#1 According to Kauchak (1998) what are three functions of teacher questions? What role does technology play with accomplishing these functions?
The three functions of teacher questions are: assessing current understanding, increasing learner motivation, and guiding new learning. To be perfectly honest, I don't see how this article relates to technology. Teacher questioning is a very hands-on kind of activity. At first I thought you could put questions on a powerpoint, but this type of questioning needs to be flexible and should be more of a discussion. I think that perhaps with assessing current understanding, a teacher could do an online quiz or something. Other than that, I think that teacher questions should be very flexible and should be formulated to meet the needs of the students. Maybe I'll have more insight on this after class...
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Reiser article
#1 Explore the link below from Module 9 in WebCT. How are the examples of Integrated Final Projects and the methods described in the Reiser article related? What would it take to teach this way? Is it worthwhile?
This is a funny question, because at this moment, I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be. First, the examples and the methods in the articles are definitely related. The projects are attempts at the TEAMS method of instruction outlined by Reiser. They use various stations and task cards to teach about a specific topic, all to varying degrees of success. However, I think it would be difficult to teach this way, particularly if this is how all instruction was in a classroom. I think students would quickly tire of this method.
Also, if students are expected to work in the same groups through a large section of the class, I would expect problems and I don't think this gives them the opportunity to learn how to work with a variety of people. Also, at one point the article mentioned that the groups should be allowed to assign roles on their own. I think that's a horrible idea, especially considering this format. I think that roles should be assigned and rotated for each station. To say the least, I wasn't entirely sold on this TEAMS method. However, perhaps a few times in a year, this type of rotation method would work.
One other thing I find a little irksome is how the authors make a point to stress how this method is going to make learning relevant. However, when I glanced over the Language Arts section of their sample rotation on comparison/contrast, I found very little that has any relevance in the students' lives or in the world around them. I fail to see how identifying comparison or contrasting sentences in a game makes this topic relevant in any way. It never connects the learning with the student in any tangible way.
I'm sure that there are good and fantastic ways to implement this in a classroom, and I'm sure it can be successful when implemented correctly. However, with such a strict structure, I wonder how many of these stations simply become filler or busy work.
This is a funny question, because at this moment, I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be. First, the examples and the methods in the articles are definitely related. The projects are attempts at the TEAMS method of instruction outlined by Reiser. They use various stations and task cards to teach about a specific topic, all to varying degrees of success. However, I think it would be difficult to teach this way, particularly if this is how all instruction was in a classroom. I think students would quickly tire of this method.
Also, if students are expected to work in the same groups through a large section of the class, I would expect problems and I don't think this gives them the opportunity to learn how to work with a variety of people. Also, at one point the article mentioned that the groups should be allowed to assign roles on their own. I think that's a horrible idea, especially considering this format. I think that roles should be assigned and rotated for each station. To say the least, I wasn't entirely sold on this TEAMS method. However, perhaps a few times in a year, this type of rotation method would work.
One other thing I find a little irksome is how the authors make a point to stress how this method is going to make learning relevant. However, when I glanced over the Language Arts section of their sample rotation on comparison/contrast, I found very little that has any relevance in the students' lives or in the world around them. I fail to see how identifying comparison or contrasting sentences in a game makes this topic relevant in any way. It never connects the learning with the student in any tangible way.
I'm sure that there are good and fantastic ways to implement this in a classroom, and I'm sure it can be successful when implemented correctly. However, with such a strict structure, I wonder how many of these stations simply become filler or busy work.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Roblyer Article
#1 Bereiter (1990) initially supported direct instruction and later shifted to constructivist principles. Two metaphors are used to describe his current view of the tension among theories of learning. What are the two metaphors? Do you agree with this view? Why or why not?
The article talks extensively about the difference between direct instruction and constructivist approaches. Bereiter is quoted in the article, pointing out the difficulties of accounting for the learning process in such simple pidgeonholed ways. The first metaphor he uses to describe these difficulties is a "hall of mirrors." He refers to the infinate possibilities of explainations as to why a student learns or does not learn. The authors also describe the limited view of each of the learning theories as akin to "the blind men trying to describe the elephant." They go on to say that "each (learning theory) focuses on a different part of the problem, and each is correct in limited observations."
I think that these metaphors are really interesting and very true. Far too often, proponents of a certain theory get an "either-or stance" and fail to realize the scope of the problem. I think that when a theory tries to say that everyone learns a certain way the theory is really shortsighted and should be altered to be more inclusive.
The article talks extensively about the difference between direct instruction and constructivist approaches. Bereiter is quoted in the article, pointing out the difficulties of accounting for the learning process in such simple pidgeonholed ways. The first metaphor he uses to describe these difficulties is a "hall of mirrors." He refers to the infinate possibilities of explainations as to why a student learns or does not learn. The authors also describe the limited view of each of the learning theories as akin to "the blind men trying to describe the elephant." They go on to say that "each (learning theory) focuses on a different part of the problem, and each is correct in limited observations."
I think that these metaphors are really interesting and very true. Far too often, proponents of a certain theory get an "either-or stance" and fail to realize the scope of the problem. I think that when a theory tries to say that everyone learns a certain way the theory is really shortsighted and should be altered to be more inclusive.
Introduction
Hiya! My name's Sheree, I'm a senior at the U, and I am just about to start my Cohort year in the English Teaching program. I was born in Dallas, Texas, but I've been in Utah for a long time. My great loves: movies of all shapes and sizes (I just finished the Firefly/Serenity series, which was fantastic), good books (I'm currently reading Special Topics in Calamity Physics, and its awesome), great music (I'm listening to the Pipettes as I type), Coca-Cola, Batman, my fiance Alex, Texano burritos, and people who think for themselves.
I love the subject I'm planning to teach, and I'm way excited to start. I'm really happy this class is required because I think that technology can be a great teaching tool. However, I'm not the most technologically savvy gal in the world, but am planning on learning a lot. I think that its so important to get students excited about the content you are teaching, and a great way to do that is by incorporating technology in the classroom.
I love the subject I'm planning to teach, and I'm way excited to start. I'm really happy this class is required because I think that technology can be a great teaching tool. However, I'm not the most technologically savvy gal in the world, but am planning on learning a lot. I think that its so important to get students excited about the content you are teaching, and a great way to do that is by incorporating technology in the classroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)