Huh?

Sadly, I dont have too many thoughts on our last subject. Im not sure if it is because I just do not understand it at all or if I am making it more complicated than it is...

From what I can tell, learning objects are basically just a way for self-motivated learners to get information. It is meant to be reused by people all over the world, making learning easier and more accessible to everyone. But, it seems to me as that just cannot simply be it. Im really at a loss on this one.

So, since I am at a loss, let me just make some comments about the articles...

1. The Bannan Article: preface: My comment has nothing to do with learning objects.

"Humans are viewed as goal directed agents who actively seek information." Dont make me laugh. Obviously the writers of this have never lived where I live. Dont get me wrong; most days I like where I live, but it would take more than my fingers and toes to count the number of people who are not goal directed and do not actively seek information. Now, there are quite a few people that do, but I think this is a HUGE generalization and very poor assumption. I do not think humans are goal directed. At best, I think you could say 50% of humans are goal directed. Call me skeptical, but...

2. Maybe I am confused because like the Koppi articles states, there are many definitions and some are debatable. That makes me feel better.

3. The LRC makes me think of a library. So is all this just a "puffed-up" library?

4. I can see how this style of learning or this idea would be useful in life. Searching many different places to find an answer is a very valuable skill. I cant think of any problem that I have been presented where I didnt have to go to many sources to find an answer.

5. I dont really like the decontextualization part. I do like teaching things in context. Giving students background and then going from there. So not sure how I feel about no background. I think that some student would be lost without context.

So, for tonight that will have to be all. Excuse my cynicism for the evening. :)

CFT

So in listening to the notes this week, I had a thought. Wouldn't it be cool to develop your own learning theory? That would be amazing! To just be sitting around, planning, thinking, cleaning, making a grocery list and bam! you get this idea! All of your knowledge suddenly comes together and you create a theory! I should make that a goal in life. :)

So this week's theory does look at the big idea. Of course I am always trying to fit this knowledge into elementary school standards. How can I take elementary students and help them think flexibly??

I love the statement made in our notes: the way students are taught influences the way that they think. Not a genius or original idea, but thought-provoking none-the-less. Therefore, we must remember this as educators and be very aware of how we are molding minds. Not just what we say, but how we say it has a great effect on others.

Funnily enough, the example with the "bat" is exactly how we teach multiple meaning words where I tutor.

I think it is very important to build on what you know. If we simply present a new piece of information each day to our students, it just becomes a bunch of unrelated facts to remember; however, if we can find a way to build upon our previous knowledge, it ties everything together and gives kids/people that AHAH! moment that we love to have when we learn. For example, when I teach my students, I want the to always remember that no matter what we talk about in class, it always relates back to information. What is the point of a multimedia project? To share information. What is the point of a database? To give or analyze information. What is the point of the internet (also a database)? To give information. So in each new unit that I teach...I always ask the question...what is the purpose? And they always know that our main point with technology is to get and give information. They build their knowledge from one unit to the next. When we learn buttons on the button bar, they see that that information can transfer from blogging, to websites, to Power Point, to Word, to Excel, and so on. It excites them to know that they do not have to go learn something new each time they come to my class, but that they transfer their knowledge from one application to the next.

I do think that I am looking at CFT very simply. I do also think that I am simplifying it because I am thinking in terms of elementary school (which was one of the points...not to over-simplify). I would like to try and "bump up" my educational techniques and go from teaching the "facts" to using case-based scenarios to answers questions about the things we learn.

Wow, once again, I want to try out another theory in my own classroom. Is it possible to use all of these theories at some point within your own classroom? Are there some theories that you would prefer over others? That is a little off topic, but as we are coming to a conclusion in our class, I wonder which theories everyone would rank at the top...ones that they would want to try out before the others. Would using all the theories make your class more or less effective?

Back to CFT, this is definitely higher order thinking. Not just question and answer, but here is some information, now can you apply it to this case? Can you transfer your knowledge from one thing to the next? Good stuff.

I know that we do not have to create a website for our final project, but while reading and listening to the notes...I think I had a good idea for one, so I will share it.

Similar to the way we had to read 3 different articles and then read the plantation letters...the website would give readings about each theory that we have learned. Then the blogs that we have written would be given as readings (similar to the Plantation Letters). Questions would be asked, comparisons would be made and a scenario would be given requiring application of knowledge. That is just a basic run-down, but that is what I would do.

This blog is a little all over the place this week. This theory is making my mind run all over the place with ideas here and there about this and that...which I think is a good thing. At first I wasn't loving this theory, but the more I understand it, the more I love it.

CBR

My first thought when reading these articles...huh?? I seriously needed a dictionary with me as I sat and read this week's articles. Jonassen and Wang I can slightly understand, but Jarz I was completely lost with.

Before reading these articles, I was becoming very interested in educational research. After reading these, I just want to leave it alone. I feel as if I have no confidence to pursue a career in that field! I know that is dramatic and I wont rule it out completely, but I think Ill be leaving CBR to someone else.

Maybe Im just reading too much into it. Storytelling, right? Storytelling is a very effective way to teach...in my humble and very confused opinion. It engages the audience. Its so much more interesting than listening to a lecture of facts. I remember information better when someone relates it to a real experience. This is why people love television and movies so much...it is telling a story! Ask anyone what happened on their favorite TV show last week...Im sure they can tell you every detail. Ask them what they read in the newspaper last week; their recollection probably wont be as enthusiastic. Of course, none of this is research based, its just what I think.

So Im not sure what the articles are questioning. It seems as if they are trying to put some sort of theory and order and explanation behind storytelling. And they want to research it and find out why and if and when it works. Why? Storytelling as a form of education and information has been around forever. Can we just accept that as is?

So I have just checked in on another blog to see if I was missing something this week...and Im not. It is all about storytelling; which I do think is a great approach to teaching. The times I enjoy teaching most are when I am telling a story about all those years ago in the '80s when we were walking around jamming on our walkmen! The kids love it and are so intrigued by the fact that we had to carry tapes around and had this giant device for music. Then the librarian (whom I share a space with) chimes in and tells the kids about when she was young and there was no TV. They eat it up! They are so amazed to hear that there was no TV, only radios.

So good luck to all the folks out there that want to study up on CBR and research it...who knows...maybe one day I will be one of those people!!

MOST

I loved reading this article and maybe because it hit so close to home. The schools in the study sounded just like my school and it gave a little bit of hope to say...hey maybe there is something we can do to improve literacy at our school...maybe this isnt just beating a dead horse.

The article was right when it cited that many students do not get reading at home. No matter how much we send home books and letters and advice on reading...it just doesnt seem to get done and that is very discouraging b/c reading at home is just as important as reading at school.

I also agree with the fact that when student lack experiences, their reading suffers. So much of our language is obtained through experiences. Going places and doing things as a child is a great way to learn. Going to museums, simple trips just to the beach or to the next town even can show so many great things and teach kids so many new words.

Our kids have never been any further than their home and school and maybe the McDonald's down the street because it is in walking distance. They lack so much because of this. When I bring lunch to school, just to see pretzel crackers or vegetable straws amazes them and they dont know what to think of them. The kids beg...can I please have one!...because they have never seen it. If it is not given to them in the cafeteria, they dont have any idea what it is. Such simple things that these children miss out on.

Often times I have thought that videos and the internet are the best way to teach my children because it shows them a picture to go along with the words. Having the resources of videos is the most important and difficult thing sometimes.

I was encouraged by this reading and love that there is some actual research going on that will be beneficial to the students that I want so badly to learn to read.

STAR Legacy

So as always...Im a little late with this.

I read STAR much earlier in the week and didnt have a lot of thoughts on it. The one thing I kept thinking was: scientific theory. Perhaps that is because we are in the middle of getting ready for our school's first science fair and we have done nothing in computer lab for 2 weeks other than research all of the students projects, come up with questions and hypothesis-es (whats the plural for that?) and research some more and try to understand scientific principles. So really...thats what this seemed like to me. Have a question. Come up with some ideas. Research it. Answer it. Discuss it.

I like this. It makes it so that you can apply this logical thinking method to every subject, not just science. Kids can actually think for themselves instead of being told what to think. And with todays technology, its not like you go to the single source for everything: the encyclopedia, read a few paragraphs and then feel like a genius. You can go to the internet and sort through all the real information versus the crap information and then make a decision for yourself about what information is useful and which you should never read again.

This was also more than a theory. Its an actual way to teach. It is something do-able. Its something that is do-able now. And the best part...it doesnt take a lot of time and preparation!! If you are a teacher, you can do it tomorrow. You can do it today. You could probably use it in a pinch when your other lessons arent working out. And how smart will the kids feel when they figured something out for themselves.

I know I have seen a lot of smiling faces and have been told how much fun it was to research and watch videos and find answers for themselves. Learning at its best!

Anchored Instruction

I like this theory in general. But all I can continue to think when I read these articles is that they are just that...theories. I understand that they have been practiced and studied and tried out on students, but I would like to know where they are used today. Do students in Nashville still use these practices? And if they are so effective, how come this is not a part of the curriculum across the United States? Surely money could not be a factor. Schools in wealthy districts have money and schools in low-income districts have all kinds of government money for programs to help increase student achievement. So why is money being spent on programs that encourage a lecture and test type teaching instead of a see and do type learning. I could go on forever about that, but I wont get on a soapbox tonight.

I feel like I did something like this in seventh grade, but I dont remember answering follow-up questions or activities, so it is possible that it was just a video that we watched. I have no idea...I just remember it was called "The Voyage of the Mimi."

I like that this is teaching students how to solve problems and that technique can be transferred into lots of other situations. I feel like no matter how many word problems we throw out in front of students, they just dont seem to get it. Practice does not make perfect in this case, it makes frustration.

A random question...did the students in this scenario actually watch "Indiana Jones"? I would have thought that was the best class ever if we could have watched that for "educational purposes" in class.

I really like that the final questions include ideas like...would you like to be a scientist. Things that apply to life and not just...if this, then that...and what happened next...blah blah boring questions.

I like the idea that we teach thinking in a school setting when we really should be teaching how to think the way that it naturally occurs...socially. At my school, so many teachers often say that our students are very street smart...so maybe we need to alternate our teaching approach to line up with their street thinking skills. Two problems I can think of...most of us that work at the school, while we care deeply for the children and really want them to learn as much as they can...have never experienced what these children have so we may not be able to approach them in that way. I have never seen anyone shot as several of my students have, I have never been without a house or food, or electricity. So how could I possibly teach computer skills from the social context that these students are used to. Problem 2...I think that everyone would have to be on board with this idea and as most teachers like to be in charge and do things their way...it is hard to get 25 different teachers to get on the same page and teach the same way. Some days it is hard to get 3 teachers to teach the same objectives. :)

In the Jasper Experiment article...I like the "community of inquiry." My favorite days of teaching are when we start talking about exporting items on a computer and then end up learning about a new bridge that is being built in China and finding out when the candlestick telephone was invented and how a bank works and everything on earth besides what my lesson was about. I love it when the kids get so into learning that we just talk and search the internet and find all the information we can about whatever it is that they do not know. Last week, I gave the kids websites to search for science experiments and they just thought it was so cool to go online and find ideas for the science fair. To me that is the when the best learning takes place, when we are asking questions and discovering answers...especially questions that I dont know the answer to. I think the kids enjoy that too because their questions are being answered and they feel like they are just as smart as the teacher...b/c I dont know the answers either. :)

Goal Based Learning

I like the idea of GBL. I really do think the best way to learn is experience. As I was grading practice SAT essays this week, the question was...Do students learn better by doing? Most of the students answered yes and said that they would prefer to experience something rather than learn it in a book.

I definately think that we learn by doing and I think that our memories of events trigger our learning. For instance, I was thinking that if students have anxiety from a previous test, then they are likely to remember that and potentially do bad on the next test. But if they learn in a fun environment, where mistakes are welcome and there is no pressure to "learn" they will probably retain information a little better. Learning seems to be easier when there is no stress.

We are able to learn form our mistakes because there is no pressure to be right. We are more instrinsically motivated because there is no concern for grades or performance expectations. The only expectation is to do your best.

I wish there was a way in every subject to present content knowledge followed by practical knowledge. But how do you use a learn by doing approach in a subject like English? In some ways I have seen it done, but seems as though it could not always be accomplished in every subject.

I think for children, especially the children where I teach, if we could turn all of this knowledge into something that will apply to their life they could remember it better. But what about the kids that are more concerned with if they have food or where they will sleep...how do we make the knowledge applicable to their lives...even if we allow them to practice it and experience it.

I think it would be great if we could change our entire state curriculum to a theory like this and base it on technology, but with budget cuts and lack of qualified teachers, how do you implement this? Seems to me that to do something like this with independent adult learners would be useful, but with children you would need at least 2 adults in a room to carry out experiments. With budget cuts, most elementary schools only have 1 teacher per room with no assistants in the upper grade levels.

Overall, I really do like this idea and wish that all schools could operate like this at least part of the day. All of the ifs and buts and what abouts just come from seeing the school systems in eastern NC the way that they are and knowing that it is going to take more than a theory to achieve success.