sub-goal 1: Identify and describe several theories and/or concepts that have informed your design projects. In particular, explain why these theories/concepts are meaningful to you.
sub-goal 2: Describe how you have utilized these theories /concepts in your designs (or how you could have used them in your design). Specifically provide evidence from your design projects that show you have made design decisions that are grounded in the theories/concepts you have mentioned in Goal 1, sub-goal 1 above.
To design meaningful lessons, a successful
designer must have plentiful knowledge of design theories, such as the Constructivist
Theory, Cognitive Flexibility, Information Processing Theory, Operant
Conditioning, and Problem-Based Learning (PBL). In order to incorporate the
appropriate learning practices, the designer must also have an in-depth
knowledge of the learning theories and be able to determine which theory is
appropriate for the desired outcome of the unit.
Lessons must be interesting, appropriate, and engaging in order for a
lesson to be successful. The concepts being taught should be relevant and/or
real-world problems that can be presented and reinforced in multiple ways.
Cognitive Flexibility
The Cognitive Flexibility Theory by Spiro
“with its emphasis on repeated presentations of the same material in rearranged
instructional sequences from different conceptual perspectives" (Spiro, 1990, p.171) allows for the development and transfer of knowledge and
skills beyond what was initially taught and learned. According to cognitive
flexibility, the mind is flexible and can accommodate different situations. One
of the main goals of the theory is to develop the student's ability to understand knowledge in various situations and
to transfer that knowledge and skills to new situations. To successfully use
cognitive flexibility, the instructor should present information using multiple
examples from diverse perspectives.
From my teaching experience, I have
noticed that not all students think alike. Therefore, students learn
differently. Based on cognitive flexibility, I have learned that using various media
and ways in which I teach a concept increases the probability that students
will learn. Before enrolling in the IT program, I used to teach students only one
approach to solving conversion problems. Now I provide students multiple ways
to learn how to solve conversion problems.
When teaching these various problem-solving techniques I use various media as well. I model the techniques on a whiteboard or use an interactive whiteboard, use worksheets, show and create videos, and allow other students to teach each other. Elen, J., & SpringerLink (2011) state that cognitive flexibility can be described as the disposition to consider diverse context-specific information elements while deciding on how to solve a problem or to execute a (learning) task in a variety of domains and to adapt one's problem solving or task execution in case the context changes or new information becomes present. The design choice I made for my unit on solving conversion problems is rooted in cognitive flexibility based on failed lessons and poor student learning in the past. I did not understand why the students were not learning how to use my preferred method for problem solving. After considering my past units and the information I learned through the IT program, I determined I was not providing students with various techniques to learn and did not allow them to sharpen and transfer their skills to new and unique problems, as stated in cognitive flexibility. I now provide learners with many different ways to use, sharpen, and extend their problem-solving skills. In my unit, students are shown and learn to solve mathematical examples as well as chemistry examples. Also, the problem solving skills can be used, adapted, and applied throughout the course with many different types of chemistry problems. As you can see in the evidence below, completely made up and well as real-life examples are given to the students so they can hone their skills and apply those skills to a variety of problems.
 |
| Methods and examples of a variety problems to sharpen problem solving skills |
As an instructional designer, cognitive flexibility is an important
theory that can be used and applied to all learners. In order to be successful,
learners in my classes must have the ability to restructure their knowledge and
apply it to various types of problems. Not only do they need to know how to
solve problems using conversions, but the must be able to apply this
problem-solving skill to various other problems throughout the course. These
skills can also be transferred to problems in life. For example, you need
apples and you only have $6, but apples are $2.19/lb. With the problem solving
techniques taught, students are able to solve this problem and determine the
pounds of apples they can purchase. I consider cognitive flexibility the root of
success in education and life.
Constructivist Theory
The Constructivist Theory by Bruner states that learning is an active process where the learner constructs new ideas and concepts based on current and past knowledge. Learners use schema and mental models, which provides organization and meaning, allowing the learner to go beyond basic knowledge. The Constructivist Theory encourages learners to discover principles by themselves. Instructional materials should be scaffolded in an appropriate manner for learners to continue to build on what they have already learned.
I used the Constructivist Theory to create a unit on
chemistry nomenclature (naming and writing formulas). When teaching this unit
in the past, students were not successful. Only the brightest or most
hard-working students were successful. I created a unit where students would
construct their own knowledge about naming inorganic compounds. My students
have some background knowledge of various chemical elements, but are not
familiar with how and why compounds have their names. Prior to the beginning
the unit, students had learned the element names and symbols. In the unit I
designed, I decided that using a deck of cards containing names of various
compounds was a good hands-on activity that would provide students the
opportunity to discover the naming and formula principles on their own. In the
unit, students are to group or chunk cards based on similarities. They
discovered there are about 5-6 different types of compounds based on
similarities and differences. Once the students had the compounds separated
into the 5-6 piles, I suggested that they further compare the similarities and develop
their own rules for naming the compounds. Lim (2010) stated, “constructivism
also assumes that a learner’s capacity for intellectual growth is enhanced with
the availability of scaffolding or guidance in the interactions” (p. 306). Throughout the learning processes I scaffolded the content so
that students could learn what they needed to learn when they needed to learn
it. As an example, only after the students learned how to name a particular
type of compound, were they directed to discover the exceptions to the rules.
According
to Cakir (2008), “knowledge is actively built up from within by a thinking
person; knowledge is not passively received through the senses or by any form
of communication” (p. 196). I created the set of cards above so that students
could construct their own knowledge of naming and writing chemical compounds. Based on the scaffolding I provided, students grouped the
cards and then constructed the following rules 1) the particular type of
compound always contains a metal and nonmetal 2) the metal is named first with
its name and the nonmetal is named second with its name but the ending is
changed to –ide. Learners were also able to point out the differences, such as
the subscripts on the formulas. They could go further and determine the meaning
of the subscripts and how they are used, based on their prior knowledge of
ions. With the newly constructed knowledge, students know how compounds are
named and how formulas are written and are able to apply this newly constructed
knowledge to any similar compound.
I believe constructivism should be widely used in chemistry,
due to the building of knowledge inherent in most chemistry classrooms. I have
seen first-hand that if students create their own knowledge they do not forget
it as readily. When teaching in the past with direct instruction, students were
not learning the content. I could not make them learn it or think for them. Since
using constructivism, students are becoming more responsible for their own
learning and it is more meaningful to them. When students construct their own
learning in my class they remember important information, details, and skills
longer than if I had just told them what they needed to know. The learning
acquired via constructivism is deeper and more meaningful to the
individual. In my classes, they continue to use and build on the knowledge
they constructed earlier in the year. Students are much more successful the
entire year since using the Constructivism Theory in my units. Increased
test scores, with 90% of students receiving a 80% or above on the unit test,
has proven to me that students are learning and retaining the information
better than before due to designing a unit based on the Constructivist
Theory.
Information Processing Theory
The Information Processing Theory by Miller provides a
framework for how information is processed by the brain. Miller provided the
theory of chunking information. The theory states that the short-term
memory can only hold 5-9 chunks of meaningful information at one time.
The Information Processing Theory,
specifically chunking, is very important to chemistry because there is so much
information to memorize and learn. According to Huitt (2003), chunking is an
approach for getting information and keeping it in short-term memory. Chunking
makes learning easier for the learners because it is compartmentalized and therefore
easier to remember. If students feel that you are making learning easier for
them, they are more willing and motivated to work hard and learn the
information.
One way I have used the Information Processing Theory is when I teach my students about ions. Ions are positive and negative charged elements. Ions are important in all aspects of chemistry, especially in naming, formulas, and chemical equations. Students are expected to know the charged form of each element. This can be a discouraging process for most students if you consider there are 110+ elements. I designed a lesson where I provided the artifact below. The graphic below is a representation of the periodic table where the ion charges are chunked into columns. I walked students through the artifact below, comparing it to the periodic table. I showed them when reading the table from left to right that the ion charges are chunked in columns. I design the unit so that we only look at the positive ions first. I showed students that the chunked columns start with 1+ and move up in in numerical order until 4+/-. In the next lesson we talk about the negative ions, again chunking the information, where the charges start with 4+/- and go down in descending order until 0. I use examples and model how you can pick almost any element on the periodic table and know it's charge based on which column (or chunk) it is located. I also pointed out that 1+ is found in group 1 of the periodic table, 2+ is group 2, 3+ is group 13, and 4+/- group 14, showing them the correlation between the charge and group number on the periodic table for many of the elements. Chunking allows students to remember 7-9 pieces of information that they can apply to all elements.
Also, I pointed out that the ion charge also correlates to
the number of electrons lost or gained by the element, information the students
had learned in a prior unit. If I only provided the common ion list above and
told the students to memorize it, they would feel overwhelmed. The students
would shut down and would not want to learn. By utilizing chunking for this unit,
I show students how to chunk information so that it is easy to remember. Students
think that I am making learning easy for them and they have a more positive
attitude. This positive attitude promotes learning. I believe if you can make
students feel that you are making learning easier, they are actually more
willing to learn. The information processing theory allows me to show my
students they can learn 7-9 pieces of information, chunked together based on
similarities, and apply that information to all of the elements. Providing the
information in chunks has lead to a greater success rate in my class. Students
learn the ion charges quicker and can properly apply it to any element. Success
had increased in identify ions, knowing the number of electrons lost and
gained, and writing proper formulas.
Operant Conditioning
Operant Condition by Skinner is based on
the stimulus-response principle. "The application of operant conditioning to education is
simple and direct. Teaching is the arrangement of contingencies of
reinforcement under which students learn.
They learn without teaching in their
natural environments, but teachers arrange special contingencies which expedite
learning, hastening the appearance of behavior which would otherwise be
acquired slowly or making sure of the appearance of behavior which otherwise
would never occur" (Skinner, 1968, pg. 64). Positive Reinforcement,
negative reinforcement, punishment, and extinction are the four types of
operant conditioning. Positive and Negative Reinforcement strengthen behavior
while both Punishment and Extinction weaken behavior.
I mostly use positive reinforcements when
designing lessons because they increase the desired
behavior. I designed a lesson where students used problem-solving skills to
create a foam tower of a particular volume. Students that successfully
completed the challenge would receive a badge on Edmodo.
Edmodo is a social learning platform that I use in my
classroom and a badge is like a sticker that they receive and shows up on their wall as seen above.
It surprised me that so many high schools
students responded positively to the idea of receiving the reward and in turn
prepared for the challenge. Using the positive reinforcement is double rewarding, I got my
intended behavior, the students correctly preparing and performing the
challenge, and they got their badge.
I have found that operant conditioning is effective in
non-electric forms as well. I currently use praise, stickers, stamps, and
smiley faces to reward students for making good grades or good choices.
Students positively responded to them. There has been a number of times where students
argue and question why one got a bigger smiley face than another or why one
student got more stamps than another. Usually, the reason a student would get
two stamps is that the stamp did not work properly on the first try. As far as
the smiley faces, it is really hard to hand draw them the same size. My action of
giving some students more or bigger “rewards” is not intentional.
I designed a lesson where students formed teams to compete
in a round of review Jeopardy over a chemistry unit. I used positive
reinforcements, in the form of bonus points, for the team that scored the
highest. The students knew this upfront so came to class prepared and chose
their groups strategically. Again, using the positive reinforcements created
the wanted behavior, students preparing and studying for the review and test.
Here is a link to the Jeopardy game as a movie file
Operant
conditioning is an effective way to improve the overall desired behavior in my
class. I like to focus on positive behaviors rather than negative behaviors.
Students have positive attitudes and show me more respect when I acknowledge their
favorable behavior. When teachers mainly use punishment for bad behaviors
students tend to loose respect for the teacher and quit working in that class.
I feel that effective teachers, like myself, spend more time accentuating the
positive behavior, which in turn promotes a better learning environment for
everyone in the classroom.
Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
According to Savery
(2006), “PBL is an
instructional (and curricular) learner-centered approach that empowers learners
to conduct research, integrate theory and practice, and apply knowledge and
skills to develop a viable solution to a defined problem” (p. 12). In
problem-based learning, students work in groups to solve problems and acquire social
knowledge and skills. Savery (2006) states “…after school most
learners will find themselves in jobs where they need to share information and
work productively with others” (p. 13). PBL allows students to solve real-world problems while
gaining work related skills. Problem-based leaning follows a constructivist
perspective where the role of the teacher is to act as a facilitator and guide
the learning process.
I created a unit based on PBL to provide
some real world examples to my students about chemistry as well as strengthen
their problem-solving skills. I believe that PBL is a desirable way to learn
because students socially construct their own knowledge and strengthen their
problem-solving skills. The knowledge and skills gained will be used after
high school where they will need to solve their own problems. I want to give my
students the opportunity to build those life skills while providing guidance. I
feel it is my duty as an effective teacher to provide real-life opportunities
to learn and grow and using PBL is an effective way to accomplish this.
For my Honors Chemistry class, I created a percent composition by mass unit based on Problem Based
Learning. In the unit, students were to complete this Web Quest, which I created. Students were presented with the problem
“What bubble gum would you recommend to your patients” if you were a dentist.
The students came up with the answer sugarless gum. We talked about what gum
they would recommend if sugarless gum is not an option. They decided on gum
that had the least amount of sugar. The students experimented with various
brands of bubble gum to calculate and determine the percent composition by mass
of sugar in bubble gum. After experimentation, students presented their answer
to the class with a PowerPoint. In problem-based learning,
students learn about a subject in multiple ways solving a realistic problem.
Students worked in pairs testing two brands of gum. Groups tested different
brands and/or flavors of gum. As a class, all of the groups compared their
results to determine which brand of gum they would recommend, based on lowest
sugar content of all of the brands tested. In PBL, students are to work in
small groups and also work as a whole to solve the problem, which they did in
my unit.
The
role of the instructor in PBL is to provide appropriate scaffolding by asking
questions, providing resources, leading class discussions, and designing
student assessments. I asked questions throughout the unit of study, such as
“why did you chose to test this brand of gum” or “what are you going to use
your results to determine?” I also included a tutorial in the Web Quest that
showed and explained how to determine percent composition in compounds and how
to use Microsoft Excel to create charts and graphs of their data to help them
solve their problem.
Using PBL is an exceptional way to motivate students to solve real-world problems. It shows students that the content is related to their lives. I chose the PBL model because it easily aligns itself in a lab-based environment where inquiry and problem solving are key components of the curriculum. Students need to experience first-hand what is being taught in the classroom. A great way to accomplish hands-on learning is by giving students a problem to solve, providing resources to use, allowing them to work in groups and between groups, and then assessing them on their results and conclusions. Over the past few years I have created more PBL and inquiry-based lab experiments for my chemistry classes. I have noticed that students like the hands-on activities and can relate to the activities. Over the course of the school year, students become better problem solvers and take a more independent role in their learning. I will continue to incorporate more of these PBL lessons in my classroom in the future.
Refernces
Cakir, M. (2008). Constructivist approaches to learning in
science and their implications for science pedagogy: A literature review. International
Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(4), 193-206.
Elen, J., & SpringerLink. (2011). Links between
beliefs and cognitive flexibility: Lessons learned. (p. 2) Dordrecht, New
York: Springer.
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to
cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive, 53-67.
Lim, H. (2010). Scaffolding and knowledge
appropriation in online collaborative group discussions. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1(4), 306-321.
Savery, J. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning:
Definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based
Learning, 1(1), 1-20. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=ijpbl&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22problem%20based%20learning%22&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CFYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.lib.purdue.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1002%26context%3Dijpbl&ei=eRajULcMg87IAbSagMgD&usg=AFQjCNFX4134uN_lhklkWheQY5iqthzk8w
Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of
teaching. (p. 64). New York, NY: Meredith Corporation. Retrieved from
http://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-6-the-nature-of-learning/bf-skinner’s-behaviourism/
Spiro, R. (1990). Cognition, education, and
multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology. (p. 171). Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
