Kramarski, B. & Mizrachi, N. (2006) Online Discussion and Self-Regulated Learning: Effects on Intructional Methods on Mathematical Literacy. The Journal of Educational Research 99, 4, 218-230
The authors investigated the effects of online discussion embedded within metacognitive guidance on mathematical literacy and self-regulated learning (SRL). They compared 4 instructional methods: online discussion embedded within metacognitive guidance, online discussion without metacognitive guidance, face-to-face discussion with metacognitive guidance, and face-to-face discussion without metacognitive guidance. Results showed that the Online+Meta students significantly outperformed the Face-to-face+Meta students, who, in turn, significantly outperformed the Online and Face-to-face students on mathematical literacy of standard tasks, real-life tasks, and various aspects of self-regulated learning. In regard to Online students, results were mixed; these students outperformed the Face-to-face students on part of the criteria for standard problem-solving standard tasks and real-life tasks. The authors found no significant differences between the Online and Face-to-face students on SRL. In the end the authors result showed that training in metacognitive guidance and SRL strategies greatly improve students mathematica literacy in both environments and there was a greater improvement in the Online environment for those students who received the metacognitive guidance.
This article provides several practical methods for providing metacognitive guidance for students, particularly using the IMPROVE method (Mevarech & Kramarski 1997), which I will need to further investigate. The IMPROVE method uses 4 different question that students use to self-address themselves around the topics of comprehension, connection, strategy and reflection. Using such questioning allowed students to build on prior knowledge and to better understand the problem, process, and solution. This method will play an important role in investigating my research questions.
Some quotes:
PISA assesses mathematical literacy in relation to the content, process, and situations in which mathematics is used. Content refers to curriculum-based knowledge and mathematical big ideas, which indicate general properties, such as change and growth. Curriculum-based knowledge refers to standard tasks that describe simplified situations involving quantitative information which includes readymade algorithms that students must apply to solve a problem. Process refers to mathematical skills like problem solving, mathematical reasoning, argumentation, and communication; situations refer to contexts in daily life. Real-life tasks employ realistic data that often (a) are incomplete or inconsistent, (b) provide rich information about the described situation, (c) include complex mathematical data, (d) are approached in different ways, (e) are based on a wide range of mathematical knowledge and skills, and (f) often ask solvers to use different representations in their solutions. By assigning students tasks based on situations that represent the kinds of problems encountered in real life, educators impart challenging tasks that are relevant to the students’ world (OECD, 2003). (218)
Self-regulation is “a major objective of mathematics education and a crucial characteristic of effective mathematics learning” (De Corte, Verscaffel, & Eynde, 2000, p. 721). PISA describes SRL as a style of activities for problem solving that includes three phases: (a) analyzing tasks and setting goals; (b) thinking of strategies and choosing the most appropriate strategy for solving the problem; and (c) monitoring and controlling behaviors, cognitions, and motivations by enlisting strategies, such as attention control, encoding control, and self-instruction. Research (e.g., OECD) indicates that relationships exist between SRL and academic achievement and that SRL is teachable to students (e.g., Kramarski & Mevarech; Mevarech & Kramarski; Schoenfeld, 1992). (219)
Several reasons may account for the results. First, students who used IMPROVE self-questioning (Online+Meta, Ftf+Meta) actively monitored and controlled their interactions with environment learning. That, in turn, enhanced the students’ knowledge about SRL; students who were not exposed to such guidance (Online, Ftf), however, were more motivationally and metacognitively passive when they received instructions, which, in turn, affected low SRL. (228)
Our findings extend to other research that indicates that SRL is teachable and that students who are exposed to metacognitive guidance have more knowledge about orienting and self-judging themselves than do students in control groups. Researchers noted that metacognitive knowledge is related positively to academic performance. (228)
Moreover, we found that Online+Meta students justified their reasoning mathematically to solve online tasks more often than did Online students. Online students based their reasoning on repeating their final result without explaining how they
obtained it. (228)
When students explain and justify their thinking and challenge the explanations of their peers, they also clarify their own beliefs. (228)
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Dede, C. (2007). Transforming Education for the 21st Century: New Pedagogies that Help All Students Attain Sophisticated Learning Outcomes.
Dede, C. (2007). Transforming Education for the 21st Century: New Pedagogies that Help All Students Attain Sophisticated Learning Outcomes. Retrieved April 26, 2010, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~dedech/Dede_21stC-skills_semi-final.pdf
Summary:
Commissioned by the William and Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University, Dede’s report outlines the goals and challenges that the Friday Institute faces in their quest to find innovative and transformative methods of teaching and learning in today’s global economy.
Although it is not entirely possible to predict what students will need in the long term, based on the recent past, Dede suggests that the future can be “forecasted,” and therefore strategies should be implemented based on that knowledge. He observes that ICT has become “a means of individual and collective expression, experience, and interpretation” in the workplace, but that in schools, ICT is merely being used as a means of increasing efficiency. He also notes that student’s lives are entrenched in ICT, and because this shows no signs of lessening, it is essential that education begins to use it to its potential and educate students about the benefits and pitfalls. Dede also explains that it is safe to assume that in the near future, “almost all types of routine cognitive tasks [will be] done by computers” and our job will be to be able to communicate and think critically about the information the computers give us.
Dede goes on to discuss his predictions about the trends that are emerging in the workplace and what employers are looking for in workers, and how education must look to these predictions to make important changes to the education system. He discusses the ways that education has served students in the 20th century and how looking to the needs of current and future workplaces is essential in designing reforms to curriculum.
He goes on to compare the use of ITC in the classroom to how a carpenter would use his tools to complete his job; making the job easier and creating a higher quality result. He recommends the development of “cyberinfrastructures” to facilitate the changes for these future classrooms. He also believes that these types of classrooms, using emerging interactive media can create an environment that will facilitate this learning.
“World- to- the- desktop” interfaces, Multi-user virtual environments (MUVE), and Augmented Reality are three examples of these emerging interactive medias. All three of these examples help to facilitate situated learning which improves engagement, transfer, and immersion. Dede and his colleagues created River City MUVE (http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/) where students work in teams of three to collaboratively solve the problem of why the residents of River City are falling ill. The curriculum addresses state standards in science and much more. He explains this curriculum in full detail. He also defines an Augmented Reality project called Alien Contact! Both projects use ICT to educate students in both the content standards and the 21st century skills discussed in this report.
Reflection:
In my quest for information to support my research question, Dede’s detailed discussion of 21st century skills that students will need in the near future supports the need not only for ICT knowledge, but also for competence in collaboration and communication. His outline of possible projects that will increase engagement, transfer, and immersion all use highly evolved levels of ICT, and so feel out of reach to me at this point. However, the research conducted to detail these solutions is very helpful to my own. Both the River City MUVE and the Alien Contact! Augmented reality project both seem like amazing opportunities for learning. All of this solidifies my decision to focus on student communication and collaboration. Informational technology will change, as it has changed rapidly in the past 10 years, but the ability to effectively communicate and work collaborative is a skill that will last their lifetime.
Relevant Quotes:
Thus, what we are really attempting to discern is the core
capabilities people will need in the first part of the 21st century – say fifteen to thirty years hence – to qualify for an attractive, prosperous job and lifestyle. (3)
Education should prepare students for a world in which almost all types of routine
cognitive tasks are done by computers and in which expert thinking and complex
communications are the core intellectual capabilities by which people attain prosperity
and economic security individually, as a region, and as a nation. (9)
For example, “collaboration” is a perennial capability, always valued as a trait in
workplaces across the centuries; as such, the basic value of this interpersonal performance is not intrinsically special to our emerging economic context. Arguably, however, the degree of importance for collaborative capacity is growing in an era where work is increasingly done by teams of people with complementary expertise and roles, as opposed to individuals doing manual operations on an assembly line (Karoly, 2004). Thus, even though perennial in nature, collaboration is worthy of inclusion as a 21st century performance because, for the context in which today’s students will function as adults, the importance of cooperativeinterpersonal capabilities is substantially higher than in the prior industrial era. (16)
This is not a situation in we must eliminate an equivalent amount of current curriculum foreach 21st century understanding added, because better pedagogical methods can lead to fastermastery and improved retention, enabling less reteaching and more coverage within the sametimeframe (Van Lehn and the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, 2006).(19)
If we use the conceptual framework delineated above to apply the three observations
about impacts of sophisticated ICT on society (individual and collective expression,
experience, and interpretation; distributed cognition and action; erosion of routine tasks infavor of expert decision making and complex communications capabilities) (20)
In particular, which 21st century performances are most crucial to
emphasize, from the perspective of both importance and relative neglect in the curriculum at present? In the current frameworks of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2006) and similar initiatives (ETS, 2002; NCREL/Metiri, 2003; Leitch Review of Skills, 2006; AACU,2007), which core understandings are omitted or underemphasized? (20)
Potential factors leading to subpar educational performance include individual differences in native language, gender, culture, and socioeconomic status;
teachers’ experience and preparation in mathematical content, subject-specific pedagogy,
classroom management, and student engagement; state and district policies related to
educational reform, the curricular materials used in mathematics, and the capacity of the
technology infrastructure at local schools, among others. Under these circumstances,
individual and collective skills in problem finding, inquiry, metacognition, collaboration,expert decision making, complex communication, and use of ICT tools, communicative media, and representations are vital to the team’s success. (22)
Little time is spent on building capabilities in group interpretation, negotiation of
shared meaning, and co-construction of problem resolutions. The communication skills
stressed are those of simple presentation, rather than the capacity to engage in richly
structured interactions that articulate perspectives unfamiliar to the audience. As discussed earlier, ICT applications and representations are largely used to automate traditional methods of teaching and learning, rather to model complexity and express insights to others. Face-to_face communication is seen as the “gold standard,” so students develop few capabilities in mediated dialogue and in shared design within a common virtual workspace. The discussion above suggests the importance of embedding students’ understandings in performances they can fluently accomplish. In the workplace, employees prove their worth through performances (e.g., collaboration), based on understandings but instantiated in sophisticated behaviors. In effective job settings, performances are part of an organizational culture that includes the provision of requisite tools, respect for all occupational roles,rewards for leadership and innovation; employees are part of a sociocultural, situated community of practice (Wenger, 1998). To prepare students for a prosperous and secure future, educators need to build not just understandings, but experiences in a community of practice that develops fluent, sophisticated behaviors – yet classrooms today typically lack
this type of learning and teaching, in part because high-stakes tests do not assess these
competencies. (23)
Information and communication technologies (ICT) aid with representing content, engaging learners, modeling skills, and assessing students’ progress in a manner parallel to how a carpenter would use a saw,hammer, screwdriver, and wrench to help construct an artifact. The two key points in this analogy are (1) the tools make the job easier and (2) the result is of higher quality than possible without the tools. (25)
Dede (2005b) describes the types of learning strengths, styles and preferences
“neomillennial” students acquire from their use of immersive collaborative media, such as
multiplayer online games:
• Fluency in multiple media, valuing each for the types of communication, activities,
experiences, and expressions it empowers.
• Learning based on collectively seeking, sieving, and synthesizing experiences, rather than
individually locating and absorbing information from some single best source.
• Active learning based on experience (real and simulated) that includes frequent
opportunities for reflection.
• Expression through non-linear, associational webs of representations rather than linear
“stories” (e.g., authoring a simulation and a webpage to express understanding, rather
than a paper).
• Co-design of learning experiences personalized to individual needs and preferences.
As discussed later, using immersive collaborative simulations in classroom settings offers apowerful method for building on these learning strengths and preferences to nurture 21st century understandings and performances. (26)
Reports such as the National Research Council’s How People Learn (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 2000) cite situated theories of learning (mentoring and apprenticeships in communities of practice) as powerful in life, but very difficult to achieve in school settings. Emerging interactive media now have the capability to redress this deficit. (32)
One may ask how attaining sophisticated 21st century understandings and performances relates to the third goal of equity for underserved educational populations.
After all, aren’t the understandings and performances described in this paper quite
sophisticated, and is not equity about helping struggling students disadvantaged in learning to master even basic knowledge and skills? But this paper is written from the premise that all students can attain advanced educational outcomes if they are taught in a manner that unlocks their trapped intelligence and engagement by building on their interests and learning styles outside of school settings. Our research in MUVEs and AR is establishing that even the bottom third of students who struggle with remedial curricula can learn sophisticated 21st century understandings and performances when taught using 21st century pedagogies and 21st century learning technologies. In contrast, “dumbing down” an already inadequate school curriculum and intensively implementing instructional approaches that have already failed with these pupils is a guarantee of continuing to throw away huge amounts of human talent at a time when our nation desperately needs this intellectual capacity and social justice demands
that we seek alternative, more effective educational strategies. (47-48)
Resources
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st
century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Naperville, IL: NCREL. Downloaded from
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/engauge21st.pdf on December 27, 2006
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). A state leader’s action guide to 21st century skills: A new vision for education. Tucson, AZ: Author. Downloaded from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/stateleaders071906.pdf on December 28,
2006.
Summary:
Commissioned by the William and Ida Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University, Dede’s report outlines the goals and challenges that the Friday Institute faces in their quest to find innovative and transformative methods of teaching and learning in today’s global economy.
Although it is not entirely possible to predict what students will need in the long term, based on the recent past, Dede suggests that the future can be “forecasted,” and therefore strategies should be implemented based on that knowledge. He observes that ICT has become “a means of individual and collective expression, experience, and interpretation” in the workplace, but that in schools, ICT is merely being used as a means of increasing efficiency. He also notes that student’s lives are entrenched in ICT, and because this shows no signs of lessening, it is essential that education begins to use it to its potential and educate students about the benefits and pitfalls. Dede also explains that it is safe to assume that in the near future, “almost all types of routine cognitive tasks [will be] done by computers” and our job will be to be able to communicate and think critically about the information the computers give us.
Dede goes on to discuss his predictions about the trends that are emerging in the workplace and what employers are looking for in workers, and how education must look to these predictions to make important changes to the education system. He discusses the ways that education has served students in the 20th century and how looking to the needs of current and future workplaces is essential in designing reforms to curriculum.
He goes on to compare the use of ITC in the classroom to how a carpenter would use his tools to complete his job; making the job easier and creating a higher quality result. He recommends the development of “cyberinfrastructures” to facilitate the changes for these future classrooms. He also believes that these types of classrooms, using emerging interactive media can create an environment that will facilitate this learning.
“World- to- the- desktop” interfaces, Multi-user virtual environments (MUVE), and Augmented Reality are three examples of these emerging interactive medias. All three of these examples help to facilitate situated learning which improves engagement, transfer, and immersion. Dede and his colleagues created River City MUVE (http://muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/) where students work in teams of three to collaboratively solve the problem of why the residents of River City are falling ill. The curriculum addresses state standards in science and much more. He explains this curriculum in full detail. He also defines an Augmented Reality project called Alien Contact! Both projects use ICT to educate students in both the content standards and the 21st century skills discussed in this report.
Reflection:
In my quest for information to support my research question, Dede’s detailed discussion of 21st century skills that students will need in the near future supports the need not only for ICT knowledge, but also for competence in collaboration and communication. His outline of possible projects that will increase engagement, transfer, and immersion all use highly evolved levels of ICT, and so feel out of reach to me at this point. However, the research conducted to detail these solutions is very helpful to my own. Both the River City MUVE and the Alien Contact! Augmented reality project both seem like amazing opportunities for learning. All of this solidifies my decision to focus on student communication and collaboration. Informational technology will change, as it has changed rapidly in the past 10 years, but the ability to effectively communicate and work collaborative is a skill that will last their lifetime.
Relevant Quotes:
Thus, what we are really attempting to discern is the core
capabilities people will need in the first part of the 21st century – say fifteen to thirty years hence – to qualify for an attractive, prosperous job and lifestyle. (3)
Education should prepare students for a world in which almost all types of routine
cognitive tasks are done by computers and in which expert thinking and complex
communications are the core intellectual capabilities by which people attain prosperity
and economic security individually, as a region, and as a nation. (9)
For example, “collaboration” is a perennial capability, always valued as a trait in
workplaces across the centuries; as such, the basic value of this interpersonal performance is not intrinsically special to our emerging economic context. Arguably, however, the degree of importance for collaborative capacity is growing in an era where work is increasingly done by teams of people with complementary expertise and roles, as opposed to individuals doing manual operations on an assembly line (Karoly, 2004). Thus, even though perennial in nature, collaboration is worthy of inclusion as a 21st century performance because, for the context in which today’s students will function as adults, the importance of cooperativeinterpersonal capabilities is substantially higher than in the prior industrial era. (16)
This is not a situation in we must eliminate an equivalent amount of current curriculum foreach 21st century understanding added, because better pedagogical methods can lead to fastermastery and improved retention, enabling less reteaching and more coverage within the sametimeframe (Van Lehn and the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center, 2006).(19)
If we use the conceptual framework delineated above to apply the three observations
about impacts of sophisticated ICT on society (individual and collective expression,
experience, and interpretation; distributed cognition and action; erosion of routine tasks infavor of expert decision making and complex communications capabilities) (20)
In particular, which 21st century performances are most crucial to
emphasize, from the perspective of both importance and relative neglect in the curriculum at present? In the current frameworks of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2006) and similar initiatives (ETS, 2002; NCREL/Metiri, 2003; Leitch Review of Skills, 2006; AACU,2007), which core understandings are omitted or underemphasized? (20)
Potential factors leading to subpar educational performance include individual differences in native language, gender, culture, and socioeconomic status;
teachers’ experience and preparation in mathematical content, subject-specific pedagogy,
classroom management, and student engagement; state and district policies related to
educational reform, the curricular materials used in mathematics, and the capacity of the
technology infrastructure at local schools, among others. Under these circumstances,
individual and collective skills in problem finding, inquiry, metacognition, collaboration,expert decision making, complex communication, and use of ICT tools, communicative media, and representations are vital to the team’s success. (22)
Little time is spent on building capabilities in group interpretation, negotiation of
shared meaning, and co-construction of problem resolutions. The communication skills
stressed are those of simple presentation, rather than the capacity to engage in richly
structured interactions that articulate perspectives unfamiliar to the audience. As discussed earlier, ICT applications and representations are largely used to automate traditional methods of teaching and learning, rather to model complexity and express insights to others. Face-to_face communication is seen as the “gold standard,” so students develop few capabilities in mediated dialogue and in shared design within a common virtual workspace. The discussion above suggests the importance of embedding students’ understandings in performances they can fluently accomplish. In the workplace, employees prove their worth through performances (e.g., collaboration), based on understandings but instantiated in sophisticated behaviors. In effective job settings, performances are part of an organizational culture that includes the provision of requisite tools, respect for all occupational roles,rewards for leadership and innovation; employees are part of a sociocultural, situated community of practice (Wenger, 1998). To prepare students for a prosperous and secure future, educators need to build not just understandings, but experiences in a community of practice that develops fluent, sophisticated behaviors – yet classrooms today typically lack
this type of learning and teaching, in part because high-stakes tests do not assess these
competencies. (23)
Information and communication technologies (ICT) aid with representing content, engaging learners, modeling skills, and assessing students’ progress in a manner parallel to how a carpenter would use a saw,hammer, screwdriver, and wrench to help construct an artifact. The two key points in this analogy are (1) the tools make the job easier and (2) the result is of higher quality than possible without the tools. (25)
Dede (2005b) describes the types of learning strengths, styles and preferences
“neomillennial” students acquire from their use of immersive collaborative media, such as
multiplayer online games:
• Fluency in multiple media, valuing each for the types of communication, activities,
experiences, and expressions it empowers.
• Learning based on collectively seeking, sieving, and synthesizing experiences, rather than
individually locating and absorbing information from some single best source.
• Active learning based on experience (real and simulated) that includes frequent
opportunities for reflection.
• Expression through non-linear, associational webs of representations rather than linear
“stories” (e.g., authoring a simulation and a webpage to express understanding, rather
than a paper).
• Co-design of learning experiences personalized to individual needs and preferences.
As discussed later, using immersive collaborative simulations in classroom settings offers apowerful method for building on these learning strengths and preferences to nurture 21st century understandings and performances. (26)
Reports such as the National Research Council’s How People Learn (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, 2000) cite situated theories of learning (mentoring and apprenticeships in communities of practice) as powerful in life, but very difficult to achieve in school settings. Emerging interactive media now have the capability to redress this deficit. (32)
One may ask how attaining sophisticated 21st century understandings and performances relates to the third goal of equity for underserved educational populations.
After all, aren’t the understandings and performances described in this paper quite
sophisticated, and is not equity about helping struggling students disadvantaged in learning to master even basic knowledge and skills? But this paper is written from the premise that all students can attain advanced educational outcomes if they are taught in a manner that unlocks their trapped intelligence and engagement by building on their interests and learning styles outside of school settings. Our research in MUVEs and AR is establishing that even the bottom third of students who struggle with remedial curricula can learn sophisticated 21st century understandings and performances when taught using 21st century pedagogies and 21st century learning technologies. In contrast, “dumbing down” an already inadequate school curriculum and intensively implementing instructional approaches that have already failed with these pupils is a guarantee of continuing to throw away huge amounts of human talent at a time when our nation desperately needs this intellectual capacity and social justice demands
that we seek alternative, more effective educational strategies. (47-48)
Resources
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and the Metiri Group. (2003). enGauge 21st
century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Naperville, IL: NCREL. Downloaded from
http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/skills/engauge21st.pdf on December 27, 2006
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). A state leader’s action guide to 21st century skills: A new vision for education. Tucson, AZ: Author. Downloaded from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/stateleaders071906.pdf on December 28,
2006.
Making practice public: teacher learning in the 21st century.
Making practice public: teacher learning in the 21st century.(Report)
Lieberman, Ann, and Desiree Pointer Mace. "Making practice public: teacher learning in the 21st century." Journal of Teacher Education 61.1-2 (2010): 77+. Educators 200 Collection. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
Summary
The authors argue that new technology beckons teachers forth into a new era of social networking and professional development. The argument is prefaced by a thorough review of the research, and they discuss the growth of professional communities as they exist in schools today. The article presents the 10-year experiment at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in detail, and how new techniques with technology were used in both preserve and professional development to make practices public.
Reflection
The authors’ focus on examining student work and making practices public makes me reflect on the professional community that already exists at my school. Although we do not make use of all the technology that our students use, we do a great deal of sharing our students’ work with one another. This makes the school-wide exhibition of projects all the more important, because it is a singular occasion where all classrooms display student work for the public. However, I also wonder about what would happen if we did this more intentionally? It’s been several years since we’ve examined different artifacts of student learning.
Quotations
“Many of us now have daily access to computers, cell phone cameras, and other multimedia tools. We use them to connect with our friends and families, but we have yet to capture the potential of these connections for professional learning. If teachers each start small--scanning a piece of student work, videotaping a conversation with a student, envisioning how they might share the events and artifacts of their practice--and then take the first step of asking a colleague (next door or online) to examine it with them, new conversations happen. Together, teaching professionals consider the subtleties of relational practice and strategize about how to improve student learning. Teachers don't have to wait for a monthly release inservice hour to reflect on their practice; doing so emerges from one's teaching and becomes part of daily practice. If a teacher can find time to reunite with former students, friends, and classmates online, it's a small next step to engage in conversation about teaching and learning.”
“What we have proposed in this article is a vision for professional learning initiatives that is democratic, participatory, and inexpensive. "Growing your own" professional development means granting value to the everyday decisions that shape teaching and learning in classrooms. Just as a local-foods gardener is invested in the daily care to grow food that will grace the tables of his or her community, teachers can access a greater investment in their own knowledge and expertise by sharing the fruits of their labors with each other. This task is not intended to result in one standard for teaching and learning (like the search for a perfectly round tomato) but to recognize the different heirloom varietals of accomplished teaching practices already in place, refining themselves over years and decades in schools. This vision of professional learning is intentionally local, humble, sustainable, and intended to nourish both individuals and their communities. But it is predicated on a vision of sharing your practices with others, which starts with each of us.”
"For many years, researchers have written about the isolation of teachers and the harm that it brings to their continued learning and development (Lieberman & Miller, 1984; Lortie, 1975; Sarason, 1982). More than 25 years ago, researchers began to look at the importance of collegiality among teachers (Little, 1982, 1986) to see whether it made a difference in the professional development of teachers. Little's (1982, 1986) seminal work showed that teachers who planned and worked together over time built commitment not only to each other but to further learning. Even the act of "struggling" together at the same time in the same ways helped teachers to master new practices. Some researchers warned that without the necessary supports, collegiality could be "contrived" (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 165). Policies, Hargreaves (2003) argued, could get in the way of collegiality by putting too many requirements and restrictions on allowing teachers to grow the necessary relationships and shared work."
"It has been only quite recently that researchers and policy makers have recognized that our current mode of providing professional development for teachers needs radical change (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Fullan, 1995; Knapp, 2003; Lieberman & Miller, 2001). Researchers have played an important role in not only critiquing professional development that promises real change with only a few workshops but also bringing a new language and new evidence of what it will take to turn the isolation of teachers into professional learning communities. McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) studied high schools in Michigan and California and have provided us with the first in-depth study of communities of teachers in secondary schools. They found that subject matter departments were either "moving" or "stuck," referring to their openness to change or their sticking to the status quo. Departments were either "weak," "strong-traditional," or "strong innovative." They either "enacted tradition," "lowered standards and expectations of students," or "innovatively engaged students." The idea of a professional community encompassed collegiality but gave us a more nuanced picture, not only of how teachers learn to work together but also of how teaching and learning are connected differentially in various types of communities."
Lieberman, Ann, and Desiree Pointer Mace. "Making practice public: teacher learning in the 21st century." Journal of Teacher Education 61.1-2 (2010): 77+. Educators 200 Collection. Web. 13 Apr. 2010.
Summary
The authors argue that new technology beckons teachers forth into a new era of social networking and professional development. The argument is prefaced by a thorough review of the research, and they discuss the growth of professional communities as they exist in schools today. The article presents the 10-year experiment at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in detail, and how new techniques with technology were used in both preserve and professional development to make practices public.
Reflection
The authors’ focus on examining student work and making practices public makes me reflect on the professional community that already exists at my school. Although we do not make use of all the technology that our students use, we do a great deal of sharing our students’ work with one another. This makes the school-wide exhibition of projects all the more important, because it is a singular occasion where all classrooms display student work for the public. However, I also wonder about what would happen if we did this more intentionally? It’s been several years since we’ve examined different artifacts of student learning.
Quotations
“Many of us now have daily access to computers, cell phone cameras, and other multimedia tools. We use them to connect with our friends and families, but we have yet to capture the potential of these connections for professional learning. If teachers each start small--scanning a piece of student work, videotaping a conversation with a student, envisioning how they might share the events and artifacts of their practice--and then take the first step of asking a colleague (next door or online) to examine it with them, new conversations happen. Together, teaching professionals consider the subtleties of relational practice and strategize about how to improve student learning. Teachers don't have to wait for a monthly release inservice hour to reflect on their practice; doing so emerges from one's teaching and becomes part of daily practice. If a teacher can find time to reunite with former students, friends, and classmates online, it's a small next step to engage in conversation about teaching and learning.”
“What we have proposed in this article is a vision for professional learning initiatives that is democratic, participatory, and inexpensive. "Growing your own" professional development means granting value to the everyday decisions that shape teaching and learning in classrooms. Just as a local-foods gardener is invested in the daily care to grow food that will grace the tables of his or her community, teachers can access a greater investment in their own knowledge and expertise by sharing the fruits of their labors with each other. This task is not intended to result in one standard for teaching and learning (like the search for a perfectly round tomato) but to recognize the different heirloom varietals of accomplished teaching practices already in place, refining themselves over years and decades in schools. This vision of professional learning is intentionally local, humble, sustainable, and intended to nourish both individuals and their communities. But it is predicated on a vision of sharing your practices with others, which starts with each of us.”
"For many years, researchers have written about the isolation of teachers and the harm that it brings to their continued learning and development (Lieberman & Miller, 1984; Lortie, 1975; Sarason, 1982). More than 25 years ago, researchers began to look at the importance of collegiality among teachers (Little, 1982, 1986) to see whether it made a difference in the professional development of teachers. Little's (1982, 1986) seminal work showed that teachers who planned and worked together over time built commitment not only to each other but to further learning. Even the act of "struggling" together at the same time in the same ways helped teachers to master new practices. Some researchers warned that without the necessary supports, collegiality could be "contrived" (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 165). Policies, Hargreaves (2003) argued, could get in the way of collegiality by putting too many requirements and restrictions on allowing teachers to grow the necessary relationships and shared work."
"It has been only quite recently that researchers and policy makers have recognized that our current mode of providing professional development for teachers needs radical change (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Fullan, 1995; Knapp, 2003; Lieberman & Miller, 2001). Researchers have played an important role in not only critiquing professional development that promises real change with only a few workshops but also bringing a new language and new evidence of what it will take to turn the isolation of teachers into professional learning communities. McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) studied high schools in Michigan and California and have provided us with the first in-depth study of communities of teachers in secondary schools. They found that subject matter departments were either "moving" or "stuck," referring to their openness to change or their sticking to the status quo. Departments were either "weak," "strong-traditional," or "strong innovative." They either "enacted tradition," "lowered standards and expectations of students," or "innovatively engaged students." The idea of a professional community encompassed collegiality but gave us a more nuanced picture, not only of how teachers learn to work together but also of how teaching and learning are connected differentially in various types of communities."
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Commentary: toward a cyclically interactive view of self-regulated learning.
Zimmerman, B. (1999) Commentary: toward a cyclically interactive view of self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 545-551
In Zimmerman’s review of all the chapters of the current volume of the journal he addresses five key aspects of self-regulation as it pertains to students efforts to learn: goal setting, strategy use, context adaptations, social processes, and self monitoring. There is not clear method or strategy that is the cure all for student self-regulation, but as Zimmerman concludes the process is a cyclical one in which students set goals and make strategic plans for learning based upon self evaluation and monitoring of previous experience and those goals influence the strategy use that will best achieve those goals. This process is cyclical because students need to always be monitoring themselves so as to be moving forward in the direction toward their goals. Goal setting is a big step in self-regulation, but if students are unable to make realistic goals or self monitor and evaluate their progress then those goals mean nothing. For students who are poor self-regulators training first needs to happen in the area of self monitoring and evaluation prior to discussions of proper goal setting. Zimmerman’s commentary on the other chapters of this volume has done the dual purpose of helping the reader understand the big ideas discussed and leads the reader to a desire to research more into the other articles discussed.
Some relevant quotes:
The process of goal setting was widely emphasized. Lemos suggests that establishing goals is the most important subprocess in self-regulation because they serve as self-defining reference points that determine the nature of subsequent self-regulatory processes, such as planning, executing, and monitoring. For example, she describes intentionality as linking a goal with a plan to attain it. When goals are valued and a learner is committed to their attainment, they become a primary source of personal motivation. Goal setting is influenced by motivational beliefs and other self-regulatory
processes. (545)
Niemivirta also found that some highly motivated students set overly ambitious recall goals for themselves and this led to more errors in performance. Clearly goal setting must be linked to
accurate self-evaluations to be elective. (545)
He found that a general measure of self-regulation correlated positively with students' orientation toward mastery goals and negatively with their orientation toward extrinsic goals. Self-regulation was also positively correlated with students' orientations toward relative ability goals in his research. (546)
It should be noted that goal setting and goal orientation are distinctive but associated constructs. Goal setting refers to specific outcomes that can be attained at a certain time; research has shown that the specificity, proximity, and challenge of these goals are important properties related to their attainment (Schunk, 1996). In contrast, goal orientation refers to preferences for general classes of goals, such as for acquiring greater mastery, extrinsic outcomes, or relatively ability. It is not clear that these goals are ever achieved at any single point in the future, but rather, they represent classes of goals that are valued by the learner. (546)
Vauras, Rauhanummi, Kinninen, and Lepola pointed out that assessing students' knowledge of learning strategies will not necessarily predict their self-regulated use of these strategies. These researchers discovered that although most students seem to acquire knowledge of strategies from training, many failed to use the strategies in a coordinated and successful way. (547)
Learners who see self-regulation as an acquired skill will regard external supports, such as teachers or coaches, as benficial rather than as controlling and self-limiting. (548)
In Zimmerman’s review of all the chapters of the current volume of the journal he addresses five key aspects of self-regulation as it pertains to students efforts to learn: goal setting, strategy use, context adaptations, social processes, and self monitoring. There is not clear method or strategy that is the cure all for student self-regulation, but as Zimmerman concludes the process is a cyclical one in which students set goals and make strategic plans for learning based upon self evaluation and monitoring of previous experience and those goals influence the strategy use that will best achieve those goals. This process is cyclical because students need to always be monitoring themselves so as to be moving forward in the direction toward their goals. Goal setting is a big step in self-regulation, but if students are unable to make realistic goals or self monitor and evaluate their progress then those goals mean nothing. For students who are poor self-regulators training first needs to happen in the area of self monitoring and evaluation prior to discussions of proper goal setting. Zimmerman’s commentary on the other chapters of this volume has done the dual purpose of helping the reader understand the big ideas discussed and leads the reader to a desire to research more into the other articles discussed.
Some relevant quotes:
The process of goal setting was widely emphasized. Lemos suggests that establishing goals is the most important subprocess in self-regulation because they serve as self-defining reference points that determine the nature of subsequent self-regulatory processes, such as planning, executing, and monitoring. For example, she describes intentionality as linking a goal with a plan to attain it. When goals are valued and a learner is committed to their attainment, they become a primary source of personal motivation. Goal setting is influenced by motivational beliefs and other self-regulatory
processes. (545)
Niemivirta also found that some highly motivated students set overly ambitious recall goals for themselves and this led to more errors in performance. Clearly goal setting must be linked to
accurate self-evaluations to be elective. (545)
He found that a general measure of self-regulation correlated positively with students' orientation toward mastery goals and negatively with their orientation toward extrinsic goals. Self-regulation was also positively correlated with students' orientations toward relative ability goals in his research. (546)
It should be noted that goal setting and goal orientation are distinctive but associated constructs. Goal setting refers to specific outcomes that can be attained at a certain time; research has shown that the specificity, proximity, and challenge of these goals are important properties related to their attainment (Schunk, 1996). In contrast, goal orientation refers to preferences for general classes of goals, such as for acquiring greater mastery, extrinsic outcomes, or relatively ability. It is not clear that these goals are ever achieved at any single point in the future, but rather, they represent classes of goals that are valued by the learner. (546)
Vauras, Rauhanummi, Kinninen, and Lepola pointed out that assessing students' knowledge of learning strategies will not necessarily predict their self-regulated use of these strategies. These researchers discovered that although most students seem to acquire knowledge of strategies from training, many failed to use the strategies in a coordinated and successful way. (547)
Learners who see self-regulation as an acquired skill will regard external supports, such as teachers or coaches, as benficial rather than as controlling and self-limiting. (548)
Digital posters: Composing with an online canvas
Hodgson, Kevin (2010, April) Digital posters: composing with an online canvas, retrieved April 25, 2010 from www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/6542?ref=search.
Summary
In the article Digital posters: Composing with and online canvas, Kevni Hodgson takes us inside his sixth grade classroom to show us his students’ conversion from demonstrating their understanding through posters to glogging. What’s glogging, you ask? Hodgson states, “It’s an odd moniker, or name, which morphs the words graphic and weblog together.” Glogs allow students to create posters on a virtual canvas and allow uses to embed videos, audio files and images. Using the educational-based Glogster, http://edu.glogster.com/, teachers can set up virtual classrooms and create accounts for their students. Students can login through the teacher’s account and go about glogging. One of the advantages of this setup is that the teacher decides when the glog should go public and students’ identity is protected.
Reflection
This is why I found this article fascinating:
-teachers can communicate on the glogster site to students about their glog, what’s working, what’s not
-students’ names are confidential
-a glog is not only visual literacy, but can be embedded with a podcast or video, thus potentially providing more depth than a paper poster
-links in the article took you to glogster.com, examples of student work, and other resources
-the author points out the strengths and pitfalls of glogging
Summary
In the article Digital posters: Composing with and online canvas, Kevni Hodgson takes us inside his sixth grade classroom to show us his students’ conversion from demonstrating their understanding through posters to glogging. What’s glogging, you ask? Hodgson states, “It’s an odd moniker, or name, which morphs the words graphic and weblog together.” Glogs allow students to create posters on a virtual canvas and allow uses to embed videos, audio files and images. Using the educational-based Glogster, http://edu.glogster.com/, teachers can set up virtual classrooms and create accounts for their students. Students can login through the teacher’s account and go about glogging. One of the advantages of this setup is that the teacher decides when the glog should go public and students’ identity is protected.
Reflection
This is why I found this article fascinating:
-teachers can communicate on the glogster site to students about their glog, what’s working, what’s not
-students’ names are confidential
-a glog is not only visual literacy, but can be embedded with a podcast or video, thus potentially providing more depth than a paper poster
-links in the article took you to glogster.com, examples of student work, and other resources
-the author points out the strengths and pitfalls of glogging