Introduction
I must say that this Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology class has gone by quickly. I began this course thinking that I already knew a great deal about the four “main” theories of learning: the behaviorist learning theory, the cognitive learning theory, the constructionist learning theory, and the social learning theory (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010a). However, what I found during this course was, while I did have a good idea as to what each theory entailed, I did not fully comprehend how each of the theories applied to strategies and technology implementation in my classroom. Also, I learned that there is a major difference between using technology as an instructional tool, and using it as a learning tool (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010b). Despite the fact that I learned a great deal during this course, it did not change my personal learning theories; in fact, it only aided in reinforcing them.
Reflection on my Personal Learning Theory
At the onset of the course I described my personal learning theory as a combination of three of the four “main” learning theories; and, that description has not been changed a great deal. Both before and now, my personal theory of learning combines parts of the cognitive theory with parts of the social theory, and even includes “a touch” of the behaviorist theory. The main modification that has been made to my personal learning theory is the realization that there is a difference in using technology as an instructional tool and using it as a learning tool. According to Dr. Orey, instructional technological tools are tools that the teacher uses to present information to the students; and, in comparison, learning technology tools are tools that students use “hands-on” to explore and learn about new concepts (Laureate Education, 2010b). In the past, I have considered using Power Point presentations when presenting materials to be a good cognitive learning tool for students, however, I now realize that the Power Point program was not being used as a learning tool, but rather a instructional tool; furthermore, I learned that this practice was not a best practice if I wanted to help my students learn and retain the information.
The other “modifications” to my personal learning theory were simple “additions” of ideas and tools that could be used in implementing my learning theories in the classroom. For instance, I now realize that there are tools like Webspiration and Voice Threads available to use when implementing activities in the classroom that are cognitive or behaviorist in nature. This course has helped to deepen my understanding of how learning theories, technologies, and teaching strategies are intertwined; and, this course has illustrated and provided multiple tools that are available in aiding the implementation of the four learning theories through the use of technology.
Adjustments to Instructional Practice
After Dr. Orey explained that simply using technology as instructional tools is not in the best benefit of the child, I realized that my use of technology to present information was not a best practice; and, realized that I should be incorporating technology in a method that uses technology as a learning tool (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010b). So, the main modification that I will be making to my instructional practice is to adjust my lessons so that they include technology in a manner that allows students to use technology “hands-on”. Instead of using Power Points to introduce concepts, I may have students view and work problems from voice threads, or I may have them research new concepts and present their findings to the class, or I may have them work on some other activity that is “hands-on” in nature.
Two technological tools that I plan to use with my students in the future are concept maps and voice threads. The use of concept maps will help support/enhance my students’ learning because concept maps allow students to tie concepts together in many different ways, which, according to cognitive learning theory, is important when it comes to adding information to the long term memory. Concept maps also tend to be very visual, tend to incorporate hands-on work, and tend to be accompanied with auditory explanations (the process of talking about the relationships within the map is auditory, and the process of actually creating the concept map is kinesthetic). And, the incorporation of all the senses when using concept maps is great, because, according to cognitive learning theory, integrating multiple senses when learning helps promote the transfer of information to long-term memory. Concept maps also support the tenets of cognitive theory by allowing students to use elaboration – multiple representations of ideas and new material-when learning; again, allowing for the transfer of information to the long term memory.
The use of voice threads will help support/enhance my student learning because it will allow students to communicate by commenting on previously made voice threads. Also, the voice threads appeal to all learning styles as well. Auditory learners benefit from listening to voice threads, listening to comments made on the voice thread, and if they are working in groups using voice threads, they benefit from the discussion among their classmates about the voice thread. Visual learners, on the other hand, benefit from actually viewing the voice thread; often, voice threads incorporate diagrams and pictures related to the topic of the voice thread, which is a great way to help students tie their previous knowledge to concepts they have to learn. Kinesthetic learners benefit from actually working the problems posed in voice threads, and from being able to stop, pause, and play the voice thread; furthermore, they benefit from being able to make comments on voice threads that have already been created. Voice threads also support and enhance learning because they can be used as social learning tools. According to the authors of the book “Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works”, technology plays “a unique and vital role in cooperative learning by facilitating group collaboration, providing structure for group tasks, and allowing members to communicate even if they are not working face to face” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, pg.140). I plan to use voice threads as a means to implement social learning theories into the classroom and support student learning.
As a result of this course, I have learned about numerous new tools that I can use to implement activities based on my personal learning theories; furthermore, these tools will help support and enhance my students’ learning. I especially like the tools that were related my the personal learning theories that I hold true. For example, in relation to the cognitive learning theory tools, I enjoyed learning about Webspiration, KWL charts, and how technology can be used to implement these tools into the classroom. In relation to my social learning theory beliefs, I enjoyed learning about social learning tools like Google Calendar, video makers, web pages, Power Points, voice threads, and Glogster. These tools can be implemented into class activities to enable students to work together, which, according to social learning theory, is a great way to help students learn and transfer information to their long-term memory (Laureate Education, Inc, 2010c).
Long-term Goals
The two strategies that I would like to become more proficient in with my classroom activities are as follows: 1) Using cues, questions and advanced organizers, and, 2) Summarizing and note taking. My long-term goal is to become proficient in implement both of the strategies above into my classroom activities. The two long-term goals that I chose to work on in my classroom both tie closely to Cognitive learning theories. Based on cognitive learning theories, we can assume that students will learn and retain information better and longer if the new information is presented in a way that allows for connections to students’ previous knowledge (Laureate Education, 2010d). There are many technological tools that support implementing cognitive learning theories in the classroom, and, my strategies for implementing these goals into my classroom involve technology. In the following paragraphs I will present my outline for implementing my two chosen strategies, and, thus, my strategy for working toward meeting my two long-term goals.
The first strategy I want to work on implementing in my classroom is the use of cues, questions, and advanced organizers. The use of cues, questions, and advanced organizers ties to cognitive learning theories because it allows students to tie their previous knowledge to new knowledge. They provide a sort of scaffolding. The KWL chart is one type of advanced organizer that I would like to use. The KWL chart gets student to thinking about what they are about to learn (Cue) and questioning what they know and what they need to know (Question). When students fill out the “Know” part, of the KWL chart, they are setting the stage for tying what they know about a subject to the new knowledge about the subject. Base on Cognitive learning theories, the process of tying the “know” to the “learned” will help students building strong ties and make neuron connects which should result in the information being stored in the long-term memory (Laureate Education, 2010d). According to Dr. Orey, long-term memories are stored in “networks of information”, where memories are inter-linked on different levels (Laureate Education, 2010d). Technology can be used in the implementation of KWL charts by using Microsoft Word to create the chart “skeleton”; then, the skeleton could be saved for students to modify and re-save. The “Know” and “Want” part could be filled out and saved, and the “Learned” part could be filled out at the end of each applicable lesson; thus, the students could reflect on what they knew, what they learned, and how the two are interrelated.
The second strategy that I would to incorporate into my classroom is the use of summarizing and note taking. The process of teaching students to take proper notes ties to cognitive learning theories because it help students “process” and contemplate new knowledge in efforts to summarize it and write down only the needed parts. According to chapter 6 of the textbook, one important ability for students to have is the ability to take good notes, process the notes, and “synthesize” the information (Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). According to Dr. Orey, one belief of those who adhere to the cognitive learning theories, is the belief that, through synthesizing and continual processing of that information, students are more likely to add that information to their long-term memory (Laureate Education, 2010d). Cognitive learning theory says that the more a student processes information, the more likely it is to be added to their long-term memory (Laureate Education, 2010d). Thus, the more a student thinks about what to or how to add to his/her notes, the more they focus on needed information (not unnecessary or repeated information), and create ties between the new concepts (Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). I like to think of “good” summarizing/note taking as a type of “deliberate” note taking (i.e. Not just writing down everything they see on the white board, or a PowerPoint slide, but processing what they see and taking down only the needed things). The technologies described in the next paragraph are not only cognitive learning tools, they also aid in teaching students good summarizing and note taking skills.
One technological tool that can be beneficial when teaching students to summarize and take “proper” notes is the Microsoft Word (or other word processing applications). I found the “AutoSummarize” tool available in Microsoft Word applications especially interesting (Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). One objective my students need to master is related to understanding the development of Geometry. Usually, in effort to have students meet this objective, I have them each research a different mathematician and then create a project showcasing the life of the mathematician. In the past, students were given a rubric of what was required, and, then, I allowed them to create a poster, a Power Point, an essay, or a Movie based on their research. In the future, I would like to have all students write an essay (hence their “notes” on the concept), and, then use the Microsoft Word AutoSummarize tool to narrow down what should go into their presentations. I have found that some students want to put “tons” of information into their presentations; but, maybe, through using the AutoSummarize tool they will be able to see which key points to “pull-out” and include in their presentation. At some point, I would also like to introduce students to the “NoteStar” website (http://notestar.4teachers.org), where they can help students take information that they find on the internet, organize it, and correctly site it (Pitler, Hubbel, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).
The integration of technology with the instructional strategies above will help me meet the diverse learning needs of your students because the strategy activities appeal to the different learning styles. The implementation of technologies in the two strategies listed above will not only enhance my student learning, it will also help me reach my long-term goals. To be an effective teacher, I need to be able to successfully implement my two long-term goals in my classroom.
Conclusion
I have found this Walden course to be very beneficial. Out of all of the previous courses I have taken, I believe that I have learned the most “relevant” information during this course. From this course, I learned about the “main” learning theories in great detail, I learned how those learning theories apply to education and the classroom. Furthermore, I learned about “new” technologies, and how those technologies can be used to implement effective learning/teaching strategies into the classroom.
Tonya Todd
References:
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010a). Program: Instructional Theory vs. Learning Theory [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010b). Program: Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010c) Program: Social Learning Theories [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2010d). Program: Cognitive Learning Theories [Webcast]. Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Pitler H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
