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.