  There are many ways to employ this tool into the classroom, but I liked the idea that Kevin Jarrett suggested on letting students record a story with uploaded images instead of writing one (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009c).  Students will be more involved and other students will be more interested in viewing and hearing the story than if it was just read aloud.  After viewing the VoiceThread, students can post comments about the story.  What a great way to collaborate!

George Siemens has coined the term connectivism as a new type of social learning theory.  He explains that because of technology-rich environments and the abundant of information available learning has changed (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009a).  Siemens explains that students can now network online and through these connections they can gather information and share ideas while at the same time choosing what information available is important to learn (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008).  I have not seen this much with my students as they are too young to be involved in social networking sites.  However, I do observe how easily they get involved in virtual games where they can chat with others, how they enjoyed participating in our class wiki last year, and how we can find anything they ask about within seconds online.  I feel connectivism is still in its infancy, but I do understand Siemens’ thoughts about how the learners’ environment has changed so that perhaps the way we teach should as well. 

I support social learning in the classroom.  I definitely plan to integrate, correctly, cooperative learning into to my classroom.  I also look forward to trying Voice Threads with my students and using WebQuests a bit more.  I will attempt at setting up virtual penpals through www.epals.com or a similar site, but I am not sure how well that will work with my students.  Yet no matter what specifically works for me or doesn’t, I believe all teachers should do better about incorporating social learning into their classroom.

References

Davis, C, Edmunds, E, & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from 

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

Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 9:  Connectivism as a learning theory [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 8:  Social learning theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 10:  Spotlight on technology: VoiceThread [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Palmer, G., Peters, R., & Streetman, R. (2003). Cooperative learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

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

Constructionism in the Classroom

Constructivism is a theory of knowledge while constructionism is a theory of learning based upon the idea that the best learning takes place when students construct their own knowledge (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).  This week I read about the instructional strategy Generating and Testing Hypotheses in the book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works.  This strategy correlates with the constructionist learning theory and should be used in the classroom.  In addition, I read about project-based and problem-based learning tools and learned how these connect to constructionism.

Generating and testing hypotheses allow students to make predictions, apply their knowledge, and develop a strong understanding of the material as they modify their thinking based upon experiments (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  Technology aids students in generating and testing hypotheses as it shifts the time from collecting data into interpreting it (Pitler et al., 2007).  For example, the formulas in Excel spreadsheets allow students to spend more time analyzing data then figuring it out.  I wish teachers used this when I was younger.  This technology provides the learner with more time to look at data in different ways and in various graphs and charts so they can make better conclusions.  I believe this helps students stay more engaged and active in their construction of new knowledge (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009).

Problem-based learning tools support the theory of constructionism.  Problem-based learning challenges students to problem solve in authentic settings using higher-order thinking skills and it requires teachers to give students control over what they learn and just provide support (Glazer, 2001).  WebQuests are an element of problem-based learning I have used in the past and I find my students enjoy.  Scholastic’s Thanksgiving WebQuest tends to be their favorite (http://www.scholastic.com/scholastic_thanksgiving/feast/webquest.htm) even though this one is not set-up in a traditional format.  This inquiry-based tool encourages students, while online, to learn information about a topic to make a decision or respond to an issue (Glazer, 2001).  WebQuests tend to follow similar formats and it is easy for my students to navigate.  My students construct their own knowledge about a topic to arrive to a conclusion by the end of the WebQuest.

Project-based learning tools support the theory of constructionism as well.  Project-based learning is an approach that requires learners to engage in a long-term project while collaborating with others in complex activities (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).  I will admit I do not use this type of learning very often in my classroom.  I find it difficult with third graders to work on projects without a lot of direction from me.  However, teachers who support the constructionist theory will want to include PBL in the classroom.  PBL is a very learner-centered activity that requires students to participate in inquiry, communicate their ideas, and reflect on their own learning (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).  PBL has been shown to increase problem-solving abilities and motivation for learning (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).  Isn’t this what every teacher wants to have in their classroom? 

As seen from the information provided above, all these instructional strategies support the constructionist view of learning.  Generating and testing hypotheses, project-based learning, and problem-based learning are relevant to today’s students.  They should be used in the classroom to give students opportunities to be actively engaged in creating artifacts, making predictions, and solving problems.  All of these activities let students take charge of their own learning and build up their knowledge both components of constructionism.

References

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem Based Instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 7:  Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [DVD]. 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.

Cognitive Learning in the Classroom

This week I read about two instructional strategies in the book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works.  One strategy related to Summarizing and Note Taking and the other was about Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers.  Both of these strategies correlate with the cognitive learning theory and should be used in the classroom.  In addition, I learned about Virtual Field Trips and how beneficial these can be for students.

The first strategy discussed in this book was Summarizing and Note Taking.  Cognitivists support the idea that information enters the brain, enters working memory, and if properly stored can be used later on (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008).  Students should take notes in an organized manner, focusing on just the main ideas helping them to better process information to create a summary (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  One way to summarize is through the use of a cognitive tool known as concept mapping.  Pitler, et al. (2007) tells us that graphic representation for note taking has shown to increase student achievement.  Concept mapping aligns with cognitive learning as it replicates our network model of memory and it supports dual-coding where information is stored as text and images (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009a).  In addition, concept mapping embeds technology as students can use programs such as the software IHMC CampTools or online sites like www.spiderscribe.net to create their concept maps.  These maps require the learner to show they understand the relationship between topics in the map, how these topics connect to the focus question, and it helps identify the knowledge a learner has gained after instruction (Novak & Cañas, 2008).  The book discussed additional cognitive tools students could use to take notes and summarize, but teachers have to use resources available to them and remember that “the tools should help manage the work, not increase it” (Robertson, Elliot, & Robertson, 2008, p. 9).

The other instructional strategy discussed in Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works was Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers.  Cues are a reminder about what students are about to learn and questioning helps activate a student’s prior knowledge (Pitler et al., 2007).  Both of these devices are trying to help students make connections between what they already know and see how this new knowledge will fit in.  This is where advance organizers become an effective cognitive tool in the classroom.  Advance organizers assist students in classifying this new information with the old and to focus their learning on what is important (Pitler et al., 2007).  This tool is only beneficial if teachers plan their instruction around what students already know, so they can help students see the relationship between old concepts and begin linking them together with new ones (Smith, 1999).  The book also mentioned using multimedia resources as advanced organizers because they can provide students with a mental mode for understanding new information (Pitler et al., 2007).  In the classroom, I often use www.unitedstreaming.com to show various videos on a wide-range of topics.  My students are more engaged and make better connections with the material.  Cues, questions, and advance organizers are essential in today’s classroom.

This week I also learned about Virtual Field Trips.  These are a great way to take students places where they cannot physically go (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009b).  Dr. Michael Orey stated that integrating multiple senses improve learning (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009a).  Virtual field trips let students, see, hear, and read about another place, getting to experience it almost first-hand.  I have never used these before, but I hope to include virtual field trips in the classroom in the future.  What a great way to integrate technology and support the cognitive learning theory.

As seen from the information provided above, both instructional strategies discussed support the cognitive view of learning.  Summarizing and note taking, especially with concept mapping, help students organize information better so they work it into long-term memory.  Cues, questions, and advance organizers help to activate students’ prior knowledge so they can make better connections with new material.  Finally, virtual field trips integrate multiple senses as students get to see and hear about a place without ever leaving the classroom.  Cognitive learning definitely has a place in our school system today.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 5: Cognitive learning theories [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Program number 6: Spotlight on technology: Virtual field trips [DVD]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

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

Robertson, B., Elliot, L., & Robinson, D. (2007). Cognitive tools. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Smith, M.K. (1999). The cognitive orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-cognitive.htm

Connecting Behaviorism with Technology

This week I read about two instructional strategies in the book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works.  One strategy related to Homework and Practice and the other about Reinforcing Effort.  Both of these strategies correlate with the behaviorist learning theory and also embed technology.

One strategy focused on in this book was Homework and Practice.  The book mentioned that “multiple exposures to material help students deepen their understanding of content and become proficient with skills” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p. 188).  Since students need about twenty-four practice sessions to achieve 80% accuracy with a particular skill, it only seems logical to ensure we give them the opportunity to practice in several ways (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).  Repetition is definitely central to this, but it is important that students see the content in a variety of contexts (Smith, 1999).  Technology is a powerful tool that makes this more possible than ever before.  Students no longer just have to take home drill-and-practice worksheets every day.  Students have access to online games, computer software, typing tutorials, and other multimedia programs.  Our students not only get to learn from these resources, but with the technology available students can now learn alongside multimedia (Pitler et al., 2007).  Children can research online, create slide shows, navigate Web Quests, and more.  A great website I use in the classroom is www.brainpop.com.  It has short videos that teach about specific topics and then students take an interactive quiz afterwards to test for comprehension.  Often we take the quiz as a class and I call students up for individual questions.  My students enjoy answering a question correctly in front of their peers, an intrinsic motivator that keeps them wanting to practice (Standridge, 2002).  Smith (1999) tells us that behaviorists believe that what one learns is shaped by the elements in their environment.  When students have access to technology at school and at home, they can become more active in the learning process which is one of the four principles of behaviorist learning (Smith, 1999).  This website and many other technological tools keeps students interested in practicing and make students want to do the homework the teacher assigns.  It is up to the teacher to learn about new resources that are available and to try to make them accessible to students.  Homework and practice are important and if implemented properly will benefit students greatly.

The other instructional strategy discussed in the text was Reinforcing Effort.  Parkay & Hass (2000) mentioned that a desired outcome needs to be rewarded for learning to take place in the classroom which is exactly what positive reinforcement entails.  However, a teacher cannot and should not always reward a student with tangible items, but instead should rely on other types of reinforcement.  The book Using Technology with Classroom Instruction That Works discussed teachers helping students see the connection between effort and achievement to change their attitude about learning and to do this by primarily showing them data (Pitler et al.).  My students use a website called www.ixl.com in which they complete math problems tied to standard-based performance objectives.  This web resource provides students with immediate feedback and contains various graphs containing data about student’s progress.  This data allows students to monitor their growth in specific skills in regards to time and accuracy.  In addition, this site gives students virtual rewards and PDF certificates.  I have seen how excited my third graders get when they win a prize and how proud they are when their certificate is posted on our class website.  This type of reinforcement is free and holds students accountable for their own successes (Pitler et al.).  When used appropriately reinforcement is a great benefit for the students and teacher.

As seen from the information provided above, both instructional strategies support the behaviorist view of learning and also embeds technology.  Reinforcing effort encourages and motivates students to continue to put forth work in the classroom.  Giving students homework and practice helps them develop and master skills.  Including technology for both of the strategies, keeps students engaged and wanting to learn.  What else could a teacher ask for?

References

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001).  Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.  Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Parkay, F.W. & Hass, G. (2000). Curriculum planning: A contemporary approach (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

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

Smith, M.K. (1999). The behaviourist orientation to learning. In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm

Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/