Pedalogical beliefs…
The intention of this reading was to examine the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their technology practices.
According to Becker (2000), computers serve as a “valuable and well-functioning instructional tool” (p. 29) in schools and classrooms in which teachers: (a) have convenient access, (b) are adequately prepared, (c) have some freedom in the curriculum, and (d) hold personal beliefs aligned with a constructivist pedagogy.
Increased access to technology means increased opportunities for teachers to gain technology skills. The majority of teachers (85%) now report feeling “somewhat well-prepared” to use technology in the classroom.
Link between Beliefs and Practice
“Few would argue that the beliefs teachers hold influence their perceptions and judgments, which in turn, affect their behaviour in the classroom . . .”
A teacher’s beliefs and attitudes tend to set the style of teaching and learning that will take place in the classroom often evident across different classes and grade levels.
Some researchers have described inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices (Calderhead, 1996; Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, & Ross, 2001; Fang, 1996; Kane et al., 2002). For example, Fang expresses a number of studies in which researchers found little relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructionalreading practices, and suggested that contextual factors interfered with teachers’ ability to consistently apply their beliefs in practice. Results from a study of technology-using teachers supported this as well.
Nature of Beliefs
The potential power of beliefs as an influence on behaviour is inherently related to the nature of beliefs
Early episodes or events, then, have the potential to colour perceptions of subsequent events, especially if early experiences are particularly unique or vivid.
In addition, because of their highly personal nature, beliefs are unlikely to be affected by persuasion. Belief systems, unlike knowledge systems, do not require group consensus, and thus may be quite idiosyncratic.
This may explain why two teachers who know the same things about technology might believe different things about its use (e.g., one seeing it as a blessing; the other as a curse)
In general, beliefs are created through a process of enculturation and social construction; they can be formed by chance, an intense experience, or a succession of events
How Beliefs Are Changed
(Rokeach, 1968), five types of beliefs:
1. Type A beliefs, that is, core beliefs that are formed through personal experiences, reinforced through social consensus, and highly resistant to change. Type A beliefs include beliefs about one’s identity or self, as well as beliefs that are shared with others.
2. Type B beliefs which, like Type A, are formed through direct experience
3. Type C beliefs, which relate to which authorities to trust, and although they are resistant to change, it is expected that opinions about them will differ.
4. Type D beliefs, are result of the authorities in which we believe and which can be changed, providing the suggestion for change comes from the relevant authority.
5. Finally, Type E beliefs are located at the outermost edge and include inconsequential beliefs that are essentially matters of taste.
. Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982) noted that, in order for beliefs to change, individuals must be dissatisfied with their existing beliefs. This is most likely to happen when either existing beliefs are challenged or new beliefs cannot be incorporated into existing ideas.
In conclusion although it is not clear whether beliefs proceed or follow practice (Guskey, 1986), what is clear is that we cannot expect to change one without considering the other.
REFERANCE
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research & Development,
53(4), 25-39.
game and image retrieved from http://www.acumentum.com/tlf/maths_2/wishball/index.html
Filed under Uncategorized | Comment (1)Webquests . . .
A WebQuest can be defined as an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all of the information that learners interact with comes from resources on the internet, optionally supplemented with videoconferencing.
There are at least two levels of WebQuests
Short Term WebQuests- knowledge accuisition and intregration
Short term Webquests are described as Dimension 2 in Marzano’s (1992) Dimensions of Thinking model. At the end of a short term WebQuest, a learner will have struggled with a significant amount of new information and made sense of it.
· A short-term WebQuest is designed to be completed in one to three class periods.
Longer Term WebQuest- extending and refining knowledge
Longer term WebQuest is what Marzano defines as Dimension 3. After completing a longer term WebQuest, a learner would have critically analysed a body of knowledge, transformed it in some way, and demonstrated an understanding of the material by creating something that others can respond to, on or off-line.
· A long term WebQuest will typically take between one week and one month in a classroom setting.
A Webquest should be made up of six main components
- An introduction this creates the setting and provides some background information.
- A task that is achievable and stimulating.
- A set of information sources needed to complete the task. This will prevent any misconceptions of what is expected, as well as save time for students. Students will be able to work on the task at hand both conveniently and accurately.
- An outline of the process the learners should go through in accomplishing the task (clear steps to take).
- Some direction on how to organise the information obtained.
- A conclusion that brings closure to the task, and gives the learn opportunity to reflect on what they have learnt.
REFERANCE
Dodge, B. (1995). Some Thoughts About WebQuests.
http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html
Filed under Uncategorized | Comment (0)
The question is the answer
The question is the answer explores the role of a web quest and why it is useful. The site takes you through the importance of generating the right questions before assigning a research project. When students are researching teachers should direct them to look for information answering the questions why how and which as a prime source of information. They should also provide a Research Cycle providing the structure and the scaffolding they expect. This will direct student efforts, helping them to stay on track and work efficiently.
When preparing lessons a basic strategy to comply with is to build a set of online lessons that are linked together in a clear sequence. Allow the students the availability to revisit the sites as many times as needed to complete their task.
The number of times a students should be allowed to visit the site may vary depending on the complexity of the question and the age of the students.
Providing template for students to follow will save time and reduced confusion.
The directions and steps combined into these online modules should be tested, revised, refined and improved as your program changes and as you class members change. What may work with one group of students could be rocket science for the next.
Web quest help teachers aid differential needs within the class. Below is a sound file that may also be used for differentiating. Students may use sound files in a classroom environment to add animation to learning. This is an example of how auditory learners may benefit from a lesson.
REFERANCE
http://www.freesfx.co.uk/ date retrieved 26th April 2009
http://questioning.org/module/module1.html date retrieved 26th April 2009
Filed under Uncategorized | Comment (0)Meaningful learning
When engaged in a meaningful task students are able to manipulate objects and parameters of the environment through observation and their manipulation of their surroundings. Learning needs to be intriguing and learns need to want to find about things in order to learn about them.
Picture retrieved from
Jonassen, D., Howard, J., Morra, R.M., Crismand, D. (2008) Meaningful learning with technology 3dr ed Pearson New Jersey
Meaningful learning
Children learn when they are willingly engaged in a meaningful task. Meaningful learning requires a task that engages active (manipulative/observant), constructive (articulative /reflective), intentional (goal-directed/regulatory), authentic (complex/contextual) and cooperative (collaborative/conversational) activities.
Technologies can be used to provide additional testing practice, when they are used to engage students in active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative learning, the students are able to make and therefore take away more meaning.
Active (manipulative/observant)
Meaningful learning requires learners who are active- actively engaged by a meaningful task in which they manipulate objects and parameters of the environment they are working in and observing the results of their manipulations.
Constructive (articulative /reflective)
Activity is necessary but not sufficient for meaningful learning. However it is important that learners articulate what they have accomplished and reflect on their activity and observations. Meaningful learning takes place when a student is curious or puzzled about what they see. That puzzlement is the catalyst for meaning making. Learns take the opportunity to discover and learn integrating new knowledge with prior experiences. Learners will construct the active and constructive parts of meaning making rely on each other for making meaning to occur.
Intentional (goal-directed/regulatory)
It is known that everything that we do is done with the intention to fulfill a goal. When a learner is actively and willingly trying to fulfill a cognitive goal they are thinking and learning more because they have intention. Just like when you a walking down the street. If you have a destination you a likely to walk briskly with a end goal of reaching the destination in mind, comparative to a case where there is no destination the journey will be long and meaningless.
Authentic (complex/contextual)
Everything that physically that occurs in the world involves physics. Children need to have the opportunity to get to explore the reasons why. They are taught in a classroom setting where they are feed information and asked to believe and understand the information is true simply because it has been retrieved in the classroom. Learning should be set in real-life, in a context where learners are able to practice using ideas accordingly.
Cooperative (collaborative/conversational)
Humans on a day to day basis seek out to others to help them solve problems and complete tasks. This should be the same in the learning process. When students are bale to collaborate more ideas are transmitted and point of views analyzed allowing for deeper thought and learning to occur. Conversation is stereo typically frowned upon, however should be encouraged because it is a natural way of meaning making.
Technologies role in facilitating learning
Meaningful learning will occur when technologies engage learners in the following
- Knowledge construction, not reproduction
- Conversation, not reception
- Articulation, not repetition
- Collaboration, not competition
- Reflection, not prescription
REFERANCE
Jonassen, D. et al. (2008) Meaningful Learning with Technology
Filed under Uncategorized | Comment (0)
Constructivist learning
The article explores that there are no set guidelines for teachers to become constructivist teachers.Steffe and Wiegel (1992) – mathematics education could be transformed frantically by adopting constructivism as its philosophical basis.
Ø This model of learning/teaching is based on Piaget’s constructivist theory of learning i.e ‘the theory according to which each child builds his own knowledge from the inside, through his own mental activity, in interaction with the environment.’
Ø In another view to Von Glaserfeld (1990) – constructivism explores the meaning ‘knowledge is not passively received…knowledge is actively built up by the cognizing subject’.
Ø Constructivist learning includes importance on process, exchange of different view points and emphasis on problem solving. Students are involved not only in the discovery but in a social discourse involving explanation, negotiation, sharing and evaluation.
Ø The classroom environment also plays a big role. It must be risk-free so students can question, exchange view points, and be actively involved. The constructivist theory can provide teachers with a framework for teaching mathematics that encourages problem solving, reasoning and communication
Purpose of the study
Ø While many teachers believe they are constructivist teachers, believing in a constructivist theory does not necessarily mean that they are employing constructivist practices in their classroom. Having beliefs and putting them into practice are different.
Ø Study done to show whether a belief in constructivist theory by teachers was exemplified by actual constructivist classroom practices in mathematics.
Ø 8 female primary school teachers who were self professed constructivist mathematics teachers participated in the study. 2 teachers each from K-3
Data colleted
Ø Data collected through individual interviews, field notes from classroom observations of mathematics lessons, analysis of video tapes made during the observations.
Ø Results show 4 main themes emerged concerning the teachers perceptions of constructivist theory as they believed it applied to their own classrooms
1- learning is an active, constructive process
2- new knowledge is built on prior knowledge
3- autonomy is promoted
4- social interaction is necessary for knowledge construction and active knowledge
Teacher beliefs and perceptions
Ø Knowledge acquisition is an active, constructive process that takes place within a learner.
Ø Knowledge comes from within the student. They should construct it instead of the teacher being the holder of knowledge and giving it.
Ø New knowledge is built on prior knowledge is a theme explored
Ø Teacher autonomy was encouraged by all 8 teachers ‘means the ability to govern oneself by taking relevant factors into account’
Ø Teacher said ‘my students don’t just accept. They take in all things and decide…use judgment about what is the best instead of just accepting what is said
Ø Social interaction- was a theme exploring the need to share ideas and receive feedback to extend thinking
Teacher’s practices
Ø Teachers actively engaged students in small group and whole class discussions to explain, clarify, agree/disagree and question mathematical ideas.
Ø Math games were played with partners, small groups, and whole class.
Ø Class discussions about knowledge being built on prior knowledge
Ø Student autonomy- give students choices & decision of which strategy to use for problem solving, whether to work alone in groups or with partner
Ø Social interaction prevalent in all classrooms- students encouraged to share thinking with each other- teachers ask questions to encourage student reflection
Conclusion
Ø Teachers came from programs that were constructivist based.
Ø Research found- teachers were not only able to affirm constructivist principles but also were translating them into corresponding instructional practices in their classrooms.
Ø Students worked in risk-free environment – felt comfortable questioning, exchanging opinions, actively involved in discourse.
Ø Autonomy encouraged as students were urged to think for themselves & made are responsible for their learning
Ø Teachers adhered to constructivist theory of learning & employed instructional practices which matched the theory.
Ø Once teachers start thinking about their own teaching & ideas about teaching, there are no limits to potential for development.
video retreived from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yCB4i7GJuM 13th March 2009
REFERANCE
Brewer, J., & Daane, C.J. (2002). Translating constructivist theory into practice in primary-grade mathermatics, 123(2), 416-417
Filed under Uncategorized | Comment (1)AND we’re Baaaaaaaaack!
Year two – Semester one
ICT Tut one – inspiration “digital natives debate”
Having used inspiration previously this was a good opportunity to refresh my memory. I found that having revisiting the program I was able to maneuver around with ease and found that I remembered all the basics.
REFERANCE
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digitalnatives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence.
British Journal of Education Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Filed under Uncategorized | Comment (0)
