Participating in this program has been a wonderful experience for me. I have benefited from in-depth introductions to specific aspects of neuroscience research with implications for education. I’ve been able to explore, discuss, and evaluate proposed applications of research for the classroom – some thoughtful and evidence-based, and others arguably premature or misguided. Perhaps most important, I’ve become more interested in pursuing further coursework to learn more, as well as exploring opportunities to participate in research. Overall, the experience has made me more knowledgeable about what is known about understanding and supporting the brain’s readiness for learning, and more committed to applying evidence-based research in my own classroom.
I have enjoyed the balance of exposure to what neuroscience reveals about literacy and numeracy. I initially expected a stronger emphasis on more fundamental learning about the physiology and biochemistry of brain function – and would still like to learn more about those topics. However, focusing instead on the two prongs of literacy and numeracy provided useful lenses into how researchers study cognition and development, and the complexity of constructs and systems that must interact in each realm. I wrote two papers on aspects of literacy, including How Reading Changes the Reading-Ready Brain: A Literature Review, and Building a Model for Visual Word Recognition: A Review of Whitney C., & Cornelissen P. (2008). Through both efforts I was able to dig deeply into how behavioral and neuroscience research can be combined to construct models – both at an early stage to focus ongoing research and at a later stage to build approaches for more applied testing in learning situations – and the importance of those models to enhance collaboration and communication between vastly different research departments – education, psychology, neurobiology – and their traditional methodologies.
The numeracy course, which I found to be the most challenging and rewarding in this program, provided a different lens for examining development and neural processes that contribute to math success. The research and effort required to write two papers -- Activation Differences during Math Tasks among High Achieving Math Students: A Review of Desco, M., Navas-Sanchez, F.K, Sanchez-González, J., Reig, S., Robles, O., Franco, C., … Arango, C. (2011) and Understanding Learning Processes and Implications for Instruction: A focused analysis of the NMAP Report, Chapter 5 – gave me much greater insight into the need to build on existing cognitive competencies or platforms in very young math students and to encourage development of automaticity.
While we studied each strand – literacy and numeracy – in relative isolation, as a science teacher I am well aware that both kinds of learning are integrally related in many disciplines and learning situations. I am hopeful and excited to read about efforts to bridge the gap between them, understanding the complex interconnections, and also better understand how other processes – for example attention and emotional connection – are involved.
Beyond the more solitary work of reading, researching, and writing papers, one of the most valuable aspects of the program was discussing ideas with educator-peers from around the world under the watchful eyes of experts. Heated debates about multiple intelligences, testing, and the importance of “deliberate difficulties”, along with less heated sharing about ways to implement universal design for instruction and appropriate accommodations all resulted in thoughtful exchanges based on science and research. I am better prepared to engage in these same kinds of conversations with peers closer to home, and more motivated to challenge ideas that may be the “latest thing” in district professional development, but not well-supported on the research front. I am grateful for the introduction (through this program) to website resources such as http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/misunderstoodminds/ and http://www.cast.org/index.html and
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/, which I will use and share with colleagues. My capstone project about The Testing Effect has also inspired me to explore using a web quest model to share other information from this class via self-paced learning module formats and inspire others to seek out and use research to make more informed decisions about practice. I hope to find support within my district to do so.
Finally, I am motivated to keep learning. I would like to pursue additional graduate work to learn and contribute to research about critical periods -- readiness to learn and appropriate pacing and sequencing of instruction for different types of learners. I am also interesting in the concept of automaticity – both in math learning and development of literacy – and how learning/classroom structures and routines can be more effective in helping students develop this important component to enhance their access and success when it comes to problem-solving and higher-level critical thinking. On a more basic level, I am also very interested in the understanding neural development in evolutionary terms, and interplays among structure, function, and flexibility when it comes to adaptive advantage, for example the proposed neuronal recycling ideas proposed by Dehaene and their implications beyond the development of reading. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this program, and hope that it’s the start of an ongoing journey to better understand the relationship between mind and brain, and its important implications for learning and education.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
So Many Questions...
There are so many interesting questions that I want to pursue, based on ideas and discussion from this course, that I want to record some of them here so I don't lose them. They include:
How can a student's response to a teacher's efforts to create a positive emotional climate (BT-1) best be measured? How do we know if a student feels safe, encouraged, and positive? And can we use those measures to evaluate our efforts and gauge progress as teachers?
To what extent does background knowledge influence/change the activation of neural patterns during reading. For students lacking background knowledge in a subject, does the activation of neural pathways differ versus students who have relevant background knowledge to apply? (And what about those who apply irrelevant background knowledge?)
Can differences in math facts automaticity (fluency) explain differences in later math achievement in specific areas? (This builds from my Week 10 post.)
To what extent are efforts to teach children to filter out less important inputs (effortful control) counter to efforts to teach children to think divergently or creatively? Can both be achieved? Or are they two ends of a spectrum? Are less inhibition-able children more divergent and creative thinkers?
To what extent are attention struggles in the early years root causes of future academic struggles? For example, evidence from reading research suggests that lack of reading experiences may lead to differences in brain development and activation patterns. (An example is that white matter reductions in corpus callosum may be an effect rather than a cause of dyslexia, as suggested by Carreiras, et al, 2009.) Consider identifying groups of students at ages 4-5 with identified attention struggles and with identified reading struggles and track their progress over the next 4 years in reading. Compare progress of those who received attention-related interventions -- at any point -- and those who did not. Will students who receive intervention for attention progress more appropriately/effectively as readers?
____________________
As you can see, my questions are broad-ranging and not well-defined enough for research yet! But this course has helped me better embrace the potential for cognitive neuroscience and behavioral research to help address important questions that influence how learning is structured in the classroom.
In particular I am most fascinated right now by the idea that the way we use our brain influences its structure and function. The reading research for my literature review (How Reading Changes the Reading-Ready Brain) deepened my thinking about the role that our past experiences and habits play in shaping the tool with which we sense, interpret, and understand any future experiences. As we learn we are building our learning tool in very specific ways.
Caution is needed -- this kind of thinking can lead to very unscientific journeys very quickly -- and that's not where I want to go. However, the idea that in the classroom we are helping students construct the neural tool that will mediate their future interactions with ideas -- and which may possibly limit how they are able to interact with ideas -- is a daunting one.
It clearly leaves behind those early behaviorist "black box" models we began the course with. Education is not about pouring knowledge into brain. Constructivist views took us to a place where we recognized that what is added to one's...mind...has to fit with what is already there, and students -- perhaps optimally in social interactions -- actively construct the new knowledge and understanding. But I sense that this newer thinking goes a bit beyond that...it's the idea that students aren't only constructing their understanding, but constructing their very means of understanding.
How tragic for those who don't build a quality tool. How vital that teachers understand what is needed to ensure that a quality tool is built.
Carreiras, M., Seghier, M. L., Baquero, S., Estevez, A., Lozano, A., Devlin, J.T., & Price, C.J. (2009). An anatomical signature for literacy. Nature, 461, 983-986.
How can a student's response to a teacher's efforts to create a positive emotional climate (BT-1) best be measured? How do we know if a student feels safe, encouraged, and positive? And can we use those measures to evaluate our efforts and gauge progress as teachers?
To what extent does background knowledge influence/change the activation of neural patterns during reading. For students lacking background knowledge in a subject, does the activation of neural pathways differ versus students who have relevant background knowledge to apply? (And what about those who apply irrelevant background knowledge?)
Can differences in math facts automaticity (fluency) explain differences in later math achievement in specific areas? (This builds from my Week 10 post.)
To what extent are efforts to teach children to filter out less important inputs (effortful control) counter to efforts to teach children to think divergently or creatively? Can both be achieved? Or are they two ends of a spectrum? Are less inhibition-able children more divergent and creative thinkers?
To what extent are attention struggles in the early years root causes of future academic struggles? For example, evidence from reading research suggests that lack of reading experiences may lead to differences in brain development and activation patterns. (An example is that white matter reductions in corpus callosum may be an effect rather than a cause of dyslexia, as suggested by Carreiras, et al, 2009.) Consider identifying groups of students at ages 4-5 with identified attention struggles and with identified reading struggles and track their progress over the next 4 years in reading. Compare progress of those who received attention-related interventions -- at any point -- and those who did not. Will students who receive intervention for attention progress more appropriately/effectively as readers?
____________________
As you can see, my questions are broad-ranging and not well-defined enough for research yet! But this course has helped me better embrace the potential for cognitive neuroscience and behavioral research to help address important questions that influence how learning is structured in the classroom.
In particular I am most fascinated right now by the idea that the way we use our brain influences its structure and function. The reading research for my literature review (How Reading Changes the Reading-Ready Brain) deepened my thinking about the role that our past experiences and habits play in shaping the tool with which we sense, interpret, and understand any future experiences. As we learn we are building our learning tool in very specific ways.
Caution is needed -- this kind of thinking can lead to very unscientific journeys very quickly -- and that's not where I want to go. However, the idea that in the classroom we are helping students construct the neural tool that will mediate their future interactions with ideas -- and which may possibly limit how they are able to interact with ideas -- is a daunting one.
It clearly leaves behind those early behaviorist "black box" models we began the course with. Education is not about pouring knowledge into brain. Constructivist views took us to a place where we recognized that what is added to one's...mind...has to fit with what is already there, and students -- perhaps optimally in social interactions -- actively construct the new knowledge and understanding. But I sense that this newer thinking goes a bit beyond that...it's the idea that students aren't only constructing their understanding, but constructing their very means of understanding.
How tragic for those who don't build a quality tool. How vital that teachers understand what is needed to ensure that a quality tool is built.
Carreiras, M., Seghier, M. L., Baquero, S., Estevez, A., Lozano, A., Devlin, J.T., & Price, C.J. (2009). An anatomical signature for literacy. Nature, 461, 983-986.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Magnitude Representations -- What Lingers?
To some extent I see the transition that Siegler & Opfer (2003) suggest -- a developmental progression in students’ representations of number and magnitude, moving from an earlier fuzzy representation which has been described as logarithmic – bigger numbers get more closely clumped together – to a more linear model among older students with more equal intervals regardless of magnitude. However, it’s interesting to me that while in many applications my 5th grade (accelerated to 6th grade curriculum) math class students seem to function with an equal interval representation, logarithmic thinking seems to “overstay” it’s typical developmental timeline when it comes to graphing.
In fifth/sixth grade students create a wide variety of graphs in both math and science. The focus is using graph representations to better understand change. A key concept in line graphing, of course, is that students need to represent quantities at equal intervals. Otherwise, they are not able to observe trends in change – linear vs. non-linear, increased change vs. decreased change. In the past, I have viewed this as being an issue more about clustered data…when you have more data, you need more “room” to separate and organize it. However, after reading this week’s work and reflecting on how many of our examples have clustered data of lower magnitudes, I wonder whether this “unequal interval” problem I see a lot is related possibly to a lingering logarithmic representation – the intervals get closer as the numbers get larger – moving out along the x, or more typically the y, axis. For example, if a student were graphing a series of temperature readings of ice melting (let’s say degrees Celsius) of 0, 1, 1, 3, 4, 3, 4, 8, 10….Then the student would put a lot of effort into making room to distinguish between the more highly clustered numbers (0-4 degrees) and then put 8 and 10 shortly after them. That could be considered logarithmic – in a sense – the larger numbers have smaller differences.
There are other situations in which complexities of magnitude concepts – like its application in graphing -- may re-trigger or prompt use of less accurate representations – e.g. the logarithmic model. Siegler, in another paper (a very useful paper that I will be sharing with colleagues), makes specific suggestions for mathematics education based on what was at that time current “cognitive science research” (2003) Specifically, he talks about issues of magnitude when it comes to understanding fractions. He wrote, “Much of children's difficulty in fractional arithmetic arises from their not thinking of the magnitude represented by each fraction” (Siegler, 2003, p. 222). He notes similar issues when it comes to decimal portions. He implies that students work with the numbers, perhaps effectively utilizing procedures, but often don’t recognize that they are representing magnitudes. That leads to errors. This is part of his larger argument in the paper that conceptually-oriented instruction, as opposed to heavily procedural guidance, is important for math understanding and achievement. It is also interesting to me that teachers may be working with fractions in the classroom without clarifying – making explicit – that these different-looking numbers are just different magnitudes.
For me in the classroom, these ideas about magnitude and possible “lingering, less accurate” models of magnitude will lead me to be more explicit about the concept of magnitude with students and discuss with them their individual models of it. As we prepare for state tests in a week, students are reviewing placing numbers – including fractions – on number lines. This gives me a good opportunity to talk about the extended number line – as it continues into space and numbers get larger, how do students think about those numbers? My students are at an age where they are more aware first, of the importance of making representations, and second, that the ability to represent quantities and operations in multiple ways gives them deeper understanding and more power to use and apply those ideas. What do their own models look like? I look forward to being surprised at what this conversation will teach me about their thinking.
Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In Kilpatrick, J.,Martin, W. B., & Schifter, D. E. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school
mathematics (pp. 219-233).
Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14, 237-243.
In fifth/sixth grade students create a wide variety of graphs in both math and science. The focus is using graph representations to better understand change. A key concept in line graphing, of course, is that students need to represent quantities at equal intervals. Otherwise, they are not able to observe trends in change – linear vs. non-linear, increased change vs. decreased change. In the past, I have viewed this as being an issue more about clustered data…when you have more data, you need more “room” to separate and organize it. However, after reading this week’s work and reflecting on how many of our examples have clustered data of lower magnitudes, I wonder whether this “unequal interval” problem I see a lot is related possibly to a lingering logarithmic representation – the intervals get closer as the numbers get larger – moving out along the x, or more typically the y, axis. For example, if a student were graphing a series of temperature readings of ice melting (let’s say degrees Celsius) of 0, 1, 1, 3, 4, 3, 4, 8, 10….Then the student would put a lot of effort into making room to distinguish between the more highly clustered numbers (0-4 degrees) and then put 8 and 10 shortly after them. That could be considered logarithmic – in a sense – the larger numbers have smaller differences.
There are other situations in which complexities of magnitude concepts – like its application in graphing -- may re-trigger or prompt use of less accurate representations – e.g. the logarithmic model. Siegler, in another paper (a very useful paper that I will be sharing with colleagues), makes specific suggestions for mathematics education based on what was at that time current “cognitive science research” (2003) Specifically, he talks about issues of magnitude when it comes to understanding fractions. He wrote, “Much of children's difficulty in fractional arithmetic arises from their not thinking of the magnitude represented by each fraction” (Siegler, 2003, p. 222). He notes similar issues when it comes to decimal portions. He implies that students work with the numbers, perhaps effectively utilizing procedures, but often don’t recognize that they are representing magnitudes. That leads to errors. This is part of his larger argument in the paper that conceptually-oriented instruction, as opposed to heavily procedural guidance, is important for math understanding and achievement. It is also interesting to me that teachers may be working with fractions in the classroom without clarifying – making explicit – that these different-looking numbers are just different magnitudes.
For me in the classroom, these ideas about magnitude and possible “lingering, less accurate” models of magnitude will lead me to be more explicit about the concept of magnitude with students and discuss with them their individual models of it. As we prepare for state tests in a week, students are reviewing placing numbers – including fractions – on number lines. This gives me a good opportunity to talk about the extended number line – as it continues into space and numbers get larger, how do students think about those numbers? My students are at an age where they are more aware first, of the importance of making representations, and second, that the ability to represent quantities and operations in multiple ways gives them deeper understanding and more power to use and apply those ideas. What do their own models look like? I look forward to being surprised at what this conversation will teach me about their thinking.
Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In Kilpatrick, J.,Martin, W. B., & Schifter, D. E. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school
mathematics (pp. 219-233).
Siegler, R. S., & Opfer, J. E. (2003). The development of numerical estimation: evidence for multiple representations of numerical quantity. Psychological Science, 14, 237-243.
Monday, January 17, 2011
We're All Constructivists: Mulling Behaviorist Strategies in a Constructivist Context
My perspective, informed by the readings and discussions this past week, is that constructivism has a solid place in ongoing educational practice and that it’s accepted– with a variety of interpretive shades – by all. Luke responded to one of my blogs saying that if I spot a non-constructivist I should certainly tag it for research! Thinking more about this, I am less likely than I was last week to consider behaviorism rigidly as an alternative to constructivism, but rather a concept that can be seen within a constructivist context. In fact, I believe that may be the only way to understand it—in a useful way -- at this point and behaviorism may contribute ideas that should not be thrown out, but rather embraced in a constructivist context.
Constructivism is the belief that a learner – the learner’s mind – is an active participant in creating knowledge and understanding because knowledge and understanding can only be built upon prior knowledge using existing skills and cognitive structures/processes within the learner. It is differentiated from the somewhat-straw-man alternative of objectivism, in which knowledge comes from the outside and must be absorbed by the blank slate of the learner. As Luke pointed out in one response this week, viewing constructivism in the context of such an radical alternative as pure objectivism can distort meaning somewhat: given such a black-and-white dichotomous view one might be pushed to two radical and not-supportable ends of a spectrum of pure external truth and pure perspective-based relativism. I understand this point, but think that the argument is simply further reinforcement of how ingrained constructivist thinking -- the idea that the learner / mind has an active role -- has become in the study and practice of education. My sense is there is no real, current argument for the pure objectivist end of such as radical spectrum. I’m not so sure about the other end…
Thinking further about this, my sense is that even a current practitioner who embraces aspects of behaviorism, could still do so within a constructivist context. I found myself uncomfortable with many posts this week that clumped references to behaviorism – sometimes not direct -- with necessarily passive, boring, kill and drill teaching and overall poor quality and ineffective instruction. Behaviorism, as I understand it, is the belief that external motivators (positive and negative reinforcements) are needed to help learners alter behaviors. I’m not sure that it is necessary to say that behaviors are totally, qualitatively different than cognitive understandings. If so, then I see how behaviorism could be said to be non-constructivist. But if behaviors emerge from cognitive structures and processes, reflecting them, then changing the behaviors is related to reconstructing those cognitive processes and structures (though there may be valuable things left to learn about which changes which – direction of causality.)
If we embrace the idea that support for changing behaviors is one route by which changes in cognitive structures and processes are created or observed, then there is a role for positive and negative reinforcements in effective instruction. In my own district there is a strong focus on PBS (positive behavior support) programs…largely with an emphasis on classroom behaviors, including learning behaviors. Teachers are encouraged to recognize students engaged in positive behaviors and reward them with positive reinforcements such as praise, coupons, extra recess, top student awards. School counselors who I have worked with seem to broadly embrace behaviorist models of…behavior modification: sticker programs, earned privileges. I’m not ready to say those are mis-guided. And I’m not ready to say that that learning is somehow so radically different from building other kinds of knowledge and understanding. But we don’t typically call those counselors ineffective, boring, passive, or even that loaded adjective…”traditional.” These efforts are clearly within a behaviorist model, however.
We often use other ways of talking about these efforts, though. We are “building stamina,” or “priming the pump to build internal motivation.” I think that as we recognize the foundational importance of a constructivist view of learning, we need to be open to a range of strategies that need to be engaged and used to help students build their own knowledge. Behaviorist strategies have a place. Varied practice, including memorizing certain ideas for automaticity (math facts) has a place. Collaboration has a place. Direct instruction has a place. But my thinking is that all of it is grounded in the basic belief that individual minds need to build their own understanding, and in order to do so an effective teacher needs to know what’s there already and help learners as individuals layer on new ideas (I think of a spatula spreading frosting on a cake) in effective, useful ways.
Constructivism is the belief that a learner – the learner’s mind – is an active participant in creating knowledge and understanding because knowledge and understanding can only be built upon prior knowledge using existing skills and cognitive structures/processes within the learner. It is differentiated from the somewhat-straw-man alternative of objectivism, in which knowledge comes from the outside and must be absorbed by the blank slate of the learner. As Luke pointed out in one response this week, viewing constructivism in the context of such an radical alternative as pure objectivism can distort meaning somewhat: given such a black-and-white dichotomous view one might be pushed to two radical and not-supportable ends of a spectrum of pure external truth and pure perspective-based relativism. I understand this point, but think that the argument is simply further reinforcement of how ingrained constructivist thinking -- the idea that the learner / mind has an active role -- has become in the study and practice of education. My sense is there is no real, current argument for the pure objectivist end of such as radical spectrum. I’m not so sure about the other end…
Thinking further about this, my sense is that even a current practitioner who embraces aspects of behaviorism, could still do so within a constructivist context. I found myself uncomfortable with many posts this week that clumped references to behaviorism – sometimes not direct -- with necessarily passive, boring, kill and drill teaching and overall poor quality and ineffective instruction. Behaviorism, as I understand it, is the belief that external motivators (positive and negative reinforcements) are needed to help learners alter behaviors. I’m not sure that it is necessary to say that behaviors are totally, qualitatively different than cognitive understandings. If so, then I see how behaviorism could be said to be non-constructivist. But if behaviors emerge from cognitive structures and processes, reflecting them, then changing the behaviors is related to reconstructing those cognitive processes and structures (though there may be valuable things left to learn about which changes which – direction of causality.)
If we embrace the idea that support for changing behaviors is one route by which changes in cognitive structures and processes are created or observed, then there is a role for positive and negative reinforcements in effective instruction. In my own district there is a strong focus on PBS (positive behavior support) programs…largely with an emphasis on classroom behaviors, including learning behaviors. Teachers are encouraged to recognize students engaged in positive behaviors and reward them with positive reinforcements such as praise, coupons, extra recess, top student awards. School counselors who I have worked with seem to broadly embrace behaviorist models of…behavior modification: sticker programs, earned privileges. I’m not ready to say those are mis-guided. And I’m not ready to say that that learning is somehow so radically different from building other kinds of knowledge and understanding. But we don’t typically call those counselors ineffective, boring, passive, or even that loaded adjective…”traditional.” These efforts are clearly within a behaviorist model, however.
We often use other ways of talking about these efforts, though. We are “building stamina,” or “priming the pump to build internal motivation.” I think that as we recognize the foundational importance of a constructivist view of learning, we need to be open to a range of strategies that need to be engaged and used to help students build their own knowledge. Behaviorist strategies have a place. Varied practice, including memorizing certain ideas for automaticity (math facts) has a place. Collaboration has a place. Direct instruction has a place. But my thinking is that all of it is grounded in the basic belief that individual minds need to build their own understanding, and in order to do so an effective teacher needs to know what’s there already and help learners as individuals layer on new ideas (I think of a spatula spreading frosting on a cake) in effective, useful ways.
Monday, December 13, 2010
New Context for Old Questions
The Explorations course has provided a broad foundation of learning about many topics and made me more aware of less familiar aspects of cognitive and neuro-science research. They include, for example, the variety of applications of neuro-imaging, the neural bases of attending, the importance of developing effortful control for learning engagement, and the role of the arts in making learning more effective activating and connecting neural pathways in unique ways. These are all interesting areas I want and need to know more about. Thinking about questions that I would like to focus on throughout the program, however, I keep returning to three questions that emerged for me in our first week:
1.What is perception and what does it mean/take for a student to change his or her perception and be more open to learning?
2. How can a better understanding of the brain help us identify and address the wide range of variables that contribute to “magic moments” of teaching and learning?
3. How does the internal process of learning (memory or sense-making) differ when a student is actively connecting to previous knowledge and extending ideas in creative ways…vs. when a student is memorizing a fact?
Nine weeks later, I feel like have developed some understanding that helps me better define and more specifically consider all three of these questions.
The first question gets at ideas about emotion, I believe. Our work early in the course focused on BT-1 in Hardiman’s Brain-Targeted Teaching Model (2003) – creating that safe, supportive, engaging, empowering environment that can open students to learning. As I wrote in my week 4 post on the ELC: Emotional states can influence the way in which students engage in learning and/or the way in which they access, interact with, and interpret learning. For example, students who are angry, sad, scared, or whose negative emotions crowd their mind may find it difficult to attend – they may not hear or see or understand what is being taught. I think of a metaphor of a force field through which learning can’t penetrate. If learning does “go through” it may be filtered, fragmented, or altered by negative emotions. Positive emotions, research suggests, may have the opposite effect. Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2000) shed significant light on this, suggesting that even discussing cognition and emotion separately may be to make an artificial distinction. Most striking for me in their paper were the claims that 1) learning and recall simply won’t happen in a “purely rational” domain and 2) that by trying to isolate cognition from emotion the result may be that the kind of learning students do develop are those that aren’t applied or transferred effectively.
The second question is somewhat more elusive, but Hardiman’s model is a roadmap that seems likely to help increase the chance that those magic moments will occur. Her model is a powerful reminder of all the aspects that need to be considered and threaded together for effective learning. I connect it to a Six Traits Writing model for writing. Each of the traits can be isolated and skills developed, but only together can they help create a truly effective and beautiful piece of writing. I’m coming to think that the real answer to this question – how do you create magic moments? -- will not only be informed by research, but determined by how effectively we are able to translate it into effective learning experiences. The Brain-Targeted Teaching model itself may be the key to this.
The third question, which may be the one I am most interested in developing and exploring further, gets at how we can define, neurologically or physiologically, the learning differences we recognize when we discuss Blooms Taxonomy. On one level, this idea addressed by Hardiman’s BT4 and BT5 – teaching for mastery vs. teaching for extension and application. By splitting these into two separate strands, Hardiman is recognizing the difference between the two. In discussing mastery (website) she refers to mastery of knowledge, repeated rehearsal and recall. In discussing application and extension she uses words such as induction, deduction, problem-solving and analysis. Her summary suggests that there activities in the classroom that seem to require these different kinds of thinking. However, I still do not have a sense of what those different kinds of thinking really look like in the brain.
So many questions and so little time! I’m not sure I’m ready to narrow my focus too tightly to only a few goals, but I will set the following for myself. First, I will continue to consider all three of the questions I posed in week one. Second, I am specifically interested in the third question, whether/how different levels of thinking…different depths of thinking…are different. This interest intersects with my interests in learners who appear to have advanced potential – gifted and talented students – and also with my interest in creative thinking. As we build networks of ideas on previous networks of ideas, what is it that enables a person to bring together seemingly disparate ideas from distant networks – ideas that haven’t been connected by designed experience – and use those connections to develop truly creative experiences or innovative interpretations of the world? At the end of this program, I would like to be a resource for creating more effective learning experiences that serve advanced learners, including creatively gifted learners, with research-based understanding of how to more effectively foster their talents.
Hardiman, M. (2003). Connecting Brain Research With Effective Teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Immordino-Yang, M. & Damasio, A. (2007.) We Feel Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http:/olms.cte:jhu.edu/olms/data/resource/8038/Week4_ArticleWeFeelThereforeWeLearn.pdf
1.What is perception and what does it mean/take for a student to change his or her perception and be more open to learning?
2. How can a better understanding of the brain help us identify and address the wide range of variables that contribute to “magic moments” of teaching and learning?
3. How does the internal process of learning (memory or sense-making) differ when a student is actively connecting to previous knowledge and extending ideas in creative ways…vs. when a student is memorizing a fact?
Nine weeks later, I feel like have developed some understanding that helps me better define and more specifically consider all three of these questions.
The first question gets at ideas about emotion, I believe. Our work early in the course focused on BT-1 in Hardiman’s Brain-Targeted Teaching Model (2003) – creating that safe, supportive, engaging, empowering environment that can open students to learning. As I wrote in my week 4 post on the ELC: Emotional states can influence the way in which students engage in learning and/or the way in which they access, interact with, and interpret learning. For example, students who are angry, sad, scared, or whose negative emotions crowd their mind may find it difficult to attend – they may not hear or see or understand what is being taught. I think of a metaphor of a force field through which learning can’t penetrate. If learning does “go through” it may be filtered, fragmented, or altered by negative emotions. Positive emotions, research suggests, may have the opposite effect. Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2000) shed significant light on this, suggesting that even discussing cognition and emotion separately may be to make an artificial distinction. Most striking for me in their paper were the claims that 1) learning and recall simply won’t happen in a “purely rational” domain and 2) that by trying to isolate cognition from emotion the result may be that the kind of learning students do develop are those that aren’t applied or transferred effectively.
The second question is somewhat more elusive, but Hardiman’s model is a roadmap that seems likely to help increase the chance that those magic moments will occur. Her model is a powerful reminder of all the aspects that need to be considered and threaded together for effective learning. I connect it to a Six Traits Writing model for writing. Each of the traits can be isolated and skills developed, but only together can they help create a truly effective and beautiful piece of writing. I’m coming to think that the real answer to this question – how do you create magic moments? -- will not only be informed by research, but determined by how effectively we are able to translate it into effective learning experiences. The Brain-Targeted Teaching model itself may be the key to this.
The third question, which may be the one I am most interested in developing and exploring further, gets at how we can define, neurologically or physiologically, the learning differences we recognize when we discuss Blooms Taxonomy. On one level, this idea addressed by Hardiman’s BT4 and BT5 – teaching for mastery vs. teaching for extension and application. By splitting these into two separate strands, Hardiman is recognizing the difference between the two. In discussing mastery (website) she refers to mastery of knowledge, repeated rehearsal and recall. In discussing application and extension she uses words such as induction, deduction, problem-solving and analysis. Her summary suggests that there activities in the classroom that seem to require these different kinds of thinking. However, I still do not have a sense of what those different kinds of thinking really look like in the brain.
So many questions and so little time! I’m not sure I’m ready to narrow my focus too tightly to only a few goals, but I will set the following for myself. First, I will continue to consider all three of the questions I posed in week one. Second, I am specifically interested in the third question, whether/how different levels of thinking…different depths of thinking…are different. This interest intersects with my interests in learners who appear to have advanced potential – gifted and talented students – and also with my interest in creative thinking. As we build networks of ideas on previous networks of ideas, what is it that enables a person to bring together seemingly disparate ideas from distant networks – ideas that haven’t been connected by designed experience – and use those connections to develop truly creative experiences or innovative interpretations of the world? At the end of this program, I would like to be a resource for creating more effective learning experiences that serve advanced learners, including creatively gifted learners, with research-based understanding of how to more effectively foster their talents.
Hardiman, M. (2003). Connecting Brain Research With Effective Teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Immordino-Yang, M. & Damasio, A. (2007.) We Feel Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http:/olms.cte:jhu.edu/olms/data/resource/8038/Week4_ArticleWeFeelThereforeWeLearn.pdf
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Fostering a Mastery Orientation in Students
Our recent discussions about Brain Targets 3, 4, and 5 (Hardiman, 2003) have engaged me in thinking about the extent to which I have a “mastery” orientation in teaching.
• Our work in creating a concept map for BT-3 was extremely helpful; in the past I have developed essential questions as a lesson focus, but have not used a visual representation to clarify the relationships between lesson objectives.
• Readings and discussions about BT-4 have strengthened my focus on providing repeated rehearsals of learning that incorporate a range of perspectives or types of activities that include arts integration.
• This week’s work on BT-5 has refocused my attention on the need to have students get to the place where they can apply new learning. Honestly, I still have questions about how BT-5 fits between BT-4 and BT-6. I think mastery requires application and I realize I have often viewed application as a lens for evaluating mastery. Is it truly a separate stage? I’m still mulling that one.
All of this has supported my own development of a stronger “mastery orientation” in teaching. But is that “mastery orientation” something that students need, too, to enhance their active involvement in learning and their ownership of the learning as long-term memory? And if so, I can I foster it?
I think the answer to the first question is a resounding yes. I think students, especially as they get into the intermediate grades and above, need to be actively involved in the process of creating learning. The more they know about how they learn and what helps or hinders the process can only help them become more self-directed and more successful over time. I spent a great deal of time this week working on my research connections paper linking Habits of Mind with BT-4 and that model is also about students taking more control of understanding and applying thinking skills (Costa, 2000). I think awareness about how content is best absorbed and integrated into learning networks is equally useful.
During the last few weeks I believe I have already started to foster this awareness – more explicitly -- in students. I created concept maps for two new units that we are starting this week and have prepared copies for all students as well as large copies for posting in the classroom. My plan is to refer back to these as we begin and close each lesson so students can see how the learning fits into the larger picture.
In terms of varied practice, in my class we have already started a process – separate from this class – to better understand the non-verbal strengths that are so prevalent. Ninety percent of students in my classroom have non-verbal strengths identified on advanced learning plans and we are working to understand what that means for accessing and demonstrating learning. Within that context, it makes sense for me to specifically talk to students about the range of learning activities I have planned for them, noting which are designed to support non-verbal learning and which, to support other types of learning. I already build a lot of choice into lessons, but I have not been as specific in talking with students about what the choices represent in terms of varied gateways to understanding. Armed with discussions from this course, I am convinced that knowing more about that will help students make better choices about actively engaging in a range of activities.
Finally, a stronger focus on “teaching for application” will lead me to talk about it more explicitly with students. Again, I think I have frequently looked for application of ideas, particularly in an assessment mode, but I am not sure that I have been as explicit as I should be about what it is and why it is important. I have even started to mull the idea of having more open conversations with students about how they think they can apply learning. They may have some great ideas I haven’t thought of that lead us to deeper learning and/or more interesting cross-curriculum connections.
I definitely think this will be motivating to students. As I write this, I am realizing to what extent that I believe that control leads to increased motivation, and giving students more information about why they are participating in classroom learning activities definitely should give them a greater sense of control. From a teacher perspective, the risk of this is that students may ask reasonable questions about why they are “having” to do certain things and…their questions may reveal that there are better ways to develop mastery and apply learning. This might scare some teachers off, but honestly, I find it very exciting. Helping students understand why they are learning the way they are – fostering a “mastery orientation” – is an exciting next step for me in the classroom.
Costa, A.L. (2000). Habits of Mind. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (3rd Ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Hardiman, M.M. (2003). Connecting Brain Research with Effective Teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. Rowman and Littlefield Education: New York.
• Our work in creating a concept map for BT-3 was extremely helpful; in the past I have developed essential questions as a lesson focus, but have not used a visual representation to clarify the relationships between lesson objectives.
• Readings and discussions about BT-4 have strengthened my focus on providing repeated rehearsals of learning that incorporate a range of perspectives or types of activities that include arts integration.
• This week’s work on BT-5 has refocused my attention on the need to have students get to the place where they can apply new learning. Honestly, I still have questions about how BT-5 fits between BT-4 and BT-6. I think mastery requires application and I realize I have often viewed application as a lens for evaluating mastery. Is it truly a separate stage? I’m still mulling that one.
All of this has supported my own development of a stronger “mastery orientation” in teaching. But is that “mastery orientation” something that students need, too, to enhance their active involvement in learning and their ownership of the learning as long-term memory? And if so, I can I foster it?
I think the answer to the first question is a resounding yes. I think students, especially as they get into the intermediate grades and above, need to be actively involved in the process of creating learning. The more they know about how they learn and what helps or hinders the process can only help them become more self-directed and more successful over time. I spent a great deal of time this week working on my research connections paper linking Habits of Mind with BT-4 and that model is also about students taking more control of understanding and applying thinking skills (Costa, 2000). I think awareness about how content is best absorbed and integrated into learning networks is equally useful.
During the last few weeks I believe I have already started to foster this awareness – more explicitly -- in students. I created concept maps for two new units that we are starting this week and have prepared copies for all students as well as large copies for posting in the classroom. My plan is to refer back to these as we begin and close each lesson so students can see how the learning fits into the larger picture.
In terms of varied practice, in my class we have already started a process – separate from this class – to better understand the non-verbal strengths that are so prevalent. Ninety percent of students in my classroom have non-verbal strengths identified on advanced learning plans and we are working to understand what that means for accessing and demonstrating learning. Within that context, it makes sense for me to specifically talk to students about the range of learning activities I have planned for them, noting which are designed to support non-verbal learning and which, to support other types of learning. I already build a lot of choice into lessons, but I have not been as specific in talking with students about what the choices represent in terms of varied gateways to understanding. Armed with discussions from this course, I am convinced that knowing more about that will help students make better choices about actively engaging in a range of activities.
Finally, a stronger focus on “teaching for application” will lead me to talk about it more explicitly with students. Again, I think I have frequently looked for application of ideas, particularly in an assessment mode, but I am not sure that I have been as explicit as I should be about what it is and why it is important. I have even started to mull the idea of having more open conversations with students about how they think they can apply learning. They may have some great ideas I haven’t thought of that lead us to deeper learning and/or more interesting cross-curriculum connections.
I definitely think this will be motivating to students. As I write this, I am realizing to what extent that I believe that control leads to increased motivation, and giving students more information about why they are participating in classroom learning activities definitely should give them a greater sense of control. From a teacher perspective, the risk of this is that students may ask reasonable questions about why they are “having” to do certain things and…their questions may reveal that there are better ways to develop mastery and apply learning. This might scare some teachers off, but honestly, I find it very exciting. Helping students understand why they are learning the way they are – fostering a “mastery orientation” – is an exciting next step for me in the classroom.
Costa, A.L. (2000). Habits of Mind. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds: A Resource Book for Teaching Thinking (3rd Ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Hardiman, M.M. (2003). Connecting Brain Research with Effective Teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. Rowman and Littlefield Education: New York.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Week 4: Emotions and Cognition
This week’s discussions about BTT #1 have deepened my understanding of the relationship between cognitive and emotional factors in learning. The cognitive and emotional are intertwined and inseparable. Accepting this at a deep level, if I’m honest, is harder than it may seem. It contradicts centuries of philosophy, art, literature, and common thinking about the “objective” versus the “subjective,” the heart versus the mind, the brain versus emotions. (Perhaps a rose truly is not always a rose, but sometimes a thorny symbol of love lost and other times a thrilling hint of love just beginning…) This idea is truly radical at a very deep level, but the evidence for it is convincing. Equally convincing, the risks of ignoring it appear significant when it comes to helping students develop deep, transferrable understanding and the skills to apply knowledge and understanding in novel settings. While I think I have already adopted some practices that reflect social and emotional learning, there are specific things that are new, and important things I need to work on.
Prior to this class, experience had taught me that relationships had to precede learning. As a new, mid-career teacher 7 years ago I quickly came to realize that I am not an imparter of knowledge. The challenge is not to pour knowledge into waiting heads and a teacher can’t be replaced by a jar of knowledge – a book, computer, or canned activity. The challenge is to excite learners to actively incorporate knowledge and understanding, and to be truly effective a teacher must have a RELATIONSHIP with students before that can happen. Greeting students at the door, writing personal comments, acknowledging students’ interests and interacting beyond the school day are all important ways to build those relationships. Engendering trust and being genuine are part of it, too, as is letting students know that they are part of a community where it is safe to share ideas and take risks. Those are ideas that I believe I have been incorporating into my teaching practice – more effectively each year – for a while.
What’s new are some of the deeper and perhaps more radical ideas proposed by Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007). First, they suggest that learning simply cannot happen devoid of emotion (p. 9). Emotion is not something that is along for the ride and it’s not only about students trusting teachers and having good relationships with them. Emotion is part of the way in which knowledge is understood, memories are made, brain connections are created. My new understanding is that trying to remove emotion from learning is like removing a piece of the track and still expecting a train to go from point A to point B. Hardiman (2003) also talks about this as she traces the path of a visual stimulus going from the thalamus to the neocortex and simlutaneously to the amygdala where emotional relevance is determined (p. 29). This idea tells me that any learning to which I am trying to expose students is being understood through a lens or channel or filter of emotion, and it’s not just me as the teacher that creates that emotion. Students may be responding to self-concepts, peer relationships, home struggles, and social preoccupations, as well as their relationships with me. I have a role in helping the student manage the emotional…lens, but it’s about a whole lot more than a student’s relationship with me.
My second deeper understanding is also based on Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007). They propose that efforts to teach students only “objective” learning – a misguided effort anyway based on what I just discussed in the last paragraph – may result in the student creating a body of learning made up of knowledge that is inherently less useful – knowledge that doesn’t really transfer to “real-world” situations (p. 9). To me this means that by trying to be objective, to focus on something dressed up as being strictly objective and not personal, is focusing our efforts on teaching students things that does not accomplish what is really important: to “prepare skilled, informed, and ethical students who can navigate the world’s social, moral, and cognitive challenges as citizens” (Immordino-Yang and Damasio, 2007, p. 3).
Specifically, for me, these ideas have specific implications for my own growth as an effective educator. First, I need to broaden my lens of what it means to create a positive, emotional climate. How do I help students understand themselves emotionally and help them develop the skills to self-regulate and ensure that they are open to relevant, important learning? Second, I need to adjust my own view of what I am teaching. I’m not saying that I will reinvent content standards – I accept the responsibility to teach what my state tells me I must teach. However, I may need to delve deeper into those standards and understand not only how to present them in engaging ways, but how to appreciate and communicate their inherent emotional dimensions. Finally, I need to find ways to effectively assess the emotional climate in which my students are immersed. Is it positive? Can it be better? What about it is within my sphere of control and influence? And how can I measure whether needed improvement is occurring?
References
Hardiman, M. (2003). Connecting Brain Research With Effective Teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Eduation.
Immordino-Yang, M. & Damasio, A. (2007.) We Feel Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http:/olms.cte:jhu.edu/olms/data/resource/8038/Week4_ArticleWeFeelThereforeWeLearn.pdf
Prior to this class, experience had taught me that relationships had to precede learning. As a new, mid-career teacher 7 years ago I quickly came to realize that I am not an imparter of knowledge. The challenge is not to pour knowledge into waiting heads and a teacher can’t be replaced by a jar of knowledge – a book, computer, or canned activity. The challenge is to excite learners to actively incorporate knowledge and understanding, and to be truly effective a teacher must have a RELATIONSHIP with students before that can happen. Greeting students at the door, writing personal comments, acknowledging students’ interests and interacting beyond the school day are all important ways to build those relationships. Engendering trust and being genuine are part of it, too, as is letting students know that they are part of a community where it is safe to share ideas and take risks. Those are ideas that I believe I have been incorporating into my teaching practice – more effectively each year – for a while.
What’s new are some of the deeper and perhaps more radical ideas proposed by Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007). First, they suggest that learning simply cannot happen devoid of emotion (p. 9). Emotion is not something that is along for the ride and it’s not only about students trusting teachers and having good relationships with them. Emotion is part of the way in which knowledge is understood, memories are made, brain connections are created. My new understanding is that trying to remove emotion from learning is like removing a piece of the track and still expecting a train to go from point A to point B. Hardiman (2003) also talks about this as she traces the path of a visual stimulus going from the thalamus to the neocortex and simlutaneously to the amygdala where emotional relevance is determined (p. 29). This idea tells me that any learning to which I am trying to expose students is being understood through a lens or channel or filter of emotion, and it’s not just me as the teacher that creates that emotion. Students may be responding to self-concepts, peer relationships, home struggles, and social preoccupations, as well as their relationships with me. I have a role in helping the student manage the emotional…lens, but it’s about a whole lot more than a student’s relationship with me.
My second deeper understanding is also based on Immordino-Yang and Damasio (2007). They propose that efforts to teach students only “objective” learning – a misguided effort anyway based on what I just discussed in the last paragraph – may result in the student creating a body of learning made up of knowledge that is inherently less useful – knowledge that doesn’t really transfer to “real-world” situations (p. 9). To me this means that by trying to be objective, to focus on something dressed up as being strictly objective and not personal, is focusing our efforts on teaching students things that does not accomplish what is really important: to “prepare skilled, informed, and ethical students who can navigate the world’s social, moral, and cognitive challenges as citizens” (Immordino-Yang and Damasio, 2007, p. 3).
Specifically, for me, these ideas have specific implications for my own growth as an effective educator. First, I need to broaden my lens of what it means to create a positive, emotional climate. How do I help students understand themselves emotionally and help them develop the skills to self-regulate and ensure that they are open to relevant, important learning? Second, I need to adjust my own view of what I am teaching. I’m not saying that I will reinvent content standards – I accept the responsibility to teach what my state tells me I must teach. However, I may need to delve deeper into those standards and understand not only how to present them in engaging ways, but how to appreciate and communicate their inherent emotional dimensions. Finally, I need to find ways to effectively assess the emotional climate in which my students are immersed. Is it positive? Can it be better? What about it is within my sphere of control and influence? And how can I measure whether needed improvement is occurring?
References
Hardiman, M. (2003). Connecting Brain Research With Effective Teaching: The Brain-Targeted Teaching Model. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Eduation.
Immordino-Yang, M. & Damasio, A. (2007.) We Feel Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10. Retrieved from http:/olms.cte:jhu.edu/olms/data/resource/8038/Week4_ArticleWeFeelThereforeWeLearn.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)