I like that the authors are learner-centered and that they point out that some people are putting too much emphasis on the idea that accountability should be monitored by standardized tests - I definitely agree. I also like their statement that “what is possible in theory may not be as possible in the day-to-day reality of America’s classroom.” I agree whole-heartedly with this. Although numerous things can be changed to improve our education issues and that the varied theories and plans we've been learning can help us improve them, I also think that it is impossible to be able to accomplish exactly everything that the theories imply. They are a tool and bring up many issues and ideas that should be considered and remembered but they don't contain all the answers and in some cases we may never be able to take the theories and use the ideas and suggestions completely. I liked that they attempted to give some suggestions – although their recommendations still don’t solve the issue of coming up with something that can be used to compare learners across the scope - country or nation wide.

I’m a little confused with their statement that schools should stop trying to create a protypic American. Are they really trying to do this? I assume that the authors just mean that it appears that way since they choose what they think is important to teach and try to get “everyone” to learn the same ideas. In the Am. 2000 plan they make some statement regarding the idea of wanting to compare American schools to other nations. I assume this is already done but am wondering how one makes comparisons if tests and knowledge is so varied between the different nations. How do you really get an actual comparison? In addition, I agree with the authors ideas of using varied assessments such as the 3 they mentioned and can easily see how they can be used in the classroom. However, if people want something to compare across states or nations I don’t see how those tests can be used. If you’re going to compare things, they need to contain the same elements so that comparisons can be made. These tests would be extremely diverse. So although the authors offer some suggestions – it still obviously doesn’t solve it. Also, who would “look” at these tests and again one can’t really use them to compare. The authors state that scaffolding is “increasing the amounts of instructional support” but I thought it was decreasing the support as you teach. In their dynamic assessment perhaps they mean that when you were testing the person you would provide more and more assistance until they were able to accomplish the task.

Overall, however, I don’t think that the authors stated anything that hasn’t already been stated in other readings. I was excited because I thought they were going to make some great suggestions, but they failed short. Sure, we need to make assessments diverse for the individual but how can we really do this – we can improve assessments and teaching but the “perfect” assessment will never be reached.

We’ve heard numerous times in other papers about the idea how teaching and assessments should be varied and diverse to help deal with our diversity of learners and their differences. We’ve heard that to more accurately assess learners that various assessments need to be given. Obviously in my future teaching career I will come across this issue of teaching and assessment. However, I think that if you are an effective teacher and pay attention to your learners so that they actually are learning using multiple teaching styles and assessments that this will help your learners hopefully do better on the standardized tests (even if they are biased and still won’t completely accurately reflect their actual knowledge). A teacher can include strategies that will help them learn, and also strategies to help them do well on the tests. Luckily, I want to teach in nontraditional settings (at a nature center or something similar). Assessments will still be used – but none that will compare learners – only assessments to provide feedback on what’s working and what’s not - to improve my teaching!

week 12

So, I questioned what motivated the learners in the movie and how they develped into a community. Was it simply because he believe in them and no one else really did? I don't know if I would completely buy that reason - expecially persist in a topic such as calculus and at the huge cost it was - using up time after and before class - even on weekends. Something that wasn't mentioned that I believe may have helped motivate some of them was the idea behind not wanting to look stupid in front of their peers. The one girl sat in the "chair" and was laughed at. That would be a big motivator.

Resistant culture wasn't mentioned. The one kid (Lou Phillips Diamond) didn't want his friends to know that he was trying and had books so had books stashed in his desk, locker and at home.

A few times he did say take it step by step - and I know we've read that before in some reading. Breaking it down into simpler parts.

Perhaps the teacher became a more effective by making himself more similiar to the learners. In one of our readings for today it stated somthing about similiar models may be more effective - peers, ect. However, in this case the teacher started to act a little like some of the kids - all tough to some kids, teasing them and threatening them - stooping to their level.

The teacher possessed credibility - he practiced what he preached.

If this teaching method was to really happen I would assume that their would be a high chance of "educational seduction". The teachers personality would overwhelm actual learning.

week 12

Interesting: I originally assumed I was going to enjoy the Bandura reading over Pintrich and Schunck, but was wrong. I thought the Pintrich and Schunck reading overall was more interesting. I thought the "Use of younger child models also could enhance observers' self-efficacy; observers may believe that if younger children can learn, they can too". Several of our past readings have discussed the concept of higher skilled peers and of coarse one (or I) infers same age or slightly older. The simple idea that it could be younger for some reason didn't cross my mind. The interesting part is the idea that it could potentially inspire someone and give them a better boost even more so with younger children being the "teacher" - the whole idea "if they can do it - I can too" comes into play.
Self modeling - having children watch their selves - thus increasing their self-efficiacy and motivation was interesting, yet I wonder how much research has been done. I just know that watching myself in certain tasks may be positive (if I think I was doing good when I watched), may help me improve, but also may be negative (if I thought I looked "dumb" or whatever).

Confusing: I'm wondering if in coping models (Pintrich) instead of just demonstrating deficiencies and typical fears that you can just discuss. The way it is discussed it seems like you actually have to "mess up". Can it be more of a discussion/slash demonstration. (Perhaps I'm thinking more of "similiarity" ideas with modeling.) I'm just thinking of people who are "models" and explain there past mistakes in life or a past activity. For example, stating that you, too, use to be bad at (whatever) and you would make mistakes and then you learned to correct or improve by doing "so and so". That would be coping too - although not like the math example where it was done on the spot - more past tense. I would assume that seeing and experiencing it in the now would be more beneficial but...
The Bandura reading made it more clear what the difference between self-concept and self-efficacy along with the difference between self-esteem and self-efficacy. However, now I'm confused, is there (and if so what is it) a difference between self-concept and self-esteem? The reading leads me to think they are the same.
I'm curious, when Pintrich and Schunck's refer to "educational seduction" - how often does this typically occur? In there example the students thought they learned and it was just nonsense. Later they state that "enthusiastic teachers help foster students' interest and motivation" and "model enthusiasm seems to be an important way to enhance student motivation and thus learning". Does that mean that occasionally thinking you are learning something is OK - it may boost your motivation, ect, which may help you at other potential learning times?

Familiar or anticipate: Pintrich and Schunck's statement that "the best models may be students who are equal to or slightly more competent than observers" is very familiar to ideas stated in previous readings. It's Vygotskian - working with more highly skilled peers - boosting your ZPD - ect.
An idea in stated in Bandura's reading reminded me of Piaget and his idea of accommodation - we adjust to new information. I think this is a constant occurrance - both consciously and unconsciously - sometimes to a large degree and sometimes to only a minute degree.

I like that the authors mentioned that more research must be done on the affects on the individual with mastery and high-performance interactions. The whole time reading, I wondered about the individual that was always had others performing much better than then. I remember in gym class being chosen last for teams frequently because I wasn't very athletic. Gym class is a very performance goal based class and it wasn't a very good feeling being chosen last. I wonder about the potential negative affects of certain individuals that may always be at the bottom. Some competition may be good, but where does it draw the line?
Overall I liked the readings far less than the other readings we've had. I really liked the motivation readings from last week and so thought that I'd enjoy the "attribution theory" paper since it is a cognitive theory of motivation. However, the attribution reading I feel was less helpful from a potential future teacher's perspective. Most of the prior readings I've felt have been extremely beneficial in assisting me personally becoming a more effective teacher. However, although it is beneficial to be aware of what affects or contributes to "success and failure" the reading also discusses some aspects that I, as a teacher can't change. I find these less interesting because I can't do a whole lot to change those. For example, perhaps someone does do bad on a test because they got into a fight with their boyfriend or girlfriend - as a teacher this doesn't help me a whole lot, obviously. Also, it seems the consensus/consistency/distinctiveness concept is just plain logical deduction or cause and effect.
I understand how the authors define the difference between approach performance and avoidance performance but I think it can be hard to distinquish the difference. Approach performance if doing better than others and avoidance performance is not looking stupid. However, if everyone looked "stupid" than one may care that they "perform" better than someone else. I mean they are kind of tied together - at least sometimes. I imagine few people want to look stupid. However, if for instance no one "knows the answer" than it doesn't matter as much performing better than others. My opinion is typically people want to "fit in", too.
We've read about "prior knowledge and beliefs" in previous readings. We haven't discussed Dewey and I don't really know anything about him - but did he say something about prior experiences and how it affects a persons behavior (and thus also thinking)? I'm just wondering what big theorists the ideas from these papers came from.

Reflection

So the readings defined motivation as choice, persistence, vigor and performance (or choice, persistence and effort). However, without motivation or low motivation one won't choose, persist or give any effort. I personally think of motivation as what causes motiviation - the attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value and cost.
Although, I don't think the Bransford framework addresses motivation directly, I think that it still plays into the framework. If you are attempting to make the classroom learner centered then in theory this should boost motivation (not necessarily, of coarse and not perhaps for everyone). If your providing learners with "just manageable difficulties" this also has the potential for increasing motivation. If the learners are succeeding, it builds confidence and thus perhaps motivation. Having a community centered classroom may also help boost attainment value, intrinsic value and utility value thus increase motivation.

When reading I also wondered about how very different motivation can be for a preschooler versus a middle school age child versus an adult. One of the papers did mention that what motivates one individual could be very different from what motivates another. Working with young children, it seems that intrinsic value and interest is the biggest motivator. Although, as you said, just because one is highly motivated does not mean that there is learning occuring - I still think that typically it correlates and thus motivation should really be addressed and thought of when develping a lesson plan. For young children I think that fun and enjoyment should be emphasized in lesson plans. I also think that a good teacher should be able to incorporate learning into almost every activity. If you have a group of very energetic young children and need to play a run around game to get some of that energy out - go ahead and play tag, but put a slight learning element to it. (Of coarse you can't teach a huge in depth concept by playing - but you can still tie some aspect of it to it).

I think one thing that I will need to be careful with is the whole idea behind "We can never assume that our beliefs will automatically be shared by those around us." and motivation. Obviously I know that everyone has different beliefs and not everyone values the same things as I do, but sometimes when I'm so extremely interested and excited about what I'm teaching I can see how I may forget that others may not share my enthusiam. I have a feeling that sometimes I'm going to think that learners intrinsic value is higher than it really is (or should be higher than it is). However, the plus side is that with enthusiam - that may actually (perhaps in some anyways) boost their motivation. I think I may also run into utility value dilemas, too. I want to teach environmental educaion - which to me is obviously useful because it can "help the environment we live in". To me there is lots of utility value in that and thus should be high motivation. However, there is obviously going to be learners that don't share my opinions and beliefs.

Tangible incentives are pretty much equal to bribes. With children (in my experience) they become fixated on the bribe not the learning or task and then yes, they expect it all the time.

motivation

I really enjoyed both papers. I personally believe that motivation plays a huge part in what people learn and how well they learn a particular concept. There has to be some "reason" as to why to learn something. Especially of interest to me are the ideas of intrinsic value and utility value. When teaching there should be "utility value" present. Wigfield and Eccles state that "Utility value or usefullness refers to how a task fits into an individual's future plans". This is similiar to a teachers goal for a lesson plan or unit except the goal refers to the entire group. The difficult task is to then have the learners actually believe that it is usefull to them individually and personally. It's often difficult to see the bigger picture or to see into the future, especially with younger children. I think with younger children, intrinsic or interest probably plays a bigger part in achievement value for them. I also thought it was interesting older elementary children valued math, reading and instrumental music less than younger children did (Wigfield and Eccles). Is it because it becomes harder? Is it because they learn it and then don't think that they really need it in their everyday lives? Or do other things take there place in importance? For example, the authors state that the value of sports was higher with older elementary children. It sounds like society and television acting upon that.

I'm a little confused with the difference between interest value and intrinsic motivation. Also, in "Motivation Gaps: Belief is (Almost) Everything" the authors state "the root motive influencing all human behavior is a desire to be effective in our lives." I keep getting hung up on that phrase. Is the root motive for preschoolers or elementary children really the desire to be effective? The authors also state that "different people have very different ideas about what makes them effective." So, with a preschooler maybe it is just having fun and staying out of trouble and that is how they are "effective".
My biggest issue is that I keep trying to tie motivation to strongly to interest, intrinsic motivation and fun. When working with younger children it just seems that fun, games and interest are what keeps them motivated and then you can use that to help you get them to learn. The whole idea of "learning is fun".

In "Motivation Gaps:" they discuss "tangible incentives" and disputes about pay incentives. In the past I've tried to offer "tangible incentives" to younger children in the form of candy. This has back fired so much that I typically don't use it anymore. The participants "motivation" is no longer on the task but is on the "pay". I've used it to try to "bribe" them, which are what "quota schemes" and "piece-rate schemes" really are and as a reward. However, when giving young children rewards I've discovered that rewarding only a few and not rewarding the others is not a very pleasant experience. You can't give one candy without giving them all candy - which I end up doing. I tried stickers and bookmarks, which work better. However, I've discovered that a pat on that back, compliments, and corrective feedback works much better.
Also, in "Motivation Gaps:" the authors state "project your own expectation that they will succeed. If you do not expect them to succeed, you may be (or may become) part of the problem." This reminds me of the Garcia? paper - where learners can become self-fulfilling prophecies and issues of stereotyping.

Memory......

I thought the "The 7 Sins of Memory" was extremely interesting. I specifically liked the various research examples in the 7 different categories (such as switching people who were getting directions and seeing if the people giving the directions even noticed or the child who made up a detailed story of being lost in the mall after suggestion even though the event never happened - very intriguing). Sin # 2 - absent-mindedness, sounds like what happens when one doesn't reach "deep understanding" that we've been discussing in past classes. The misconceptions that we've also discussed when reading Bransford would fit into the bias "sin". I've, of coarse, already encountered misconceptions in past classes and will continue to encounter misconceptions in future classes. I wonder where dejavu would fit? Also, I've had times where I couldn't remember if something had really happened or if it had been a dream - I guess that would fit into misattribution? I'm not sure what I think about calling them "sins" especially since the author suggests not thinking of them as flaws. If you're going to refer to them as "sins" your going to think of them as flaws and in a negative manner. I'm also a little confused why the authors would use Clinton as an example - it seemed very unscientific and not backed by any research. Did he really have a superior memory? Did he later actually forget certain events or was it selective memory? I just thing that these last two points kind of take away from the paper.
I thought the overall concept behind "The Magical # 7" was interesting, too. There is a movie called "The Number 23" and the main character relates everything to the number 23 - his name, phone number, birthday, address, the color pink. It kind of reminded me of that. I always get skeptical with statistics. I've taken a few stat. classes and you can always manipulate the tests and numbers (not saying that all these researches did that, of coarse) but even scientific peer-reviewed papers can have incorrect stats. The research examples used to support the paper were confusing, I'd like to learn more about them to really understand where this "magical number seven" stems from.

Journal Reflection

Asssessment....

As discussed in class, Garcia states "Teachers also should consider using assessment approaches beyond pencil-and-paper tests. The use of multiple approaches provides a more comprehensive view of ELL progress." Here we have again the importance of ongoing formative assessments. Use observation, discussion, reflection, ect so that you (a teacher) can more accurately assess the learner. Assessment should be continuous (but not intrusive) and the students thinking made visible. This is a recurrent theme (because it is so important) in many of the readings. Honestly, I couldn't imagine trying to academically well as an ESL or ELL student. In my opinion, (although I have no idea how we could accomplish this) learners should have the right to take tests in whatever is their first language. English is my first language and I have enough difficulty trying to read some of our reading and actually grasp the concepts after reading it.

To me it seems that you can kind of think of the high culture as whom ever is at the top of or has high socio-economic status. We gave the definition of socio-economic status as where one fits into society based on wealth and standard of living and (values?). So, what ever we decide to base this "ranking" on then the ones at the top are the high culture and the ones on the bottom the low culture.

These self-fulfilling prophecy concepts are really interesting. The whole "mind over matter" idea. Once teachers become aware of what they are doing its still going to be a difficult path since parents, peers, ect are such an impact on a learner.

I am curious as to why profession parents speak more to their children than welfare parents (I think that was the two groups studies). I can understand why they would speak differently - different vocabulary and differnt style.

There is a statement in the Garcia reading "in the United states and, to a lesser extent, in Canada there has existed a belief taht native bilingualism is abnormal." I'm assuming that by abnormal it is just in reference to it not being common?

I like Tharpe and Gallimore's paper now that I know it was basically as simple as I thought. I thought maybe I was missing some major concepts, but I wasn't. A picture says a thousand words - or in this case a diagram. However, they wanted to still give us those thousand (and some) words.

October 22

I found Garcia's idea that there are teachers who are "equalizers" and who are "allocators" extremely interesting. I'm apparently naive in thinking that all (or the vast majority at least) teachers would want all of their learners to fulfill their potential and not purposely discriminate impoverished students. I'm not completely ignorant - I'm aware years ago there were probably many teachers who thought poor people couldn't succeed and would "channel impoverished students into the education conduits that lead only to low-status, low-pay employment", but still today? I guess I'd just like to believe that we have better teachers than that. I'm also surprised that studies have shown that many schools have "a two track system". I just thought that we had, for the most part, progressed past this level of thinking. However, I'm not surprised that research has found "a high correspondence between students' social class and thier placement in a given track". I just figured this would be because of other factors (language, ect) not teachers with fatalistic attitudes.

I remember exibiting similiar "resistance-culture behavior" myself while growing up. I lived in small, rural middle of nowhere but there were still "classes" of kids in my class of 40 students. There were the "smart" kids the "bad" kids, ect. I sometimes hung out with the "bad" kids and it was "uncool" to get good grades. Luckily, I was smart enough to just lie about my grades rather than not care.

I was a little confused with Tharp's concept of "activity setting". There was a huge, long description of all the components it consisted of which I couldn't quite grasp. There seemed to be a very strict "recipe" for it. Could you simplify it for me? I understand that it is when 2 or more individuals interact and there is a shared meaning or goal that one (or more) is trying to get the other to understand and they assist them in this understanding. What else does it entail?

The "triadic analysis" reminded me of something we do at work. My supervisor will ask someone how teaching is going. If a particular naturalist class is not going so well (rowdy kids - or something) he'll ask the naturalist if they want someone to "shadow" that person to help them. So, then another naturalist (peer) will shadow and assist with that class. After the class feedback is given. Typically, both naturalists as well as the kids benefit.

October 16th reflections

Assessment....

I'm not sure if Piaget ever directly addressed assessment but some of of his ideas definitely indirectly can be used to help deal with the "issue of assessment". When I think of assessment, I think the most important reasons to do assessment is to gage if your teaching style is working and gage what the learners are actually understanding. Piaget says a teacher should listen, watch and question students - this is key in assessing learners. The reading says that a Piaget classroom may not have workbooks or predetermined assignments. Instead, the teacher will determine what the course of learning will be by the students' interests and natural participation. I think that when assessing learners you should be highly flexible in changing the activites or lesson plan to accomodate the learners - at their level, what they are interested in, ect. Also, it may be beneficial to assess the learner to determine what stage of development they are at.
I think Vygotsky would also agree that assessment was vital. One must assess where the learner is at in the zpd in order to offer just enough assistance and a task at high enough level but that can still be accomplished with help. Also, assessent so one knows when to decrease guidance (scaffolding).

Then of coarse there was the info on all the inteligence tests. I find them interesting and usefull to some extent but not the type of assessment I'm interested in. (I'm focused on classroom assessment - how are the learners doing and how am I as a teacher doing?)

In class we discussed zpd and the idea of "who would be the more skilled learner increasing the others zpd". In theory, you could split learners up into groups and one is going to better at "something" than the others while another is better at something else. In this aspect you would have a bunch of "slightly more skilled at something" in the group and so they would all push each other together into higher levels of zpd. This ideally would work best if the teacher really, really knew the students strengths and weakness (through monitoring and assessing) to split them up into groups that would benefit each other. I think this would be extremely hard but maybe at least somewhat possible. Plus, just having them in groups has other benefits.

It's interesting to think about how giving grades falls into Skinners theories. He would probably agree that it's good to assess and give out grades. I can't remember which one, but I know one of the theories was completely against rewards and punishments. So, I wonder if they are then against grades?

Oct 15th

What I thought was interesting and elements I've seen in previous classes:

I've been teaching nature themed classes to preschool age children and thus really found the ideas and theories in Piaget's preoperational stage fascinating. I think almost everyone (if they've been around children for any amount of time) has seen young children nod over the phone instead of verbally answering. I've also witnessed animism occurring numerous times in my preschool classes - finding it cute and humerous at times and frustrating other times. Reading about centration and young children's lack of conservation entices me to try it out on the preschool children (and the older children) I work with. I'm wondering if I can reason and explain it to the preschoolers? If they do seem to understand, will they remember the concept weeks later? Will they just memorize that exact event and if I use other substances not be able to transfer the idea? I completely agree with the "young children seem so sure about their knowledge and understanding, yet they are so unaware of how they know what they know." I think this incident is a great example: I brought a lizard to class and a young child asked me if it was pregnant. I said no. The child then asked me "What's pregnant?". I've also numerous times encountered the never ending questions. I read a book about a hen who found a dinosaur egg, sat on it until it hatched and took care of even though it didn't look anything like her. I had a child ask me how the hen found a dinosaur egg when the dinosaurs are all gone. Every time I tried to make an explanation I got another "How" or "Why". She was extremely upset and perplexed. The hen talking and wearing clothing didn't bother her but the dinosaurs existance did.
It was also really intersting to read about the different theories and seeing alot of correlation with Bransfords framework and what we had read before.

For the most part, I didn't find any of the readings too difficult or complex. I am curious if the 8 stages in Erickson's Psychosocial Theory "must" be followed in that exact order. Can one regress or skip a stage? Stage 8 entails reflecting on the past. Can't one do that at any time in life? I already do to some extent.
I'm also wondering, wouldn't Bransford's framework be considered "an eclectic theoretical orientation". The framework seems to select aspects from many of the theories.
It didn't feel to me that the Information Processing Theory was actually a develpmental theory - at least not compared to Piaget and Vgotsky. Perhaps because it's not stagelike (although either is Vgotskys). I also felt like it had a lot of the same ideas expressed in the other theories (but maybe not as explicit).
I think that adolescent egocentrism leaves out the fact that highschool age youth do look at everyone more closely and are more judgemental. The example with the girl at dinner with her mom who was extremely upset about her hair - sure, no one at the restaurant probably cared - but if she had been at school her peers may have. So, it's not completely self-centered - there's a lot of peer judgement and fear of being not accepted playing a huge part.

Principle 14 deals directly with assessment (otherwise most of the readings did not seam to address assessment). One of the principles main premise is to set "appropriately high and challenging standards and assessing". I think this is important and that by setting challenging standards you increase motiviation. If it is too easy the learner will get bored. On the other hand, if the standards are too high and the learner doesn't feel that it is reachable then they may give up and not care. The principle says to include "diagnostic, process and outcome assessments" which I'm not exactly sure what each are (I'll have to look into that more). Utilizing knowledge from Bransford, I would assume they may mean ongoing and summative?

Alexander and Murphy pointed out how originally the APA did not even include assessment but then later added it. They seem to think it's important to address assessment, as do I. They made a distinction between assessement and evaluation. Originally, I thought assessment and evaluation were not important and doubted weather I'd use either in my teaching. However, I now believe assessment is necessary for the learner to know how they are progressing in their learning and if they need to alter their thinking/behavior. In addition, assessment is vital for the instructor so that they "know" if they need to alter their approach, what to focus on, whats working and whats not, ect. A classroom environment can be full of assessment activities and still be opposed to actual grades. I like Alexander and Murphys statements that "When teachers gather information on student interests," (which I think then also helps with the prior knowledge question and with motivation) "analyze responses to oral or written questions, gauge strategic processing, or monitor student reactions to particular learning conditions or tasks they are engaged in assessment." According to that statement, assessment helps meet the 5 general statements that they deem neccessary in composing a learner-centered environment. Assessment then also helps one reach the goals of the APA's 14 principles.

It almost seems to me that to have a learner-centered classroom environment then you must be extremely flexible with your lesson plan. You can have your goal and objectives but won't your activities change alot as you progress through the lesson? As you learn about your students interests, prior knowledge, utilize assessments, ect. then your activities should change accordingly.

I thought the activity done in class was extremely beneficial especially going around to each group so that you could get a feel for how the others were conceptualizing and processing the frameworks - seeing if they had the same ideas as I did or if I was way off. It also made me realize that I like Bransfords framework better - or at least I kept trying to go back to it rather than focusing on the APA's or their refised one by Alexander and Murphy.

I'm glad you pointed out that if one wants to use Alexander and Murphy's or whomevers framework that they need to include all the principles/ideas in order for it to be beneficial - or have a strong arguement as to why they are not including something. I mean that makes sense, but I find myself wanting to pull out and utilize ideas that I like (or perhaps are easier to include?) and ignoring some of the others.

Oct 8, 2007

Although we've been discussing learner-centered theories in our prior reading, these papers seemed to really emphasize the idea that the students need to take responsibility of their learning. I found it interesting that this whole time I've been thinking that the main principle behind learner-centered environments was teachers focusing more on the learners rather than the content (not that this isn't also true). In "Don't Lose Sight of the Students" they deem that "the most important changes must be made by the students, not schools". Of coarse this still means that teachers need to facilitate these changes - teach strategic processing skills, increase motivation, consider prior knowledge, ect. but it also means that the learners really need to take an active role in their learning. It's not just the responsibility of the teacher.
The principles seem fairly straight forward and I'm beginning to make sense out of all them, but the most difficult concept for me is how to apply all of these ideas. I have some ideas for some of them, but it's frustrating to not know exactly how to incorporate the ideas effectively into the classroom. I anticipate I'll have learners with misconceptions that have been ingrained into them and how will I attempt to change these? How much time do I spend trying to do this before giving up? I can try to get my learners to use metacognitive thinking but like Alexander and Murphy report "The leading question has now become one of when, where, and for whom certain types of strategies are more effective for learning." So, how do I know? I plan on trying to make my classes fun and discover what my learners interests but this still won't completely solve the motivation issue. I like how they listed some approaches (cooperative learning, reciprocal teaching, cognitive apprenticeship, anchored instruction) for ways to help with the situation/context/community issue and plan on looking into them to see which ones I may use as teaching tools in the future.
Principle 10 says that "individuals learn best when material is appropriate to their developmental level...." which makes sense. However, how do I accomplish this when I have a classroom of learners at different developmental levels? I guess this would depend on how many learners and the circumstances. I know studying the framework is just the starting point and suppose to help me start thinking about the various ideas and challenges - which it of coarse does but it's frustrating when their are no clear cut answers.

Blog Oct 2

I'm still not clear about "create" or maybe I just disagree with you. I think that making a piece of art or writing a play that incorporates what the learners were learning or their interpretation should fit into the "create" cells. If it truely has to be "new" then what benefit does that entire column really have (unless your a pH student?)? I imagine the table was created for "all" teachers to use so why would an entire column that will really never be used be included?

I'm also not clear about the difference between objective and goals. Goal is the big overall picture and objectives are how you will reach that goal?

Bransford makes a lot of references - if in my paper I reference something from Bransford that was actually referenced from someone else - who do I reference? Bransford or whomever they referenced?

It's going to be extremely difficult to stay out of the top right handed section of the table. Factual knowledge that's just memorized and regurgitated is typically how I was taught throughout so much of my education. Also, I want to teach science and I think a lot of the pure facts are fun and interesting and I can see myself wanting to teach "all of the facts" and forgetting to take the time to make sure there is deeper understanding. However, I of coarse thing that it's important to try to reach the higher levels.

If it's truely a learner centered environment, won't the learners actually dictate a large portion of my objectives and isn't part of the "why" question to the goal going to be because it's something they want to learn. I keep thinking of the example in Brandsford of the teacher who asked her students what they wanted to learn and based the entire year exploring their questions. Also, if it's learner centered isn't it possible that your objectives change as you discover misconceptions and interests?

I overall like the taxonmy table. I think it will be difficult to use at first and "correctly" categorize, but the important thing is just to realize all the different possibilities and strive to reach the bottom right hand side of the table. Once my objectives are clear and "correctly" categorized, it will be nice to refer to and get ideas from the sample test items in the Handbook to come up with exams and assessments. The taxonmy table really helps answer my big question of assessment. I now think of assessents as continual checking points both in the learning process and in my teaching. Reading all their examples makes me feel more confident about being able to actually assess for what they are learning and for what I want to assess for. It makes it easier to see if allignment between objectives and assessment are really happening. A way to "stay on track" and be consistent. I'll be more confident that I'm testing for deeper understanding and not just factual knowledge.

blog for chap 3-6 in Taxonmy

When I first started to read chapter 3 and looking at the tables it looked confusing, time consuming and like a lot of work. It wasn't apparent to me why it would be beneficial to categorize objectives and I was curious about how it would help me be a more effective teacher. I'm glad that the chapter ended by giving 6 answers to my doubts. It gave me more motivation to want to fully understand the tables and ideas behind the next few chapters. Especially of interest to me was that it will help with the "instruction and assessment questions". (In my initial reflection, the problems with assessment was the issue I listed and have been "dealing" with.) I also like their answer "It will make life easier!". Currently, it doesn't seem like this is true. Right now I couldn't "confidently" place objectives/activities/assessments intot he "correct" cell nor could I do it in even a remotely timely manner. I anticipate this will become easier and easier with practice.
I'm a little confused with the metacognitive knowledge section in the table. They stated they had thought about making the table 3-dimensial - I think it makes more sense to me to think of it in that capacity. It doesn't seem that I necessarily need objectives that fall into the metacognitive cells, but just activities or assessments.
In Bransford there was an example where a teacher let her students come up with questions and concepts they wanted to learn about. I imagine that although she does this, she still has some key objectives that whe wants fulfilled and works want they want into it. I can see how using the taxonomy table would be beneficial to "stay on target" and accomplish those goals. I gurantee my objectives/activites/assessments are not always going to be alligned. Again, I know this will become easier with practice. I also know that numerous times as a student, my teachers objectives/activities/assessments were not alligned either.
I think that to foster a learner environment and to be a flexible teacher one's lesson plan could change at any time - objectives may change, activities, and thus assessment - I can see how the taxonmy table will eventually "make life easier" - when you can menally think about your objective shifting to a different cell and automatically knowing how you should change the assessment - but thats going to take some time.

week 3 in class reflection

In my classroom I think that it will be vital to use formative assessing continuously and almost constantly through observation, questions, conservation, reflection and numerous other possibilites. It will be important for me as a teacher and for the learners. I'm not sure what I think of summation assessment. Is it necessary? I will probably do it but as far as ruberic, it will count for much less of the overall assessment. It also may be more of the core facts and pedagogy based to please the school system and to help on the state standard tests. I'd like to teach in a nature center or similiar environment where my assessment would be "Did they have fun? Did I help foster an appreciation for nature/outdoors? Were they able to take "something" home with them?" My other choice is teaching biology to middle school age students. When I teach I want to incorporate games, activities, crafts, art, projects, experiments, hikes, field trips, and research. I definitely want to be "doing science to explore and test big ideas". I think using some of the technology will really help with the "doing science".

In my classroom I want to find out what the learners are interested in and try to focus the curriculum around that . What are they interested in everyday life? And what biology topics are they most interested in? I think schools should be more like real life. If it pertains to the students more, then they'll be more interested, thus more motivated, which equals better transfer.

Chapter 9 gives me some great ideas. I think it'd be fun (and a great learning tool) to have students actually do projects and or research that actually involves their community. For example, I think Chapter 9 mentions there is a program where students enter their data after collecting it in the field. If I was teaching in Minneapolis and we were discussing the scientific method I'd have students perhaps test the water quality in the Mississippi River (or some other research they were interested in - however then we could also discuss water quality and where we get our water from and conservation, ect). Anyways, actually "do science". They'd be more motivated because it would involve their community, have peer review, experts involves. They could even do a presentation. Perhaps split into two groups - do an outline that I'd give feed back on (formative assessment) then revise and do it for the whole class. Then the whole class would discuss it.

out of time

week 3, chapters 6, 8, 9, with case study from 7

I liked that Chapter 6 briefly addressed the claim that many people make these days that "schools are getting worse." It would have been extremely easy (but not as rewarding I imagine) to be a teacher 150 years ago. Goals and expectations have changed. I fully believe that the more one knows the less they feel they know. Actually, I think the saying is "ignorance is bliss." The more we learn about learning and teaching the more difficult it can seem to be because we realize the problems and try to improve. For example, this class brings up more questions and issues about being a learner and teacher than I had before I started the class. I anticipate that more and more questions will continue to arrise even after being a seasoned teacher.

I also thought the "Talking in Class" example (Box 6.3) with the speech-language pathologist and the Inuit students was extremely interesting. Although brought up in the community-centered environment section it could have also have been used in the learner-centered environment section. The book has focused more on misconceptions of the students that can hinder learning rather than all the preconceptions of the teacher that could hinder teaching and learning. When I was a teacher assistant (undergrad biology) I was always worried about being objective and being "fair". It's extremely difficult to not "judge" - we're all human and to not use our opinions and our misconceptions. I think this is another reason that traditional teaching and testing is easy to fall back on. It's easier as a teacher to be confident that you're being objective and not judging because it's more cut and dry. Who wants to be responsible for teaching or assessing a student "wrong"? It's frustrating knowing that there are cases like this (Box 6.3) where a teacher automatically thinks that a particular student "may have a learning problem" because of the teachers misconception and that it could be adversly affecting the student and their future. The example shows that there is overlap with the four perspectives and to really work, they need to be aligned and used together both in the classroom and through out the whole school. Had the Inuit teacher and the principle been on the "same page" it wouldn't have taken the speech-language pathologist to discover that the classroom norms weren't known by all and the misconceptions of the teacher and students.

A difficult idea for me that arose after reading Chapter 8 (not exactly a concept from the readings, but one that stemmed from it) is how in the world do any existing teachers or preservice teachers actually overcome falling into the traditional teaching approach?! I mean the odds don't sound good. As if providing a learner, knowledge, assessment and community centered classroom isn't difficult enough for a teacher, Chapter 8 make me feel like it's impossible. To be successful teachers, teachers need to consistently practice these theories, yet they themselves are not even surrounded by it. In addition, most of us have been taught "traditional style" for years and as we know, it's difficult to "unlearn". The chapter says that "learning opportunities for teachers fall short" and "many programs for preservice teachers fall short". Am I trying my hardest to understand these thories and figure out ways to incorporate them into my teaching style only to fail because of all the obstacles, including one of the bigggest - the schools? When I'm just a beginning teacher and the schools favor "covering the curriculum" am I going to panic and revert to "playing it safe"? Well, I hope not, but thanks Chapter 8 for putting all that on my plate.

To end on a good note... I'm very technology unsavy and at first frowned when I saw Chapter 9 was "Technology to Support Learning". Yuck. However, I'm excited to use some of the various programs they mentioned (among others) in my future teaching classes. They sound like amazing learning tools (for students and teachers)!

reflections and application take 2

How to apply what I've been learning to the issure of assessment.... It's hard to be specific until the occassion actually arises.
In almost all of my classes I had the typical multiple choice or T/F exams. I would have a test at the end of each chapter, regurgitate what I had memorized and then forget about it. My grades were decent but I feel I got cheated out of and education. I feel like I've gone to school forever and yet know little to nothing. Not that I can solely blame my teachers, I could have used metacognition. I was never taught how to be anc active learner. I thought that if I just memorized and did good on an exam that's all that mattered - I was "getting" it. I think now I definitly take a more active part in my own learning - but it would have been nice to start that years and years ago. I don't think I was ever "pushed" to learn and excell.

In my clasroom, I'm not going to rely on traditional tests to assess my students. What good will it do them or me? I'll use a combination of formative and ongoing assesments comprised of various elements. The first goal will be to try to get my learners to be active learners, perhaps do something similiar to our blogging assighnments. Assignments that are supose to give insight to their own knowledge or lack of. I will use some inquiry-based approaches as a guide to see where students are in their knowledge and thought process. I think it wil also be vital to continually assess my teaching approach to see if its effective.

It would be interesting to do some traditional testing along with assessments for deep understanding and compare the "results". The traditional tests would not actually be for assessment of learning. Instead it would be to explore the idea that to deeply understand, doesn't one need to have a lot of that superficial knowledge first? Also, if one does deeply understand an area than that should transfer easily to other contexts. Thus one should do well on a traditional test. Chapter two describes a case where expert historians were unable to answer as many factual questions correct as a group of novices. This example at first seems to disagree with my idea that one can have a learner, knowledge and community centered classroom that "produces" learners that are still capable of doing will on a standardized test. However, I don't think it does. My goal isn't going to be to try to make my students experts, just good learners and understand the general concepts and ideas I want them to understand.

A big thing I'll attempt to bring into my classes is relevance. Why are the concepts important to my learners and how does it affect them in their actual lives. I think this is one of the most important core ideas. It brings interest to the subject and with interest comes motivation to learn. I think classes should be fun and educational. I plan on teaching science and emercing the students in it. There will be lots of hands on projects and real life application. I'll assess my students using classroom discussion, participation, ongoing projects, reflections and a wide range of other ways. There will still be some lecture and memorizing, but then using that knowledge adn applying it. I think a teaching style that incorportates various methods is more beneficial and so in having numerous ways to assess your learners. I think that this is also a good way to bring out any pre-existing knowledge that is conflicting with learning. If you really get into a topic, discuss it and relate it to everyday situations then most of those pre-existing misconceptions will hopefully show theirselves and can be worked with.

I've always found that an excellent way to teach is by asking a lot of questions and in different ways to really get an idea of what your students may or may not understand. Constantly asking learners questions to see what they know rather than just telling them. It's almost like constantly quizzing instead of just one large test.

Unfortunately, traditional tests are must easier for the teacher to adminster and are more cut and dry. Other methods of assessment are not. It's harder to know if you are being objective and that everyone is getting assessed the same. Although, according to the authors, it seems like you are suppose to assess each individual differently. It says to push each learner just enough so that they can accomplish the problem, but must work at it. How do you do this in a classroom when everyone is at different levels?

reflections and application

Issue: assessing. How do I, as a future teacher assess my learners for depth of knowledge (versus just memorizing). How do I know I'm assessing objectively - it's much easier if it's a multiple choice test - but that doesn't assess for deep understanding. What factors do I take into consideration? Do I use different ruberics for different students? If a student with a disabilty has a different ruberic should a student whom is excelling thus have a higher ruberic?

I think pre-existing knowledge is something difficult to prepare for (can't add it to a curriculum - "Today I'm going to discover the misconceptions of my learners."). However, I think that being aware of its existence so that you can be on the "look out" for it is a great start. I think that if you, as a teacher, are using formative and ongoing assessments for both yourself and your learners any misconceptions will be revealed. If you assess for deep knowledge, the misconceptions will show. Well, some of them. I don't know where I'm going with this....

I like the idea of using inquiry-based learning as a guide to where students are at in knowledge and going from there. Also, immediately asking them to figure out what they know and don't by doing such things as these blogs/reflections.

In chapter one, it says that in a learner centered environment the teacher should give "just manageable difficulties". I think that's a great idea, but how do I actually do that in the classroom - I'd have to give everyone different projects or tasks.

I agree with one of the girls whom spoke in class that there is a middle ground that you can teach using these theories and still do good on standardized tests. If you are actually teaching for deep knowledge and the students are really learning I think that will also show on standardized texts.

I had one professor that on tests would give me a general topic and tell me to write "everything" I knew about it. I think that this is somewhat on the right path of "good assessment".

It seems like the easy way out is to have simple multiple choice tests or assessments where students just regurgitate and that don't really assess students knowledge.

Sorry, I have a headache and all I've written is a bunch of nonsense.

Week 2

I found the examples in the boxes to be extremely interesting. When I read Fish is Fish (Box 1.2), I immediately thought of past instances where pre-existing knowledge affected my teaching. (I also plan on purchasing the book for some of the classes I teach!) Finding the Area of a Figure (Box 3.4), made me wonder which method I had been originally taught. Did I really understand or just memorize at first? In the cottage cheese example (Box 3.10), I think I too would have used the contextualized reasoning rather than the school strategy of multiplying the fractions. The diverse examples from biology, mathematics and everyday settings increased my understanding of the concepts and thus in theory should lead to more flexible transfer, hopefully into my teaching. It appears the authors “practiced what they preached”.

When I first read the assignment, almost everything seemed over my head. However, after I read it again the concepts and the ideas were much clearer, I was mainly getting hung up on the terminology and the vocabulary. For instance, I think I understand prior knowledge, but “topic-associative oral style” was used as an example and I don’t know what that means. Also, are “formative assessments” any activities or projects that reveal to the teacher and learner what is actually understood and what needs further work? (Thus, the reflections we’re doing for class are “formative assessments”.) Does “inquiry based instruction” refer to instruction that uses formative assessments and metacognition while “conventional instruction” refers to memorizing and regurgitating? Lastly, what I really had trouble with, what is abstract instruction and abstract problem representations? Is it the core concept or a generalization of the problem so that it will by easier to transfer across different contexts? I need an example.

I was teaching a group of elementary school age children about pollution and water conservation and I thought things were going well – they must have gone over it in other classes. They were able to tell me various ways to conserve water along with ways to not pollute. However, when I tried to discuss why it was important – what would we do if there was no clean water to drink or we “ran out” I discovered that they couldn’t grasp those possibilities. Their pre-existing knowledge was hindering the learning process. They informed me that water comes from sinks. One girl said that “when that stops your mom just calls the repair man and someone comes to your house and fixes it”. They had memorized a list of ways to conserve water and ways to not pollute from previous classes, but hadn’t learned with understanding and competence.

First Blog

Rachel Roehler
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
I'm taking this coarse to earn a MAT degree, gain valuable knowledge and exercise my brain.
My least favorite class was gym because I'm extremely unathletic. This resulted being closen last when teams were picked. Also, Political Science because I found it dry and not as interesting as the other classes. Since I didn't think it was as interesting, it was harder to retain the knowledge. My favorite subjects were Math because it makes sense and Biology because it's interesting. Well, to restate your goals for the class - I'm going to gain valuable insight on theories of pedagogy, cognition, learning, motivation and human development - all which should make me a more effective and capable teacher. I'm a little apprehensive and it seems a little overwhelming right now, but hopefully it'll all come together!

I have no preference - computer or paper.

Issue or topic I want to cover..... I think this question would be easier if I was currently a middle school or high school teacher and needed to reflect on problems in my own classroom. How about the difficulty of teaching students at different levels of knowledge? As a teacher you want to help the students that are not doing so well or are not understanding. However, you don't want to hold back the others.
I don't know.........I haven't been in school for awhile so I need to think about this. My friend who is a high school teacher complains about the parents involvement and their lack of suport for the teacher. They've called her complaining that their child is failing and want to know why. Perhaps issues with that?

Got to go.