Week 9: Assessment

Description:

In order to teach students, we must know where they are and monitor their progress along the way. We do this through stating objectives and then assessing whether or not students have mastered those objectives. Traditionally, we think of tests coming at the end of the teaching, but it is also important to measure throughout the teaching progress. 

Analysis:

The first step teachers should take in beginning a new lesson or unit is to state the objectives. The objectives help the students understand what they are responsible for learning during the lesson. The objective should also state how students will be evaluated on the information. A objective typically follows this pattern: condition-performance-criterion (Slavin, 2012), Before teachers commit to the objectives they have set forth, a task-analysis must be done to determine what prerequisite skills are needed to be successful in learning the new material. To streamline the process and ensure that objectives align with material and come in the order that makes the most sense, teachers should implement backward planning. 

Backward planning also helps teachers properly and efficiently align objectives with assessments. Savin (2012) suggests that teachers should actually write test questions before stating objectives. Objectives should measure a wide variety of knowledge, so teachers should consult Bloom’s Taxonomy when writing objectives. Using a system like Bloom’s Taxonomy prevents teachers from teaching only simple skills. Savin (2012) states, “All too often, teachers focus on measurable knowledge and comprehension objectives and forget that students cannot be considered proficient in many skills until they can apply or synthesize those skills” (p. 406). While objectives definitely benefit students, they mostly benefit teachers and help teachers stay organized and on-task. Savin (2012) states that research regarding instructional objectives “implies that instruction is effective to the degree to which objectives, teaching, and assessment are coordinated with one another” (p. 407). 

After setting forth instructional objectives, teachers must then assess/evaluate students on those objectives and provide feedback to let students know how they are doing when it comes to meeting them. Evaluation refers to “all the means used in schools to formally measure student performance” and includes “quizzes and tests, written evaluations, and grades” (Slavin, 2012, p. 408). Evaluation has different purposes: feedback, information, and incentive. For students, evaluations provide students feedback on how they are doing and if they are successful in learning the material being presented—are they mastering those objectives set forth at the beginning. Evaluations also provide feedback to teachers, which allows teachers to see how effective their instruction is. Evaluations also provide information to parents and other professionals (psychologists, administrators, public officials) about how students and teachers are performing in the classroom. Evaluations also serve as incentives for students, and we all know how great it feels to earn a good grade.

There are many different types of evaluations, but they all fall in to one of two categories: summative or formative evaluations. A formative evaluation “is designed to tell teachers whether additional instruction is needed and to tell students whether additional learning is needed” while a summative evaluation “refers to tests of student knowledge at the end of instructional units” (Slavin, 2012, p. 410). There are many different types of assessments. One type of item included on many tests is a select-response item. When writing these types of questions, teachers should remember that “a capable student should be able to choose the correct answer and not be distracted by the wrong alternatives” and teachers “should minimize the chance that  a student who is ignorant of the subject matter can guess the correct answer” (Slavin, 2012, p. 418). True/False and matching questions also fall into this category. Constructed-response items require a student to finish a sentence or fill in a blank. While these can be easier to write, they can be tricky because teachers may receive more ambiguous answers. Essay questions and questions that require problem-solving are also options to include on an assessment. Performance assessments and student portfolios are other ways to assess students with giving a formal assessment in one session. A portfolio compiles a students’ work over time, and a performance assessment is a test that “involve[s] actual demonstrations of knowledge or skills in real life” (Slavin, 2012, p. 432). These require a better understanding of the material, as the students must put it to use to be successful. 

Assessments and evaluations must be graded, and while most schools use the typical letter scale, lots of schools are switching to other methods. Mastery grading is now seen more and more, and it typically gives students another opportunity to improve if the material isn’t mastered initially. 

Reflection:

The longer I teach, the more I understand just how important learning objectives are for both my students and for me. Outlining the objectives I want students to meet before I start planning an assessment or lesson really helps me put the goals of a unit into focus. Though Slavin suggests that assessments should be made before objectives, I typically come up with a rough draft of the objectives, make the assessment, and then go back and revise my objectives to meet the assessment. Like objectives, assessments are equally as important, and it is important that teachers give different types of assessments. I admit, I didn’t use formative assessments as much as I should have when I first started teaching, but each year I incorporate them more and more. Sometimes, it is really just thinking of something in terms of an assessment and taking good notes about what students do and do not understand to help with planning for the next lesson. 

Developing evaluations is becoming more and more difficult to me as we try so hard to align our assessments at the school level with the assessments the state is providing. It is also becoming increasingly difficult to keep kids honest. It sometimes seem like technology is a teacher’s best friend and worst enemy. With multiple choice tests, it is almost impossible to keep students from cheating, even if it is just making an extra copy of the answers and providing them to a student in the next period class. Even when I give performance assessments, I often feel that students are using the Internet to find too much information rather than relying on their own knowledge. Lately, I’ve resorted a lot of essay writing for assessments, and I often make them in-class essays to ensure that students can’t access information online to assist them. While students often complain about writing essays, there are a lot of benefits. One thing is that students can draw on lots of different information to develop an answer, and there isn’t just one correct answer. Additionally, students can utilize other skills and/or knowledge to help answer the question, and they are also improving their writing skills. When writing an essay, I always let students revise, because that is part of the process. In a study on writing and feedback, it was found that students are more successful when they provide peer feedback on one’s writing and use that feedback to improve. Wakefield, et. al. (2014) refer to the idea that “the mere act of re-reading and re-writing one’s own paper usually results in at least some improvement” (p. 259). In contrast, students are never able to re-work answers on a multiple choice test. For me, writing just aligns better to my teaching style, and so I utilize it most. We are trying to make progress and continue to improve, and I appreciate that writing allows students to improve no matter where they start. 

References:

Slavin, R.E. Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston: MA, Pearson. 

Wakefield, C., Adie, J., Pitt, E., & Owens, T. (2014). Feeding forward from summative assessment: the Essay Feedback Checklist as a learning tool. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 39(2), 253-262. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.822845

Week 8: Learning Environment

Description:

Slavin (2012) indicates the importance of classroom management in an effective learning environment. He states, “Creating an effective learning environment involves organizing classroom activities, instruction, and the physical classroom to provide for effective use of time; to create a happy, productive classroom; and to minimize disruptions” (p. 217). This chapter focuses on the importance of time, behaviors, and rules when it comes to classroom management.

Analysis:

Good use of time is the number one thing that contributes to classroom management. If a teacher is efficiently utilizing all of the time in the class, there will be no time for disruptions. There is a lot of lost time in schools. This may come from general housekeeping issues, like pictures, announcements, field trips, etc., or this may come from lack of planning and engagement. Savin (2012) states, “A surprising amount of allocated instructional time is lost because you may not start teaching at the beginning of the period” (p. 319). It is crucial that teachers start on time and leave the little disruptions, like late arrivals, to deal with later. As Slavin (2012) states, “Avoiding interruptions takes planning” (p. 319). Teachers should have systems in place so that students know what to do if they have to go to the bathroom, come late to class, etc. so they don’t have to stop and ask the teacher. Sometimes, teachers also need to learn to let go of the little things that don’t matter in the long run. Savin (2012) cautions that “you can spend too much time on simple classroom routines” (p. 320). The goal of teachers should be to maximize the time students spend engaged, because this is when they are truly learning. Savin (2012) states, “The best way to increase students’ time on task is to teach lessons that are so interesting, engaging and relevant to their interests that students will pay attention and eagerly do what is asked of them” (p. 321). Once a teacher has the interest of his/her students, that teacher must maintain the momentum. This comes by eliminating as many distractions as possible so students will stay engaged. Teachers should also have procedures in place for transitions, as a lot of time can be wasted here. 

Having students work independently or in groups gives that teacher the opportunity to give students one-on-one time and closely monitor their progress or address areas of concern. Teachers need to have a certain amount of “withitness,” or “actions that indicate awareness of students’ behavior at all times” (p. 324). Another skill that teachers have is “overlapping.” This relates to “a teacher’s ability to attend to interruptions or behavior problems while continuing a lesson or other instructional activity” (p. 324). 

Starting the year by setting expectations for students and ensuring that they understand them is vital to having a successful year in the classroom management department. Class rules should be few in number, clearly stated and understood, and should be taught to students (Slavin, 2012). 

No matter how many rules a teacher has or how effectively she teaches them, there will be some misbehaviors that need to be dealt with. Savin (2012) encourages teachers to “correct misbehaviors by using the simples intervention that will work” (p. 329). Ideally, one students’ disruption shouldn’t disrupt other students. Prevention is ideal, and teachers can prevent behaviors by using nonverbal cues, praising correct behaviors, giving reminders, and assigning consequences to those who need it. Teachers must also be aware of reinforcers that encourage student behavior. Sometimes, other students are reinforcers because the student misbehaving wants their attention. A student may also want the attention of a teacher. In this case, the teacher is the reinforcer. If the behaviors of a student turn serious, other options may be consulted. For example, a prevention program or peer mediation. 

Reflection:

I agree with Slavin that classroom management is incredibly important in determining whether or not students utilize all opportunities in a class and make the most of the time spent in that class. There are lots of things a teacher can do to make a class run smoothly, and I completely agree that it is incredibly important to set rules before the school year starts and make sure the students know those rules early on in the year. My first year teaching, I made a few mistakes, and I had to modify/add rules throughout the school year. Issues just came up that I wasn’t expecting. To be honest, I probably had too many specific rules (which Slavin argues against) instead of a few general rules that can be applied to many things. Now, I have fewer rules and don’t have this issue. 

I am thankful to be reminded of the fact that a lot of time gets wasted at the start of class and at the end of class. I was really guilty of this last year, especially at the end of the year. If students don’t have something specific to do as soon as the bell rings, they simply don’t sit down and get ready for class to start. I’ve also learned over the years that there has to be a time limit on the bell-ringer. If there isn’t one, the students are in no hurry to get it done. 

While rules and planning gets a teacher far in the classroom management world, there is another important element: relationships. Teachers must have good relationships of respect and care with their students to maintain a good classroom environment, which is essential for good classroom management. Sieberer-Nagler (2015) states, “But the knowledge of subject matter alone is not sufficient to ensure that teachers will be effective and that students will be successful in their learning” (p. 163). Additionally, it is important that teachers model the behavior they want their students to exhibit. If a rule is to not use a cell phone in class, the teacher should not use his/her cell phone. This also comes back around to relationships. Students will have more respect for a teacher who abides by the class rules rules and will, therefore, behavior better for that teacher. Students also gain respect from students by knowing their subject matter well. Sieberer-Nagler mentions that a reflection journal can help teachers in this area. I’ve always wanted to start a reflection journal, but I’ve always put it on the “to do” list and never gotten to it. I do see the value, and I hope I can implement it this year. 

References:

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston: MA,

Pearson.

Sieberer-Nagler, K. (2016). Effective Classroom-Management & Positive Teaching. English

Language Teaching, 9(1), 163-172.

Week 7: Grouping, Differentiation, and Technology

Description:

Slavin (2012) starts out this chapter by stating, “effective instruction takes a lot more than good lectures” (p. 250), and the perfectly describes the purpose of this chapter. From groups to technology, the decisions we make in our classrooms on a daily basis have a direct impact on how our students progress. 

Analysis:

Because there are many different components to effective instruction, teachers look to different models to determine what best suits the needs of their students. John Carroll described that idea that there are different components to teaching, and these different components need different amounts of time allocated to them depending on the situation. The QAIT model stems from this idea and stand for quality of instruction, appropriate levels of instruction, incentive, and time. Savin (2012) states, “For instruction to be effective, each of these four elements must be adquate” (p. 251). This model requires that we as teachers consider all of the different types of students entering our classrooms. They are all coming from different backgrounds with different experiences and skill sets. Teachers really struggle with making adequate accommodations for so many different types of students. Savin (2012) notes that “accommodating instruction to student differences is one of the most fundamental problems of education and often leads to politically and emotionally charged policies” (p. 253). Different countries deal with this different, and in the U.S. it has changed over time. While students used to be assigned to different tracks, they are now sometimes grouped by ability within classes. Some students even have their own programs developed for them where they work independently at their own pace. Teachers hear about abilities and differences every day, and each solution comes with its own positives and negatives. Research on grouping students by class according to their abilities shows that it isn’t very effective. We have already discussed collaborative and cooperative learning, and the lack of that type of learning in these types of classes is one of the reasons for their downfall. When low-performing students are around other low-performing students, there are no good leaders and role-models for them to learn from. Additionally, measures that group students in these classes may be unreliable. In my school, I don’t see much class ability grouping, Instead, I see a lot of untracking, where the focus is on “placing students in mixed-ability groups and holding them to high standards but providing many ways for them to reach those standards” (Slavin, 2012, p. 256). Those who voice issues with untracking are not the parents of the low-achievers, but the parents of the high-achievers. They tend to think that this slows down the progress of their children in an attempt to speed up the progress of the others. In a mixed-ability class, within-class ability grouping is an option for teachers, and this is usually seen in elementary classes, especially in reading. 

No matter how students are grouped, teachers must differentiate their instruction to meet the needs of everyone. One way to differentiate instruction is to use peer tutors. Savin (2012) states, “Research evaluating the effects of peer tutoring on student achievement has generally found that this strategy increases the achievement of both tutees and tutors” (p. 260). As we have all heard time and time again, “The best way to learn something thoroughly is to teach it to someone else” (Slavin, 2012, p. 260). Teachers can also tutor students. 

Some students need more than just differentiation to be successful. For those students, programs are put in place to help them achieve everything they are capable of. Students are at “at-risk” fall into three categories: compensatory education, early intervention programs, and special education. Compensatory education programs “are designed to overcome the problems associated with being brought up in low-income communities” (Slavin, 2012, p. 263). The largest program that falls in this category is Title I, a name with which we are all very familiar. Title I, funded by the federal government, offers services to students who come from low-income families. Where compensatory education programs focus on remediation, early interventions programs focus on prevention. An example of an early intervention program is reading Recovery, a program that provides one-on-one reading tutoring to students in first grade. Comprehensive school reform programs are “schoolwide approaches that introduce research-based strategies into every aspect of school functions” (Slavin, 2012, p. 266). A popular CSR program is Success for All, which puts in focus in serving disadvantaged communities. This program provides tutoring, family support, and help with curriculum implementation. Savin (2012) states, “Longitudinal studies of Success for All have shown that students in this program read substantially better than do students in matched control schools throughout the elementary and middle grades and that they are far less likely to be assigned to special education or to fail a grade” (p. 267). 

Technology also helps with differentiation and adds another important component to instruction. Computers, tablet, interactive whiteboards, and clickers are now commonplace in classrooms across the country. Since the integration of these devices is recent, there isn’t much research. However, there is no doubt that the Internet gives teachers many more opportunities to get students engaged in the material. Webquests, simulations, and ease of communication helps “students become active, creative learners” (Slavin, 2012, p. 273). 

Reflection:

This was a very interesting chapter to me. I’ve always gone back and forth about whether or not I think students should be grouped by ability or merged in classes, and I definitely see the pros and cons to both. Honestly, I see it differently as a parent than I do a student. When students are grouped together, they learn from each other—in a perfect world. Yes, ideally the strong students raise the level of the class for the weak students, thus helping everyone. As a teacher, I know that this isn’t always the case. It is sometimes? Of course, but not always. Low-achieving students often come with behavior problems and a host of other issues that demand a lot of time on behalf of the teacher. I understand that teachers should differentiate and it shouldn’t matter, but the reality of the situation is that teachers don’t have enough time to plan 30 different lessons for each student in a class five times a day. If I consider each individual child, I’m planning for 150 different students in one day. This is impossible.

Like is the case with everything else, grouping really depends on the situation. Tomlinson (2015) outlines the social disparities that come along with tracking: “Tracking perpetuates class and race-based disparities as assignment to high track classes reflects a disproportionate number of White and mid to high income students and assignment to lower track classes reflects a disproportionate number of student of color and students from low income backgrounds” (p. 204). She also notes that when tracking occurs, there is often a rise on specific class choice. On the opposite end of the spectrum, she notes that “evidence also suggests that heterogeneous classrooms with focused attention to students’ varying needs, and in the context of high quality curriculum and instruction, can benefit a very broad spectrum of learners” (Tomlinson, 2015, p. 204).

This made me think of a situation we had in my school just this past year. The school used to let anyone join the gifted class as a part of the “honors” section of the class. Students who didn’t pass the gifted test but made good grades could opt for the challenge even though they weren’t gifted. Next year will be the first year that students can’t do this, and they are very upset. Students who aren’t technically gifted will be placed in the regular classes. They see this as unfair because they know that it won’t be as challenging and they won’t learn as much. This is disappointing, and I think a lot of this depends on the climate of the school and the teacher. 

Now, I also see the other side of the equation. I’ve seen over and over again a strong student in a “normal” class help a struggling student “see the light,” and it is very rewarding for me, for the students—for everyone. There is something that I love about mixed-ability grouping that makes it the best way in my opinion: it is real world. In the real world students have to work and collaborate with all kinds of people, not just the people who are most like they are. In the article “Mixed-Experience Classes can work well together with a little Creative Thinking,” Debbie Block (2011) outlines the experience of a middle-school orchestra teacher and her struggles after she couldn’t divide her beginning and advanced students into two different classes. What did she do? She had them teach each other and found that her reminders to the advanced students to teach small things like posture “also made them look at their own posture and instrument position” (Block, 2011). In addition to the peer tutoring, she also gave the advanced students an independent assignment to ensure they remained challenged. 

These readings definitely made me think about the different levels I have in my classes and encouraged me to utilize what I have to make the experiences better for everyone. In the future, I think I’ll use more grouping to ensure that my students have the opportunity to learn from one another daily.

References:

Block, Debbie Galante. 2011. "Mixed-Experience Classes Can Work Well With a Little Creative Thinking." Teaching Music 18, no. 4: 58. MasterFILE Elite, EBSCOhost (accessed June 25, 2016).

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for Excellence in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Society, 52(3), 203-209.

Week 6: Student-Centered Instruction

Description:

Cooperative learning has been proven to be successful when used appropriately in the classroom. This type of learning promotes critical thinking, creative thinking, and problem-solving skills for students. Cooperative learning is largely based on ideas from the constructivist theory, which believes that students learn more when they take control of their own learning.  

Reflection:

When discussing student-centered instruction, Slavin (2012) talks a lot about the view of constructivists. The “essence of constructivist theory is the idea that learners must individually discover and transform complex information if they are to make it their own” (Slavin, 2012, p. 218). Thus, students are active rather than passive participants in their classes and in their education. There are a few different concepts that fall under this theory. One is that of social learning—the idea that students learn from others while watching and observing others work. Another is the zone of proximal development, the “idea that children learn best the concepts that are in their zones of proximal development” (Slavin, 2012, p. 219). Another concept, cognitive apprenticeship, explains that learners gain knowledge through close interaction with an expert, whether child or adult, in the field or subject. Lastly, scaffolding is emphasized, as it helps students go more in-depth with a subject by providing and then slowly taking away assistance for students. When it comes to the organizational structure of learning, the constructivist view prefers a few. One is the top-down approach, where the teacher presents a complex problem or situation and the student work to figure it out. The view also places an emphasis on cooperative learning and the idea that students will learn more if they work together to solve problems. Through discovery learning, students are encouraged to learn on their own using hands-on experiments and projects. This type of learning helps students “learn independent problem-solving and critical-thinking skills” (Slavin, 2012, p. 222). Similarly, a self-regulated learners are good at using their learning strategies to solve problems. 

Cooperative learning works well with the constructivist view. In cooperative learning, students work together in small groups “to help each other learn” (Slavin, 2012, p. 229). These groups may vary in size, and the groups may work together for varying lengths of time. There are many different cooperative learning methods. One of these methods is the student teams-achievement divisions (STAD). In this model, students work in four-member teams of mixed performance level, gender, and ethnicity. In this model, the teams work together to ensure that all members of the team have mastered the information. Students quiz individually, but the quiz scores from the group form team scores that can earn the team certain prizes and/or rewards. Individually, students are also trying to meet goals with their individual quiz scores. Another method is jigsaw, where students are in groups of six members. In these groups, each individual is responsible for a certain portion of the assignment. Members of different groups with the same assignment come together to compare information. These students then teach their groups what they have learned about their specific section. Overall, research strongly suggests that more improvement is made when cooperative learning is used than when traditional learning is used. However, two conditions must be met for this to be true. The first is that there must be some kind of reward for the groups who do well. The second is that there must be individual accountability: “The success of the group must depend on the individual learning of all group members, not on a single group product” (Slavin, 2012, p. 234). 

Ultimately, the goal is to teach students problem-solving and thinking skills. 

Analysis: 

I use a lot of what I thought was cooperative learning in my class, but after the reading, I realize I just really do group work. My group work isn’t organized or substantial enough for it to constitute as cooperative learning. However, I love the idea, and I think it is great in the classroom for many reasons, but mostly because it emulates what students will face in the real world. I didn’t know about the different methods of using cooperative learning prior to this reading, add I really enjoyed reading about them. I will definitely use the STAD or jigsaw method, or maybe take bits and pieces from each. The most important information I gained from this reading was the information on what must occur for cooperative learning to be meaningful. I do typically offer a reward for a winning or successful group, so I’m pretty good here. However, I do not usually have individual as well as group goals or scores, so I need to implement this. I often have the issue of one or two group members doing all of the work, so this would eliminate that. I love the part of the jigsaw method of students teaching each other, and this also helps account for individual learning. 

In her article “Student-Centered Instruction: Involving Students in their own Education,” Brown (2008) describes two student-centered learning models used in music education. In one of them, Arts PROPEL, involves students in each of its three main art forms: music, visual art, and imaginative writing. In this model, “involving the students in their own assessment is crucial and at the art of the Arts PROPEL philosophy” (Brown, 2008). One way students do this is through the use of portfolios. These portfolios allow students to assess their work and look for growth along the way. Though I don’t teach art, this really stood out to me because I can use this same idea with writing portfolios. In this way, students take control of their own learning. This can also be couple with cooperative learning to have students assess other members of their groups. 

References:

Brown, J.K. (2008). Student-Centered Instruction: Involving Students in Their Own Education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5), 30-35.

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. 

Week 5: The Effective Lesson

Description:

In Chapter 7, Slavin (2012) discusses direct instruction. He walks through the steps a teacher goes through during a lesson, and discusses how to ensure that learning has taken place. Slavin (2012) states that “direct instruction is particularly appropriate for teaching a well-defined body of information or skills that ll students must master” (p. 185). Slavin also discusses the use of discussions during instruction.

Analysis:

As teachers, we all use direct instruction every day in lessons where we “transmit information directly to your students, structuring class time to reach a clearly defined set of objectives as efficiently as possible” (p. 184-185). Direct instruction is what we think of when we think of that traditional lesson we learned how to teach. It typically has some type of introduction or attention-getter, it requires that we tell students what they will learn, activate prior knowledge that will be useful in learning the new material, and then teach the new material, making proper emphasis where necessary. When teaching the material, the teacher must make (ahead of time) several decisions that will greatly influence the outcome of the lesson. The teacher must make ideas clear and easy for students to understand, must provide explanations and work examples, and should give demonstrations and illustrations throughout. According to Slavin (2012), “visual representations are maintained in long-term memory far more readily than information that is only heard” (p. 192). Teachers must also pay attention to how much attention the lesson is getting from students, as it is important to keep them engaged. Teachers can use humor and/or stories to keep students interested. After teaching the new material, teachers must assess the students informally to ensure that the students are understanding what is being taught. Learning probes are different ways of asking students for brief responses about the lesson and can give you immediate feedback. No matter how it is done, teachers must check for understanding. One popular learning probe is through questioning. Just like everything else in a lesson, this requires some pre-planning. A teacher must know what questions he/she will ask, know how she will ask them—whole-class response, random student selected, etc. After the large group section of the lesson is complete, a teacher should usually assign some type of group or independent practice. It was a surprise to me to read that “Research on seat work, or in-class independent practice, suggests that it is typically both overused and misused” (Slavin, 2012, p. 199). To make independent practice more effective, teachers should make the time limited, monitor students closely, ensure they can do the work before assigning it, and make sure all directions are clear and easy to understand. Teachers must, of course, provide feedback for this independent work. 

The purpose for the whole lesson is, of course, to ensure that students will later be able to transfer that knowledge to another situation. This is called transfer learning, and  it “depends on the degree to which the information or skills were learned in the original situation and on the degree of similarity between the situation in which the skill or concept was learned and the situation to which it is being applied” (Slavin, 2012, p. 205). To ensure that students can do this, teachers can create lessons in context, and/or create small or large group discussions. In these types of situations, the teacher is more of a facilitator while the students take control of much of what is going on. Savin (2012) state, “Research on small-group discussions indicates that these activities can increase student achievement more than traditional lessons if the students are well prepared to work in small groups and if the group task is well organized” (p. 211). 

Reflection:

I go through the routines mentioned in this chapter on a daily basis. One of the biggest surprises of teaching for me was the amount of preparation that goes into one class period. Sometimes it seems that one minute of teaching takes ten minutes of preparation. It was interesting to me that we place too much emphasis on independent work, and Slavin’s statement about it (cited above) made me really think about it. I do tend to give more independent work as homework, but I can understand why it isn’t as helpful as some other types of assignments. I think teachers are more and more encouraged to have students participate in what Slavin calls “transfer learning.” Because of the nature of my subject, we are often linking information and thinking creatively. One of the biggest types of instruction I employ in my class is discussions. I enjoy having discussions for many reasons. It shows me what the students know and how they think, but it also gives a few students leadership practice, and it allows them to take control of their own learning. The students must do the work beforehand, but it is amazing to have them read and annotate a chapter of a novel and then hear the different types of connections they make to the current world. There are some books I read every single year, and the students always come up with something new that I’ve never thought of. 

In the article “Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation,” Sawyer (2004) discusses the idea of teachers “performing” and that this approach is now widely used and becoming unsuccessful. I do notice this, and it is sad. Sawyer (2004) states that the problem with teachers performing—reading off the script with rehearsed timing: “[T]he metaphor of teaching as performance is problematic, because it suggests a solo performer reading from a script, with the students as the passive, observing audience” (p. 12). Direct instruction definitely has its place, but this is why I prefer to have the students engaged in not only the activity, but in the process of deciding what is most important. 

References:

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Week 4: Cognitive Theories of Learning

Analysis:

Slavin begins the chapter discussing the different types of memory. Our short-term memory is what everything initially enters into, but it can only stay here for a few seconds. If the information isn’t immediately used, it will disappear. Working memory is another type of short-term memory. If we use the information by categorizing it or connecting it with previously learned information, we are using our working memory. In order for something to be transferred to our long-term memory, we must continually use the information. Our long-term memory is divided into three parts: memory of personal experiences (episodic), memory  of facts and generalized information (semantic), and memories of knowing how to do something (procedural). The levels-of-processing theory asserts that we process information on different levels, and these levels determine the likelihood that we will remember it. For example, if we just look at something, we don’t have as great of a chance of remembering it as if we give a name to it or associating meaning to it. Automaticity occurs when information goes beyond out long-term memories; recalling the information is automatic and requires no effort.

Though we typically feel like we don’t remember much of what we learn in school, Slavin (2012) insists that we actually do: “Whatever students have retained about 12 to 24 weeks after instruction, they may retain forever” (p. 152). What does matter, though, is the type of instruction. According to Slavin (2012), students who sat through traditional lectures lost much more of the knowledge than those who had instruction that utilizing role playing. The levels-of-processing theory suggests that when we associate meaning to something, we are much more likely to remember it. 

Recent research on the brain has found that “the brain’s capacity is not set at birth but is influenced by early experience” (Slavin, 2012, p. 154). This tells us that it is important for children to constantly be using their brains and utilizing the information. Savin (2012) states, “As a person gains in knowledge and skill, his or her brain becomes more efficient” (p. 155). 

Those who study memory are of course interest in what causes one to forget information. One reason we forget information is by interference: the information is interrupted before it is stored in the working memory because there isn’t time to rehearse the material. Another type of interference, retroactive inhibition, causes us to forget information because other new information is interjected. 

Teachers have the duty of teaching in a way that leads to information being stored in a student’s long-term memory. There are different methods that help achieve this. One is verbal learning, which includes paired-associate learning, serial learning, and free-recall learning. Imagery may often help a student remember information because it helps the students visualize information. Teachers can also try to ensure that the learning is meaningful, though sometimes rote learning is necessary. One theory of meaningful learning is the schema theory, which suggests that “information fitting into an existing schema is more easily understood, learned, and retained than information that does not fit into an existing schema” (p. 167). Teachers can make current learning more relevant by linking it to previously learned information using advance organizers and/or analogies. Teaching strategies should also help students organize information. This may include the use of note-taking strategies and/or the PQ4R method. 

Reflection:

I didn’t read anything in this chapter that was particularly surprising, but a lot of it was interesting. I don’t usually think of the “scientific” reasoning for certain things, so that part of it is new to me. For example, I knew that the more times something is repeated, the more likely it is to be remembered. However, I didn’t know about working memory and how quickly something stored in our short-term memory is actually forgotten. 

One thing that I did find as shock is Slavin’s (2012) idea that “people retain a large portion of what they learn in school” (p. 152). I don’t feel like I remember much of what I learned in school, but according to the reading, I’m just not utilizing it or I didn’t use it enough when it was initially learned to move it into my long-term memory. This may be useful for me in my classes. Since research suggests that something remembered for 12 to 24 weeks after instruction is retained forever, this makes it incredibly important that I review, review, review what is taught in my class. For something that is taught in August, my revisiting that information until May will pretty much ensure that it is moved into the students’ long-term memories. 

There is a lot in the chapter about the idea that information is much more easily remembered for students when it i something with which they can associate meaning. Additionally, Slavin makes note that we learn more as our brains are continually engaged. Thus, a student sitting in my class who already knows what we are learning isn’t benefitted by the lesson because he/she is not gaining any additional knowledge. These two things are very important to the way students are taught. Not only does the material need to be differentiated so that information isn’t repeated, but we need to ensure that students are associating meaning with whatever they are learning. In some cases this may mean explaining to them why something is important or relating the material to something else, but in other cases in may meaning allowing them to choose between topics or giving them space to be creative and relate the material to their own interests and passions. 

t is no secret that we all learn differently. Some of us are visual while some of us are auditory. Presenting material in multiple ways in important, as is creating effective ways to help students organize learning that is rote. This may include helping them with note-taking strategies, summarizing, and/or concept-mapping. Savin (2012) states, “A growing body of evidence supports the idea that having students explain in writing the content they are learning helps them understand and remember it” (p. 170). This is concerning to me because students don’t often write much anymore. When notes come on the screen, they immediately want to take a picture. If they are required to “write” something, they are usually typing it. For me, I must actually write information to remember it, and I don’t know that they are growing up understanding that. Something else to take into consideration when helping students learn is the time of day. Young (2015) suggests that age has a direct relationship to when the brain is most active. While older people peak in brain activity in the morning, young teens are still active in the afternoons. However, “16 and 17-year-old girls performed better on tests of factual memory if they studied the material at 3 pm rather than at 9 pm, but acquired skills involving movements faster if they practiced in the evening.” At my school, certain classes (usually math and English) are scheduled during the morning time slots when available. However, a lot of it is just luck of the draw. I know that there is a huge difference in 7th period and 1st period! 

References: 

Slavin, R.E. (2012). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Young, E. (2015). KNOW IT ALL. (cover story). New Scientist, 226(3014), 30-35.

Week Two: Behavioral Theories of Learning

Description

In Chapter 5, Slavin (2012) explains how we learn and how our behavior is shaped by our learning. The different behavioral theories are described, as well as the principles that make them up. I learned about different types of consequences and how to influence the behavior of someone, as well as how the social environment plays a role in behavior. 

Analysis

Slavin (2012) describes learning as “a change in an individual caused by experience” (p. 116), and this change can occur either intentionally or unintentionally. When attempting to determine how people learn, researchers came up with several different theories. One of these theories was developed by Ivan Pavlov, who based his findings off of his observations of dogs. From his observations, he concluded that some of our behaviors are simply involuntary reflexes to certain situations. However, when those are combined with a learned behavior, we react differently based on what we have learned. B.F. Skinner, another researcher, concluded that “reflexive behavior accounts for only a small proportion” (Slavin, 2012, p. 117) of our actions. He explained that operant conditioning , the idea that we adapt our behaviors based on the response we get after the behavior takes place. This is explained with the example of the rat and the food. When the rat learns that pressing the bar gets him a piece of food, he continually presses the bar. Thus, the reward influences his behavior. Thus, we gain the idea that our behavior is directly impacted by its consequences, whether good or bad. Consequences are either reinforcers, a consequence that strengthens behavior, or punishers, consequences that weaken behavior. Reinforcers can be either primary or secondary. Primary reinforcers appeal to our basic needs, while secondary reinforces require that the person sees the value in the item. Reinforces can also be categorized as either positive or negative, which are exactly what they sound like; a positive reinforcer is something positive, like grades, and a negative reinforcer is a reinforcer because we want to avoid it, like not having to take out the trash because you did all of your other chores. Another type of reinforcer, one that parents definitely use, is the Premark Principle, the idea that you must do one thing to get another. Some of us are intrinsically motivated to perform certain behaviors simply because we enjoy them, while the rest of us must be motivated to perform those behaviors. These are referred to as intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcers. If we have reinforcers, we must also have punishers. Presentation punishment is what we typically think of as punishment, a spanking, raises of your voice, etc. Removal punishment is removing something as punishment, like taking away television time, or sending a child to time out. Another important term to understand when it comes to behavior is shaping. Shaping requires that someone provides consistent, gradual reinforcement to a child attempting to learn a new behavior. For example, my child is potty training right now. I have to help him gradually along the way, not just yell at him for not getting it the first time. 

Another thing that helps shape behavior is how often reinforcement is given, which is termed the schedule of reinforcement. Of course, this schedule can and usually should be modified as the behavior changes. The fixed-ratio schedule is when a reinforcement is given after a certain number of behaviors. There is no timetable for this behaviors, and the number should gradually be changed (probably increased). A variable-ratio schedule is more unpredictable. An example of this would be calling on students in class; it is random. A fixed-interval schedule is only available at distinct times, like at the end of a year (a final exam). Lastly, a variable-interval schedule is only available sometimes, like when we are driving or when we are working on a class assignment. In some cases, the consequences can be removed and the behavior will remain changed. In addition, they will hopefully be able to apply the learned behaviors to other situations (called generalization). 

From the behavioral learning theory grew the social learning theory, which emphasizes “the effects of thought on action and action on thought” (Slavin, 2012, p. 132). Albert Bandura added to our view of behavior that we often model our behavior after others. His term observational learning consists of four phases: attention, retention, reproduction, and the motivational phase. 

Reflection

As a teacher, it is very important to understand behavior and how to shape it. It is also important to understand the background of the kids in the class, as how the teacher shapes behavior and how the parent shapes behavior can sometimes be very different. One thing left out of the chapter that I think is true is that people respond to consequences, whether positive or negative, very differently. Now, a lot of that may be learned, but it is probably learned before the student gets to my class. The story at the beginning of the chapter is something that really resonated with me because I know I am guilty of doing this (self-regulated learning!). As a teacher, it is so difficult to not get frustrated with a student and call him/her out in front of the class. However, in many cases, I am giving that disruptor exactly what he/she wants: attention. This is not wise on my part, and the research proves that I am actually encouraging the behavior for both that student and for other students. Too often the “good” students get no attention. I need to do a better job of praising the good rather than criticizing the bad. It is interesting and good practice to think about the different types of reinforcers, and I think I can do a better job of giving reinforcers periodically. This will also hopefully help the students doing positive things model the behavior for the other students. 

As educators, we are all guilty of giving too many punishers and not enough reinforcers. I think it is just human nature, and it is the way many of us were raised. With the major swing toward positive reinforcement in our schools, I think we are on the right track to make our learning environments more positive. I do, however, think it is sometimes necessary to use punishers. The mistake we make is using them in front of other students and not explaining why it they are receiving the punishment. 

References:
Slavin, Robert E. (2012). Educational Psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Week One: Cognitive, Language, and Literacy Development

Description:

It has long been debated how children develop cognitively: is it through experience, or does it occur in stages? Is it determined at birth, or is it determined by experience? Jean Piaget and Lev Semionovich Vygotsky each have a theory that helps us understand how our students may develop.

Analysis:

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development suggests that children develop in four chronological stages, and that each child must pass through each stage, though children will pass through them at different rates. The first of Piaget’s stages, the sensorimotor stage, occurs from birth until approximately two years of age. Babies this age advance from mere reflexes to a “trial-and-error approach” and then to “a more planned approach to problem solving” (Slavin, 2012, p. 33). During this stage, children also learn that things are present even though they are not seen. Around age 2, Piaget argued that children progress into the preoperational stage. At this stage, “children have greater ability to think about things and can use symbols to mentally represent objects” (Slavin, 2012, p. 34). During this stage, children develop the cognitive ability to understand reversibility, and they become egocentric, meaning that they “believe that everyone sees the world exactly as they do” (Slavin, 2012, p. 34). However, children still cannot focus on more than one thing at a time (call centration) and do not understand the principle of conservation. For example, the same amount of liquid poured into different-sized containers does not appear the same to children in this stage. Around the age of seven, children move into the concrete operational stage. Here, children become “very much rooted in the world as it is and have difficulty with abstract thought” (pg. 36). At this stage, children are able to “form concepts, see relationships, and solve problems” given that the objects they are working with are familiar to them. During this stage, children are “able to respond to inferred reality, seeing things in the context of other meanings” (Slavin, 2012, p. 36) and arrange things logically. Around the age of 11, children will enter the last of the four stages, the formal operational stage. This stage lasts until adulthood, and it is during this stage that people learn “the ability to deal with potential or hypothetical situations” (Slavin, 2012, p. 37).  As a teacher, it is important to remember that, according to Piaget, not all students can cognitively complete the same tasks. Paget’s theory does not come without its share of criticism. While Piaget asserted that the “developmental stages were largely fixed and that such concepts as conversation could not be taught,” many researchers have debunked his theory (Slavin, 2012, p. 38). Researchers have shown that some students can in fact reach these stages at an earlier age, and they argue that “children’s skills develop in different ways on different tasks and that their experience can have a strong a strong influence on the pace of development (Slavin, 2012, p. 39).

                

While Piaget believed that environment played only a small part of the development process, Russian psychologist Lev Semionovich Vygotsky believed that “intellectual development can be understood only in terms of the historical and cultural contexts children experience” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Vygotsky also believed that the signs in one’s culture assist in their development (Slavin, 2012). Whereas Piaget argued that development precedes learning, Vygotsky’s “theory suggests that learning precedes development” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Like Piaget, Vygotsky broke down his theory into stages. In the first stage of development, children learn that “actions and sounds have meaning” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Eventually, children learn self-regulation, the ability to use these meanings to think for themselves. Next, children practice and, then, begin to use the signs “to think and solve problems without the help of others” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). Instead of first reaching the proper stage to master communication, Vygotsky asserted that children first “mastering cultural communication systems and then learning to use these systems to regulate our own thought processes” (Slavin, 2012, p. 41). For Vygotsky’s theory,  children should be able to work with others to complete a task before completing it individually; he termed this the zone of proximal development. He also favored the idea of scaffolding and cooperative learning environments, arguing that children can work together and accomplish a task collaboratively before accomplishing the same task autonomously.

Regardless of the theory one subscribes to, there is no question that language and literacy development for children is essential to their success. Slavin (2012) states, “Development of language and literacy is a key objective to teaching” (p. 44).

Reflection:

After completing the reading and thinking about my experiences, I have conflicting views on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. Rather than subscribing completely to one or the other, I tend to think that we develop as a result of a mixture of both theories. I agree with Piaget that children must have a certain cognitive capacity to perform some tasks. For example, there are simply some things that my 2-year-old cannot grasp, no matter how much I teach him. I also agree with Piaget that these abilities come at different times for everyone; no two people are created alike. However, I find myself agreeing with Vygotsky’s notions that our environment helps develop some of our abilities. I definitely think that the situations in which I put my 2-year-old help him develop at a faster speed. For example, he goes to a babysitter each day with children who are 3 and 4 years old. My nephew, who is only a few weeks younger than my son, goes to a daycare with children his exact age. My son speaks in 4 word sentences while my nephew speaks in sentences of mostly 2 words. Now, my nephew is also already potty-trained, and my son is not even close to being potty-trained. The difference? My nephew has an older brother, and he watches him. I don’t think that one of the two is smarter than the other or at a different cognitive stage; I simply think they are observant and imitate what they see. However, neither of them could solve a math problem at this stage no matter how much they tried; they simply aren’t at the stage of development.

I do think that teachers should use these theories to help them better understand the children in their classrooms. However, I can see that it may be a problem if a teacher subscribes or strongly believes in one of the theories over the other. Sometimes, belief in something that is too strong, no matter what it is, can have negative effects. Since I teach high school kids, these concepts don’t really impact how I run my classroom. All of my students are fully developed cognitively by the time they reach me, even though they are still developing skills for sure. If I have a student not grasping a certain skill, this information would help me think back to how the student thinks, and this may help me better understand him/her.

These ideas definitely make me think about early education a little differently. While I had heard of these concepts prior to this reading, I didn’t know about them in depth. No matter which theory one subscribes to, I think we can all agree with many of Slavin’s ideas at the end of the chapter on the importance of language and literacy. There is no doubt that parents play an integral role in the cognitive development of children; they must talk to them and read to them early and often.

Reference:

Slavin, Robert E. (2012). Educational Psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.