The iPhone and iPad application I chose is the Phonics Easy Reader. This app allows children to choose between two different modes. The first one being, "Read to Me" and the second one, "Let Me Try". During the "Read to Me" mode, the child can hear the story being read to them as they follow along. During the "Let Me Try" mode, the child can read the story themselves with having the option to tap on a word to hear it out loud. There is also a section called "Memory Words", where it gives you words that are not pronounced phonetically and what I assume for the child to memorize.
This app does a good job of using the Developmental Learning Theory. By having the words printed out and allowing the child to see them as they are read aloud under the "Read to Me" mode is a concrete example. This app doesn't allow for abstract thinking in the app itself, but if the child does learn the words they hear and read, it would then allow the child to retain the words in their schema and apply it when reading a different story.
This app could use the Social Learning Theory depending on where the child is at their level of reading. This app uses a great deal of modeling when it is in the "Read to Me" mode. By having this option, the child is hearing someone "model" reading the word, in turn allowing the child to hear and know how it is to be pronounced. This is also using the Zone of Proximal Development in that it is allowing the child to follow along to learn the words phonetically.
Another aspect of the Social Learning Theory is that the screenshots they give as examples appear to have the pictures concretely showing what the student is reading. This is a great way to allow the student to not only read the words, but look at the pictures and tie them together with the words.
The flip side of this app and where it's downfall is in regards to the Social Learning Theory is that it would not be a beneficial tool if it is too easy and does not challenge the child enough. In order for this app to be used effectively under this theory, the teacher would need to know their students reading level prior to having them use this app.
This app does not allow for any peer to peer interactions as it is made to be done individually. If I were using this app as a teacher and wanting my students to have more social interactions, I would pair them together and have them take turns using the "Let Me Try" mode and read to one another.
This app could only apply to the Constructivist Learning Theory if it is in fact actively mentally engaging. This would once again rely on the teacher's knowledge of where their child's reading level is and if they are able to work with their schema to help them continue to read. It would be an ineffective tool if the child is beyond what stories they are reading.
I am struggling to find any of the Conceptual Change Theory in this app. In order for this app to apply to this theory, the app and activity would need to create some sort of dissatisfaction with old ideas that the student may have. This app doesn't necessarily create any new ideas or solve any problems.
This app does not allow a teacher to ask many questions other than having the student read the story aloud to her/him in order to make a formative assessment as to what words they know by using phonics.
If teachers were to use this app without knowing where their students reading levels are and really knowing if these stories are too easy or too difficult, the app would then be used ineffectively. On the other hand, if the teacher has made formative assessments prior to using this app, then it could be used effectively as a second teacher in the classroom for short periods of time. One example would be a teacher dividing her class into reading levels and when she is working with one group, she could have the other group using this app and working on their stories at their level.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
Interview on Compound Words
For this assignment, I interviewed first grader Isaac, and his sister Anna, who is in the third grade. Both attend Crossroads Park Elementary. I asked them the following question, "What is a compound word?" I was curious as to how they would answer the question, and if I would get the same response from both.
When I asked Isaac the question, he didn't say anything. After a few seconds of silence, I asked him if he knew the answer. He said "no". I told him I was going to give him two words and asked him to tell me something about them. I said "newspaper" and "firehouse". He then responded with, "One word would be fire and one word is house". I told him this was correct and explained to him they are compound words.
I then asked his sister Anna the same question. She responded by saying, "I don't know." I then gave her the examples of "ladybug" and "eyebrow". She responded with, "Two different words that are put together to make one word". I told her she just gave me the definition of a compound word.
When asked this question, both Anna and Isaac seemed genuinely confused. Only after giving them examples were they able to tell me more about the word, but still unable to make the connection that the words they heard are in fact compound words. I honestly wasn't that surprised when hearing their answers. I would imagine both of them use compound words on a regular basis without knowing the technical term.
With Anna being in the third grade, this is a lesson she should have already had in an earlier grade. Isaac, on the other hand, may have not had this lesson yet. When thinking about the hurdles students may have had, or moving forward while learning this concept, I believe the students would need to have a vast range of vocabulary in order to put the two together. Students would also need to learn this concept in a way that is mentally engaging so that it stays with them for future lessons and application.
If I were going to teach this lesson, I would start by having examples of the words written on the board. I would then ask specific students to read the words out loud. Next I would ask the students if anyone knows what is unique/different about these words. I would engage the class as a whole, prompting them with questions to help them arrive at the definition of a compound word. The students would then be paired up and given a bag that contains cut outs of single words. With their partner, the students would be instructed to put together as many words as they can. As they are working, I would walk around the classroom, helping any pair who may be struggling. After the students have enough time to practice, I would pull everyone together to discuss the words they put together.
Engaging the students and giving them time to arrive at the definition themselves would help them retain that information more than had I just given it to them. Having them work in pairs is also a great way for them to work with others and build off of what their peers know.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Whole Brain Teaching Compound Word Lesson
As I was searching for video lesson in a Kindergarten classroom, I came across a slue of "Whole Brain Teaching" videos. I watched several of them and couldn't believe what I was seeing. I did a little online research and came across the Whole Brian Teaching website.
Labeled as one of the "fastest growing education reform movements in America" Whole Brian Teaching stems from, "the principles that teachers at every level share the same difficulties: students lack discipline, background knowledge and fundamental problem solving skills". Students are taught through following designed steps, levels and what is called, "highly structured, educational tomfoolery".
At the beginning of the lesson, Mrs. Shipley reviews the steps as to how she will teach her student about compound words. She goes over the six steps with her students which include the following: Question, Answer with gesture, Example Popper, Yes/No way, QT and Independent time.
Step One: Mrs. Shipley begins by asking the class "What is a compound word?" The students then repeat the question.
Step Two: She then answers the question by telling them what a compound words is while using gestures with her hands. When she is done telling them what a compound word is, she claps her hand and says "teach". The students clap their hands and say "okay". They then turn their chairs to face one another and take turns asking and answering the question.
Step Three: Mrs. Shipley brings the class together by saying "Class" and the students repeating "Yes" and then "Class, class, class" and students repeating, "Yes, yes, yes". She uses her "example popper" and makes the gesture of pulling something out of her head and proceeds to give the class examples of compound words.
The students "mirror" what she is doing and saying. She then has them work with their partners to come up with compound words and then they share them with the class.
Step Four: The students then say "yes" or "no-way" when Mrs. Shipley reads the words from the board. if they are compound words.
Step Five: Mrs. Shipley then says "seats" and they immediately get into their seats, followed with more "hands, hand, hands and eyes" with the students repeating and doing. She quickly says "QT" and the students immediately put their heads down on their desks, covering their eyes. She instructs them to put a thumbs up if the word she says is a compound word or thumbs down if not.
Step Six: They students are then directed to pull out their pencil and eraser while the teacher counts to ten. She then directs them to pass the worksheet to the next student while counting to ten. She then has them write their names on the worksheet while she counts to ten.
This lesson video is fourteen minutes long. And I am not sure what I just saw. I have mixed thoughts and feelings about this lesson. In one aspect I can see some positives where the students are actively engaged, but I question how much of that information are they going to retain. Maybe they will think back to what they were taught and will be able to pick up on a physical example to link it back to. But it makes me wonder how this style is applied to other lessons, if the students are critically thinking and what happens when the students have a substitue teacher or move on to another grade where this method isn't taught?
As for the Social Learning Theory, this lesson does a good job of having the teacher and students interact, although I question the interactions with the teacher. It appears to me as though the students are not really interacting, but more following along. In class, we discussed a lot about the Zone of Proximal Development and it doesn't appear as though these students are being challenged enough, but rather following a routine they have learned.
What the lesson does do well is utilize the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model. In step one and two the teacher is modeling how the students will learn the lesson, as well as, interacting with her students. Step three has the students working with one another. Step four isn't in the model, but appears to allow the teacher to assess where the students are in their understanding of compound words. Step five allows the students to work independently.
I am rather confused as to where the Developmental Learning Theory fits in to this lesson. From what we discussed in class it doesn't appear that the teacher uses any form of concrete or abstract examples, but rather tells her students and then has them mimic her. Maybe her stating a word and having them reply with a "yes" or "no way" is a concrete example, although it appears too easy and once again not challenging them enough to really understand it and apply it abstractly.
I again have no clue as to where Constructivist Learning Theory fits in to this lesson. Yes the children are mental engaged, but it is more mentally, or just part of a pattern and routine that they have become accustomed to in the general sense of the routine and not what they are learning. Mrs. Shipley does not ask any questions at the beginning of the lesson to assess what her students already know in regards to compound words and is not taking any of their background knowledge into consideration.
Classroom management is seen in various ways in this lesson plan. The first example is simply by having the students engaged throughout the entire fourteen minutes of the lesson. They are constantly "mirroring" the teacher when she gets their attention, interacting with their peers and appear to be "busy" the whole time. I would be curious to see how this works all day, with students who blatantly refuse to follow along or with students who don't "buy in" to this type of teaching. The second example is the scoreboard that Mrs. Shipley uses. We see Mrs. Shipley making a tally mark under a smiley face or frown face and can only guess that there is some type of reward when their is more smiles than frowns. As viewers we also see Mrs. Shipley utilizing the noise chart on her board to indicate to her students where she would like their noise level to be.
One of the biggest concerns I have in this lesson and style of teaching is that it doesn't appear as though the teacher has any individual connection to her students. They are all just her students following along in the lesson. To me this is a terrible way to interact with students as it doesn't make them unique, but just another student in the room.
I may be mistaken but the principles that Whole Brain Teaching claim to work from do not match up. At no point in this lesson doe the students utilize their background knowledge or problem solving skills to help them learn the lesson.
Step Two: She then answers the question by telling them what a compound words is while using gestures with her hands. When she is done telling them what a compound word is, she claps her hand and says "teach". The students clap their hands and say "okay". They then turn their chairs to face one another and take turns asking and answering the question.
Step Three: Mrs. Shipley brings the class together by saying "Class" and the students repeating "Yes" and then "Class, class, class" and students repeating, "Yes, yes, yes". She uses her "example popper" and makes the gesture of pulling something out of her head and proceeds to give the class examples of compound words.
The students "mirror" what she is doing and saying. She then has them work with their partners to come up with compound words and then they share them with the class.
Step Four: The students then say "yes" or "no-way" when Mrs. Shipley reads the words from the board. if they are compound words.
Step Five: Mrs. Shipley then says "seats" and they immediately get into their seats, followed with more "hands, hand, hands and eyes" with the students repeating and doing. She quickly says "QT" and the students immediately put their heads down on their desks, covering their eyes. She instructs them to put a thumbs up if the word she says is a compound word or thumbs down if not.
Step Six: They students are then directed to pull out their pencil and eraser while the teacher counts to ten. She then directs them to pass the worksheet to the next student while counting to ten. She then has them write their names on the worksheet while she counts to ten.
This lesson video is fourteen minutes long. And I am not sure what I just saw. I have mixed thoughts and feelings about this lesson. In one aspect I can see some positives where the students are actively engaged, but I question how much of that information are they going to retain. Maybe they will think back to what they were taught and will be able to pick up on a physical example to link it back to. But it makes me wonder how this style is applied to other lessons, if the students are critically thinking and what happens when the students have a substitue teacher or move on to another grade where this method isn't taught?
As for the Social Learning Theory, this lesson does a good job of having the teacher and students interact, although I question the interactions with the teacher. It appears to me as though the students are not really interacting, but more following along. In class, we discussed a lot about the Zone of Proximal Development and it doesn't appear as though these students are being challenged enough, but rather following a routine they have learned.
What the lesson does do well is utilize the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model. In step one and two the teacher is modeling how the students will learn the lesson, as well as, interacting with her students. Step three has the students working with one another. Step four isn't in the model, but appears to allow the teacher to assess where the students are in their understanding of compound words. Step five allows the students to work independently.
I am rather confused as to where the Developmental Learning Theory fits in to this lesson. From what we discussed in class it doesn't appear that the teacher uses any form of concrete or abstract examples, but rather tells her students and then has them mimic her. Maybe her stating a word and having them reply with a "yes" or "no way" is a concrete example, although it appears too easy and once again not challenging them enough to really understand it and apply it abstractly.
I again have no clue as to where Constructivist Learning Theory fits in to this lesson. Yes the children are mental engaged, but it is more mentally, or just part of a pattern and routine that they have become accustomed to in the general sense of the routine and not what they are learning. Mrs. Shipley does not ask any questions at the beginning of the lesson to assess what her students already know in regards to compound words and is not taking any of their background knowledge into consideration.
Classroom management is seen in various ways in this lesson plan. The first example is simply by having the students engaged throughout the entire fourteen minutes of the lesson. They are constantly "mirroring" the teacher when she gets their attention, interacting with their peers and appear to be "busy" the whole time. I would be curious to see how this works all day, with students who blatantly refuse to follow along or with students who don't "buy in" to this type of teaching. The second example is the scoreboard that Mrs. Shipley uses. We see Mrs. Shipley making a tally mark under a smiley face or frown face and can only guess that there is some type of reward when their is more smiles than frowns. As viewers we also see Mrs. Shipley utilizing the noise chart on her board to indicate to her students where she would like their noise level to be.
One of the biggest concerns I have in this lesson and style of teaching is that it doesn't appear as though the teacher has any individual connection to her students. They are all just her students following along in the lesson. To me this is a terrible way to interact with students as it doesn't make them unique, but just another student in the room.
I may be mistaken but the principles that Whole Brain Teaching claim to work from do not match up. At no point in this lesson doe the students utilize their background knowledge or problem solving skills to help them learn the lesson.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)