https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit ECI 517 en-us 2017-08-27 16:50:04 UTC 2017-08-27 18:10:32 UTC hello@padlet.com sasibbac https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit/wish/182983297 As a teacher who is currently in the classroom I read these chapters and articles with a different view point. Indeed, I take offense at some of the things said and have to step back, think for a minute and not type angry. One of the first items from Bransford's chapter 1 that stood out to me was the, "Wisdom of Practice" phrasing. He states that other teachers can learn from the success of of teachers who practices have been shown to be successful in the classroom. My question is, what determines that success, I hope it is not standardized testing, but if it is not standardized testing, then it is something subjective. Either measure, in my opinion, is equally faulty as a measure of success. I have to think it is testing because this chapter had an emphasis on scientific research where it mentions the collection of data. I do agree that the rote method is not a way to learn, it does not teach a child to be responsible for their own education. We have to make the student most responsible for their learning so they have the tools to continue learning for the rest of their lives. I enjoyed the Fish is Fish story and even though I teach mainly 11th and 12th grader, I can integrate it as a teachable moment. Most of what we read emphasizes that the students have to be a willing party in their learning, stories like that engage them and make them think, there are ways to intertwine them into my lessons and I am always looking for ways to keep them thinking even if I use a children's book to do it. I understand the science of teaching the students younger because studies show that the brain can learn at a young age more complicated processes than once thought; my thought is that, with the disconnect in the digital world to social skills, if we drive them harder at a younger and younger age, will we end up with a generation who is progressively more disconnected and disjointed. This might sound like a frivolous point, but I feel strongly that the nurture can be just as important as the learning in the early grades. It is a fine line to straddle to let students drive their learning as Bransford suggests, I feel I have come a long way in that respect, but I also think there will always be an element of teacher driven lessons in a classroom. ]]> 2017-08-27 16:51:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit/wish/182983297 sasibbac https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit/wish/182984315 This is the age of technology and if our students are going to keep up with the rest of the world, we are going to have to be more technology forward. I agree with Ferster and the fact that people put a Smartboard in their room and think they are using technology. In my school, their are teachers who use it as and overhead projector or a movie screen. I am afraid I am guilty of that myself. Our school also has a chromebook for everyone of our students, they do not get to take them home, but they have access to them in every classroom. Again, as Ferster stated, it is not integrating technology if all you are doing is looking at pictures. On this point I think I do a better job. I do mini research projects and require my students to find reliable sources. The evolution of the textbook took well over 100 years, I do not think technology in the classroom will take that long, but it is moving slowly. I believe that part of the problem is that teachers do not understand the true nature of what technology looks like in the classroom. They think if they turn the Smartboard on and write on it they used technology. The problem is that the Smartboard was meant to be interactive, and the teacher writing on it was not what was meant by interactive. The same is true about the Chromebooks, if the students get them out and type an assignment on them, they think they utilized technology. The disconnect may be in the education of what technology truly looks like in the classroom. The evolution of the textbook was interesting, it shows that the willingness to learn and the emphasis put on education has been a priority in our country. We have made some missteps, but unfortunately, you do not know what will work until you find a few things that do not. ]]> 2017-08-27 17:15:41 UTC https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit/wish/182984315 sasibbac https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit/wish/182985250 Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism, I have been hearing these terms for most of my teaching career but I must admit that this article helped put them into perspective a little more for me. I always thought that cognitive and behaviorism was the same, and they are, to a point. I see know where the old way of teaching was behaviorism, in fact that is how I remember growing up in school. There were consequences for everything from failing a test, to not drinking your milk at snack time. I have also seen this in years passed through volunteering at my kids schools. I believe this qualifies if I understand it correctly, they would put students in reading according to their abilities and then when it was time for reading circles they would go for different areas of the room I always thought it was demeaning for the children in the lower group because the other kids knew they were the lower group.I honestly think it affected their performance because it seemed like they were in a fishbowl. I always thought that was wrong. Cognitivism makes sense now, this branch wants to know what the student knows and how they learned it. They are usually capable of complex problem solving. This learning format is not interested in what the learner does even though it still has environmental influence. Of course I have an example of that, my son was AG in math starting in 4th grade, they were taken to another room for an hour a day to work on other math . The cognitive part comes in the fact that they were not spoon fed the work, and they were still doing the traditional rote work like memorizing the times tables. When they got a problem wrong, it was not point off for them, it was an opportunity for them to work through where they went wrong and fix it. Unlike behaviorism which is reactive, my son was actively engaged in his learning by learning from the mistakes he made without fear of consequences.  Finally Constructivism which was the harder one for me to understand. I am not sure I have this one straight but here goes. We read a book in my class call Their Eyes Were Watching God, in the book there is an argument about what God created first, Caution or Nature, it is a silly argument but it makes me think of Constructivism. The idea that caution because a child has to be taught not to touch a hot stove and learns from this past experience, this lends to the idea of Constructivism. Granted, this is a very simplified view of it, but I think it works. Superstitions are another example and there are a lot for this area. It makes for unique discussion within the classroom, but I have learned that you cannot negate what a student feels or believes because then you lost them. If you lose them, then you cannot teach them. All three have basis in reality and all three show up in a classroom]]> 2017-08-27 17:37:32 UTC https://padlet.com/sasibbac/fl8y7nur9sit/wish/182985250