for courseworkhero.co.uk only

Evidence-based practice is instruction that is guided by research and not just feelings or opinions. Our Literacy Coach is talking often about the use of “best practices” in our teaching and what that means. When a teachers says they feel they have found a better way she may ask them to defend themselves with a  “How do you know?” “Where is your evidence?” She is not trying to be mean or put any one down but she truly wants what is best for the students and if a teacher bring data showing their method is working that is all she is looking for. She just wants teachers to be conscious of the results they are seeing and allow themselves to accept when something isn’t working and having the willingness to change.

DIBELS. https://dibels.uoregon.edu

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Here I need first comment about what you read it above

Mayer Reflection 2

When looking to write my second reflection from the Mayer text I found it difficult to choose between Fluency and Comprehension because I find that they are so interconnected. If you do not have good fluency, you cannot have good comprehension. If a student spends a great deal of time decoding words in a passage or story they will lose the meaning behind the text. By the time they have reached the end of a page they may forget what they have read at the beginning of that page. I have spent the past few years working with our most struggling readers and I found so much of what I read to ring true with what I see on a daily basis. I know it is true for myself as well. When I am reading new text that may be complicated I have to read the material more than once and there are times where I have finished a paragraph or page and thought to myself, “I have no idea what I just read”. That is decoding not reading fluently with comprehension.

There is controversy in education about how much focus should be placed on isolated phonemic awareness instruction, and I can understand why. There are students who arrive in the 2nd grade who still have not secured their basic letter sounds, let alone of the different vowel patters, diagraphs, and other phonemes that comprise the English language. Without that basic knowledge reading becomes much more difficult.

Many schools have gotten away from isolated lessons and focused instruction on a whole language approach where phonics is integrated into the daily reading lessons or in small group leveled reading setting. Some students pick up on the sounds and strategies used in decoding quickly and do not need stand alone lessons, while some students struggle with many aspects of reading and need that extra support as they are learning what to do when they come upon unfamiliar words. There needs to be some explicit phonemic instruction, and there is evidence to support that. Many basal texts now have a combination of whole word and phonics. This balanced approach is in my opinion much more meaningful. As an interventionist I liked seeing the data supporting systematic phonics skills can improve the decoding of struggling students. While I do not solely rely on phonics, it does play a role in my lessons. We follow the program called Words Their Way by Donald Bear, Marcia Invernizzi, Shane Templeton, and Francine Johnston. It is a developmental hands-on word study program that has been shown to be very successful.

The book also discussed the difference between the phonics and whole word approach. I am a proponent of phonemic awareness. If students learn the different rules and sounds they can apply what they know when they get stuck on a word. While no rule fits all words gives students a place to start. You then must teach them other strategies (checking for meaning, picture clues, context clues, rereading, etc.) when simple decoding does not suffice. There are definitely sight words that all students must know. Dolch is a word list commonly used in schools that presents words by grade level that are most used in reading and writing. Some of these words follow phonological rules, others do not and they just need to be memorized.

I found it so interesting to read that much of what I have been trained in has its foundations far earlier than I realized. We may call it something different, but at its core it is the same.  The Mayer (2008) shared a strategy called “vowel variation” (p. 56) which is similar to the Café Model’s (2009) “flip the sound” (p. 174) where a student tries both a long vowel and short vowel sound to determine which makes sense. Once students are familiar comfortable with the many strategies used in decoding the hope is that they will use them subconsciously as they are reading and it will become second nature.

One method discussed was the method of repeated readings. It says that with repeated readings a student will become more fluent in the decoding of a passage. I have used this and found it to be quite effective. I have even gone so far as to have the students tape themselves reading the passage. They then listen to themselves as they are following along. They mark where they catch themselves making a mistake. When done, they read the passage again. We repeat the process several times, reading the same passage and they love being able to hear the improvement in the rate and accuracy, which are both key pieces of fluency. Even if you do not take it that far, teachers are always telling students to read and reread. That rereading not only helps them gain confidence but it builds fluency and once fluency is strong comprehension follows. Again, the goal being that as a student gains confidence this will all be done without them thinking about it.

You can tell a great deal about a student by listening to them attempt to decode a passage. If they read the word blue instead of black you know they are seeing the beginning sound but not the middle or end. If they say picture for photograph they are likely using a visual cue that allows them to make a connection to the story an attempt at the word. When doing this type of diagnostic assessment you can determine where there is a gap in knowledge and work with the student to fill in that gap.

The three cognitive processes that are necessary for reading are phonological awareness (recognizing units of sound), decoding (knowing what sounds go with what letters), and decoding fluently (reading with good rate and expression).  Without meaning though, this is not reading. Students with a great deal of prior knowledge have more experiences to draw from and can more easily gain meaning from the words being read. They have a larger, richer vocabulary and have been exposed to many words that other students may not have access to. This gives them a head start with reading as compared with a child with little schema to connect to a story. Children need to be exposed to as much literature as possible, as many words as possible both at home and at school. This will help build their vocabulary, strengthen the background knowledge they have and allow them to become stronger more confident readers.

Megan Smith

Driscoll 

After reading the first chapter of Learning for Instruction I feel that I have a much stronger grasp of the wide range of learning theories. It is extremely interesting to delve into various theories and what individual types of thinking belong with each. Before reading this chapter when the word learning was used I immediately thought about what knowledge is obtained in the classroom, in job training, or from word of mouth. Learning through experience plays such a crucial role in what knowledge each individual knows. Humans learn so much just by experimenting and through repetition. Every day we observe thousands of activities and investigate the strategy behind it and what the outcome is. Once I started thinking about learning as a daily activity I began to recognize and acknowledge it.

            The process of theory building is a subject that has been discussed in other classes I have taken. This concept is relatable to people working in any field. In order to be successful you must be able to assess a situation and theorize what the feedback will be. People of all ages make assumptions every day and then ask questions and observe the situation in order to explain the events they are seeing. Once they form their opinion or hypothesis they experiment to see if their theory produces the desired results. Even though theory building is used in every field, what separates each discipline is how they form their questions and what principles of knowledge they believe in. I found it very interesting to read the examples of how different disciplines view the same scenario. It is easy to see why there are disputes within organizations or groups when there are so many ways different ways to try and understand a situation. By using consilience, people from all fields can better understand each other and use a common framework to come to conclusions. If more people would do this and be open minded to others opinions I believe everyone would have more success.

            There are several definitions for learning, but there is really only one conclusive way to find out if learning has occurred, which is demonstration. By asking the learner to demonstrate their newly acquired knowledge the teacher can make sure that they grasp the subject. Teachers can then use learning theories to discover how the learning took place. Learning theories have three parts: inputs, means, and results. I will be able to utilize learning theories when working in the Human Resources field. When training employees I will have to speak to them on an individual basis to understand how they learn. Once I know the input, I can create a process and training strategy, the means, to ensure that learning will take place. After the training program is over, I will be able to analyze my results by watching job performance and with the overall company success.

            For hundreds of years researchers have investigated what causes learning to happen and how humans retain that knowledge once it is learned. Until reading about epistemology, I didn’t realize that there was an entire branch of philosophy that studied all aspects of human knowledge.  After I acquainted myself with the three concepts of epistemology, I concluded that empiricism, rationalism, and nativism are all valid. Some information we are born with such as the ability to breathe and swallow which agrees with the concept of nativism. Empiricism is the most important source of knowledge because most information that we know is learned through experience. Rationalism is also very important because another key way to obtain knowledge is by asking questions and using reasoning skills. I believe that all three sources contribute to the knowledge individuals possess.  I don’t see how others could think only one source I correct when you think back about what you have learned over the course of your life. Once you reflect back, it is easy to see that you have gained knowledge all three ways. However, when it comes to the content of knowledge I do not agree with all of the concepts. Pragmatism describes my view on knowledge because I believe that most knowledge is provisional and that empirical and rational processes are the best ways to obtain knowledge. When we combine experience and reason then we are able to process and understand what is happening and what the outcome will be.

            Ebbinghaus, Thorndike, and Pavlov all believed that learning happens because of association. Classical conditioning demonstrates this theory. An example would be a dog salivating when it eats a treat, if you ring a bell every time you give the dog a treat, it will soon become conditioned to salivate when it hears a bell ringing even if the treat is not present. The Gestalt theory doesn’t agree with association but uses perception. This theory states that knowledge doesn’t just come from experience, but that the learner must actively organize their sensory data. An example of this theory is trial and error. If you continue to fail at a task and then step away from it and organize what you already know, you will gain insight which allows you to, in most cases, go back and successfully complete the task. 

            After reading this chapter, I have a much more thorough understanding of epistemology and sources of knowledge. Once you grasp that there are various ways to view learning and that not all people share the same views, it makes it easier to see why different learning strategies must be used in teaching.

Mayer

            Educational psychology is very important when discussing instructional environment and learning strategy. Understanding that everyone learns things differently is what sets apart great instructors from average ones. By changing the formatting of their instruction, educators can ensure that their students will actually learn the material.

            In the text there were three approaches to research on learning and instruction: behaviorist, cognitive, and contextual. The behavior approach has only two main variables instruction manipulations and outcome performance. In this approach, researchers focus on whether one method of instruction is better than the other. Many researchers believe that the problem with this approach is that is does not explain why one happens to be better than the other. I find this to be a big issue because part of what helps you grow as an instructor is learning why certain tactics yield better results than others. You wouldn’t buy one model of car over another just because someone told you it was better. You would want to do the research necessary to determine why it was the better car. The cognitive approach adds several more steps to the process. It combines instructional manipulation and learner characteristics to discover the learning process and then the learning outcome. Finally, it determines the outcome performance. The cognitive approach focuses more on what was learned instead of how much was learned. The third approach, contextual, has all of the same components as the cognitive approach except it adds instruction manipulation as intended and instructional manipulation as implemented.

            When reading about the three roads for psychology in education I chose the third option, two way street between psychology and education. This phase makes the most sense because both parties are contributing and reviewing each other’s findings in order to get the most accurate results. As an educator, you wouldn’t want to follow the lesson plans of someone who has never taught in a classroom even if they are knowledgeable on the subject. There is a big difference in knowing a subject and having the ability to teach it. As a psychologist you may know your findings and believe that they are correct, but the results from a lab will most likely not be the same results you would get in a classroom. Educators can use the discoveries of psychologist and incorporate them into their instruction, while psychologist can benefit from listening to teachers and testing their theories back in the lab.

            All three metaphors of learning have valid points and are successful for different types of learners. Some people learn by writing things down and reading by themselves, while others must hear the information out loud and ask questions to understand. I don’t think anyone could say one of these metaphors is better than the other because it all depends on the situation.  For example, drill and practice is very useful on basic skills such as addition and subtraction but probably not very useful on memorizing dates and events in history. By utilizing all three metaphors, instructors should be able to adapt their lessons to teach all types of learners.

            This text discusses three different principles of learning, dual channels, limited capacity, and active processing. Within these principles of learning there are three memory stores in meaningful learning, sensory, working, and long-term. Experts believe that all incoming information is accepted by the sense receptors and held there briefly. If the learner pays attention the information and uses it in a timely fashion, then that information can be transferred to the working memory. If you repeatedly use that information then it can be stored in you long-term memory, which has an unlimited capacity. Once you understand the different forms of memory it is easy to see why repetition is a contributing factor to learning. By instructing your students to demonstrate their newly acquired knowledge frequently they have a better chance of remembering it.

            Since learning means a permanent change in a person’s knowledge it is important that during instruction they select the most relevant pieces of information and organize it in their working memory. Once the information is stored, they can integrate it into their long-term memory by recalling the information and using it in their daily lives. Over the course of my education I have used all five types of knowledge: facts, concepts, procedures, strategies, and beliefs. I enjoy uses concepts, procedures, and strategies to better understand the facts I already know to be true. As an instructor it is very important to help your students understand what information is factual and what information is your own personal belief. It is easy to let your beliefs shape how you teach information to others. The worst instructors are the ones who take points away from you for voicing your own beliefs. Grading should be done based on overall understanding of the subject and students should be praised for having their own opinions on the topic.

            In summary, this chapter greatly increased my knowledge on different types of learning. I think the most important thing we can do as trainers and instructors is to allow our students and trainees the opportunity to learn in multiple ways. By incorporating several different learning techniques there is no reason why all students cannot find success.

Here I need first comment about what you read it above

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Driscoll 

            B.F Skinner believed that environmental cues and results explained behavior and that learning could be seen by observing an organism over a period of time. There are two types of behavior respondent and operant. I have seen examples of respondent behavior my whole life. It starts when you’re a child and are rewarded for good grades and cleaning your room. Then it continues when you are a teenager and punished for coming home late. I believe it is a very effective way of teaching because the positive and negative results are relatively black and white. People are less likely to do something if they know there will be a negative consequence and more likely to do something if they know they will be rewarded. A child would be more likely to clean their room if they knew they would get five dollars instead of their parents just telling them good job. The only problem I find with reinforcement is that it allows people to think they need to be rewarded for all of their work. Everyone needs to understand that you won’t be rewarded for everything you do; some things are bound to go unnoticed. This is extremely true within organizations that are short staffed. Employees from other departments may be required to pick up other tasks with very little benefit or gratitude.

            The Premack Principle is another tactic I have seen used multiple times. If you pass your multiplication tables the first time you can go to recess before the kids who haven’t passed. You can even see this principle being used on adults. My boss has stated several time, since you came in early today you can leave early tonight. Once I realized I would get to leave early if I offered to come in earlier I didn’t mind doing it.

            Weakening a response by punishment seems to be effective as well to an extent. Punishments should never physically or mentally abuse the person whose response you are trying to change. I believe response cost and time out can be the most successful with younger children.

            When looking at the three ways of teaching new behaviors, shaping, chaining, and fading I believe there are scenarios where they could each be successful. Shaping would probably be the best strategy to use when teaching a young child to play T-ball. Since T-ball players have usually never played a sport before, coaches and parents have to teach them step by step how to swing a bat, catch and throw a ball, and run from base to base. The process of chaining would be beneficial to a person coaching an older, more experienced team, such as a varsity volleyball team. The players already know the movements required to hit the ball. Therefore the coach can build off of that knowledge to teach them new plays and court rotations. Fading could be used when training a new employee. When a new graphic designer starts at a firm they are required to get their visuals approved before sending them back to the companies for final approval. As the employee gets comfortable with the job and hasn’t had any crucial errors in his graphics, he isn’t required to get them preapproved.

            As a professional in the Human Resources field I will use programs of behavior change. I might have to create a plan if I am having problems with employees not following the risk management guidelines. This behavior must be changed to avoid workplace injury and lawsuits. A reasonable goal to change this behavior would be reducing the amount of dangerous activity occurring each day. When determining my appropriate reinforcers I might consider giving a small bonus to employees following proper protocol at the end of each month. I could also use response cost, such as fining employees who are partaking in dangerous activities after the proper training has occurred. When deciding what procedure for changing behavior to use I would think about how great the importance of this change is. In the case of risk management, it is very important. Since all employees are already required to attend yearly risk management training seminars, this is not a new behavior that must be taught. I would just need to create a way to strengthen the behavior with reinforcement or weaken the behavior with a negative consequence. In this scenario let’s say I chose to give an extra two hours of vacation time to any employee that has followed every safety guideline and I take away an hour of paid vacation time from employees who have broken the rules. In the fourth step of my behavioral change program I would make sure to frequently check on my employees to make sure rules are being followed. I would also post updated posters around the business to remind them of these guidelines. After the end of the first month I would pass around a short survey to each employee to get their feedback on the program. Feedback is very important in organizations and people tend to be happier at their jobs if they know their opinions are being asked for and taken into consideration. In three months, I will review my monthly results to ensure that change has taken place and make any adjustments to my plan that I see necessary.

            In an extreme case, where on employee might be completely disregarding the changes I am asking for, I could implement a contingency contract. In this contract I could state that the first time the undesired behavior occurs one will receive a verbal warning, followed by a written warning for the second occurrence, and finally extermination for the third occurrence. When I worked at a retail store this type of contract was called the commitment program and proved to be effective. I find that when people know what the direct results of their negative actions will be, they are less likely to take them.

Mayer Chapter 2

            When reading this chapter I discovered a lot of interesting facts about reading that I didn’t really think about. I started reading at a very young age, 3-4, so at the age of 23 reading comes just as easy to me as speaking or walking. I use it so frequently that I don’t really think about all of the cognitive processes that go into it. I thought it was very interesting that a reader’s eyes only focus on a point in the text for 200 to 250 milliseconds.  Phoneme is a very important aspect of reading. Individuals who recognize the separate sound units that make up words tend to be better overall readers. Some readers must reread the text multiple times in order to speak it out loudly rapidly and without errors. This is called decoding fluency. It also explains why children in classrooms become nervous when called upon to read out loud in front of the class. If they would happen to come across a word they aren’t familiar with they may stutter and become embarrassed.

            What makes phonological awareness so hard is the fact that in the English language each letter doesn’t necessarily only make one sounds. There are only twenty-six letters in the alphabet and forty-two major sounds. Once a child can understand this and learn the different sounds letters make, they usually have no problems reading. Research has shown that phonological awareness is directly related to how well a child can read.  Phonological awareness increases the most during the elementary school years. Instructors can use segmentation, blending, deletion, and substitution when teaching children about phoneme. I found this information very interesting after looking at the results of experiments on the subject. I hope all elementary educators are using these learning strategies to help students read to the best of their ability since it is such a crucial part to their success throughout life.

            In my opinion both the phonics and whole-word approach have valid points. Some children find it easier to break down large words into syllables while others would rather read the whole word. I would try to incorporate both techniques into my teaching plan in order to appeal to each type of learner. I would use the whole-word approach on shorter words such as dog, bird, car, and foot and the phonics approach on words such as centimeter, television, and automobile. This would make my general strategy the analogy approach since I am using both full words and rhyming syllables.

            When I was in school I can remember my peers using all of the word identification strategies. It is important to remember that everyone learns differently and to allow them to use the way that makes the most sense to them. After students can read the words correctly it is important that they learn to read them fluently in a sentence and then learn the meaning of the word they have been reading. Once they reach the point of automaticity then they are fully functioning readers.

            After students go through the three cognitive processes: phonological awareness, decoding, and decoding fluently, they can engage in meaning access and build their vocabulary. The best way to achieve meaning access is by combining immersion and direct instruction. Direct instruction is mostly used inside the classroom and can be seen in the form of vocabulary tests and flash cards. The only downfall is there is not enough time in a school year to build up a large enough vocabulary. Students and parents must take responsibility to make sure they are reading outside of the classroom in order to reach vocabulary goals. However, reading alone will not help children learn words. They will only learn new words if they ask questions about what they have read and words they don’t understand. By combining all of these techniques instructors can truly increase a child’s ability to understand words and what they are reading.

Here I need first comment about what you read it above

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
 
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Lisa Hughes

Driscoll – Chapter 1: Introduction to Theories of Learning and Instruction

According to Driscoll (2005), learning is synonymous with change. Without some kind of cognitive or behavioral change resulting from experience or interaction with the world, learning cannot occur. Interesting, I recently heard a similar sentiment issued by Albert Einstein: “Learning is experience. Everything else is just information” (“Quote by Albert Einstein”, 2013). For me, this nicely summed up what Driscoll was trying to explain. Yet, scholars still argue about what constitutes learning and knowledge. I, personally, haven’t yet settled on a single philosophy. On the one hand, I fully understand the behaviorist perspective, where learning is best observed through demonstrations and behaviors. After all, how can one truly know how to, say, tie a shoe, if one is unable to perform the action. On the other hand, isn’t some knowledge essentially cognitive. For example, I know that in Juarez, Mexico many individuals live in cardboard boxes and U-Hauls (I experienced this first hand in 1996 when I went there on a mission trip). How am I able to perform this knowledge? Is my writing it down what makes it valid, or does the mere existence of it in my mind deem it learned? This quandary leans me more toward cognitivism, which argues that learning is a function found within the learner and is therefore not necessarily observable through behavior. Instead, the learner’s thought process itself must be taken into consideration. More recently, a third perspective has begun to take root: social learning. Social psychologists feel that learning is a collaborative or social effort and is therefore reliant on interaction and the “sociocultural environment” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 6). I do see the value of collaboration, yet I’m not sure this is how or where learning actually occurs. Perhaps it is a concurrent option for learning, but not an exclusive one.

Learning theories, then, attempt to define how specific change (learning) occurs and what experiences bring about that change. Theory, in general, seeks to account for a particular incident, experience, or behavior in order to predict how to achieve the same results in the future. Specifically, learning theories consider how learning is achieved and influence, therefore, the selection of instructional strategies and curriculum, for example. Learning theories consider the result or changes that occur, the means or processes that deliver those results, and the triggers or inputs that start the learning process. However, theories are not a quick fix or a simple instruction manual for instructional design. Instead, numerous variables, such as learner characteristics and learning environment, influence the application of such learning theories. This also accounts for the various types of popular learning theories, each, in turn, building on the preceding findings.

Driscoll (2005) argues that a “consilience,” or common ground, is critical when considering learning theories; the real-world issues lie somewhere between biology, education, computer science, and psychology, for example, rather than one discipline or the other. But common ground is not easy to find. In the epistemology of learning, scholars argue about the sources and content of knowledge as well as the knowledge traditions. I tend to lean toward rationalism and pragmatism myself. First, I think it’s important to clarify that my understanding of pragmatism goes a bit beyond Driscoll’s explanation that it’s a combination of learning through experience and learning through reasoning. Dictionary.com defines pragmatism as “a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value” and also “character or conduct that emphasizes practicality” (“Pragmatism”, 2013). Therefore, I view pragmatism as a more practical approach that takes into account reality and multiple perspectives. For example, while I do feel that some knowledge is absolute, like the fact that two plus two is always four, there are other aspects that are fluid or interpreted, such as whether or not the sky is “pretty” during a storm. How can such strict perspectives on learning respect the diverse experiences and thought processes of the entire planet? This seems quite daunting to me, and would suggest that a combination of various learning theories might be the best approach… yet Driscoll explains that you cannot believe that learning is demonstrated through behavior and is represented through cognitive processes at the same time. I’m not sure what to believe at this point.

I feel almost arrogant when I read about learning theorists and disagree with their conclusions. Who am I to say that Ebbinghaus is wrong? My personal experiences surely aren’t strong enough to counter years of research. Yet, when Ebbinghaus claims “if ideas are connected by the frequency of their associations, then learning should be predictable based on the number of times a given association is repeatedly experienced” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 16), I immediately think about rebellious children who don’t always learn from repeated positive or negative reinforcement. My three-year-old, for example, doesn’t really respond well to sticker charts nor timeouts. We can’t find what works for him. Repeating the same associations over and over haven’t changed his behavior, which presumably means he hasn’t yet learned. This seems to counter Ebbinghaus’ findings. Of course, even Driscoll reminds us that Ebbinghaus’ experiments were focused on “verbal learning”, and therefore the findings may not transfer to other types of learning (p. 17). This also plays into Leahey and Harris’ (1997) claim that “if research programs are going well, then occasional challenging results are either quietly ignored, called interesting phenomena to be shelved for later study or explained away” (p. 44). I’ve seen this before in research I’ve studied. I’ve experienced it myself. When I conducted a case study last semester and the results were the opposite of what I had hoped for, I still presented them in my findings. I did explain that numerous variables could have influenced the results, and essentially still made the claim that further research was needed before any conclusions were drawn about the effectiveness of the innovation I was attempting. Does this make my practices unethical or impractical? I’m not sure.

Mayer, Chapter 1: Introduction to Learning and Instruction

In this chapter, Mayer (2008) seeks to define and defend educational psychology, which he labels as a science that explores instruction and learning. Like Driscoll (2005), Mayer believes that learning is demonstrated through changes “due to experience” (p. 7) and instruction is the intentional manipulation of the environment to bring about that change. Fortunately, unlike Driscoll, Mayer further explains that learning is “a cognitive change that is reflected in a behavioral change” (p. 8). This seems to counter Driscoll’s belief that you cannot believe in both cognitivism and behaviorism at the same time; however, it still doesn’t account for the various types of knowledge that may not be (or need to be) demonstrated through particular behaviors and only remain mental knowledge stored in the mind.

One of the most striking observations I made from this chapter is the sad fact that Dr. Itard was trying to implement learner-centered strategies in his quest to educate the “wild boy of Averyron” in 1800, yet we are still trying to promote this approach today and are still met with resistance (Mayer, 2008, p. 4). It’s difficult to imagine that after 200 years we are still challenged to convince some (or perhaps many) educators that prior knowledge, motivation, and needs must be taken into account when designing the learning experience. This seems so logical to me, with or without empirical evidence. I believe that the overwhelming workload that results when considering each individual student is one major deterrent to the learner-center approach. Earlier this week I watched a “TED Talks Education” (2013) video where a teacher was advocating unpaid long work hours and freely giving of personal time and property all in the name of education, but I find that mentality to be very short-sighted. It’s not that I don’t value each student, but rather, I am entitled to the same kind of life I am trying to give my students. I want them to be successful so that they can achieve their dreams, have families, explore the world, etc. Why should I sacrifice everything for them? Does that make me callous? I don’t think so. I do give of my time, just not always. I do care about students, but I don’t always let that dictate how I spend my evenings. I also believe that personal mental health is vital for effective teaching, so if I always give and I never relax, never spend time with my own children, aren’t I doing everyone a disservice? Yet, I’m still a believer in learner-centered education. How I resolve that conflict is where my personal and educational philosophies take root.

As Mayer (2008) asserts, “Because all learning involves connecting new information to existing knowledge, it is crucial to help students develop knowledge structures that can support the acquisition of useful new information” (p. 8). It is how we do that that determines our approach and application of learning theories and educational psychology. When I first started teaching in 2002, I was not a proponent of educational theories. Rather, I found them far removed from the actual occurrences in my classroom. Yet, as I continued to grow as an educator, I learned that there is a “place where psychology and education meet,” and one can definitely inform the other when “real people in real situations” are considered (p. 13).

Like Driscoll (2005) found, Mayer (2008) emphasizes that there is a place for all approaches to learning. In my current field of online learning, for example, automated feedback is a kind of reinforcement for “learning as response strengthening” (p. 14). Likewise, taking online tests over required textbook material supports “learning as knowledge acquisition” (p. 15). Finally, the use of blogs, wikis, and discussion boards encourage “learning as knowledge construction” (p. 15). Each of these instructional strategies may be valid and purposeful depending on the learning objectives and the learners themselves.

In the past year, while working at ISU, I’ve fostered an interest in brain development as it relates to learning. Mayer (2008) addresses some of the limitations and processes dictated by the human brain that should influence instructional choices, such as dual channels, capacity issues, and active processing related to sensory, working, and long-term memory. He goes on to define that various processes that are needed to digest and encode sensory inputs. In a webinar I attended, Willis (2012) explained that only so much information can be processed at a time, and that the most vital inputs are processed first. For example, a loud noise initiates a reflex that requires immediate attention. Which means, if a tornado alarm goes off in class, it’s going to disrupt other cognitive processes. Likewise, initiating a related loud noise, such as a bull horn when discussing civil rights, could lead to greater attention on the part of the learner. This kind of brain activity fascinates me, but it is also beyond my present knowledge. I’m not familiar enough with the brain to discuss this topic at depth, but I appreciate the overview and believe consideration of mental functioning is critical when designing courses, particularly regarding cognitive load.

Learning transfer, a crucial process for long-lasting impact, is also of interest to me. I was disappointed to learn that research shows little evidence for general transfer, where general skills could be applied to various disciplines or events. I wonder, however, if this also applies to music. For example, I was always told that being in orchestra can positively impact a child’s math scores. Is this also false? Or are they related enough that it’s actually more of a mixed transfer? I’m still not entirely clear on the difference.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005).

Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Leahey, T. H., & Harris, R. J. (1997). Instructional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Pragmatism. (2013). Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pragmatism?s=t

Quote by Albert Einstein. (2013). Goodreads. Retrieved from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/133135-learning-is-experience-everything-else-is-just-information?auto_login_attempted=true

TED talks education. (2013). PBS Video. Retrieved from http://video.pbs.org/video/2365006219

Willis, J. (2012). The essential neuroscience of learning. [Webinar]. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars/judy-willis-brain-and-learning-webinars.aspx

Here I need first comment about what you read it above

Driscoll – Chapter 2: Radical Behaviorism

I personally found this chapter quite fascinating and relevant to my current life situation. As a foster parent to a three-, seven-, and ten-year-old, I do believe that many reinforcements can influence children’s behavior. However, as an educator, I’m still skeptical of its merits. I understand the importance of observable objectives, which support behaviorism, but I’m not convinced that just because it only exists in my student’s mind that it’s not yet been learned. Of course, as an evaluator, I need evidence of that learning, but just because I can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not real. It almost seems like a cop-out when theorists such as Skinner explain that because it’s impossible to view the internal workings of the mind, they are irrelevant or at least “neither necessary nor desirable” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 33). Cognition definitely complicates the measurement of learning, which is much more cut-and-dry when measured with demonstrated behavior alone, but I don’t believe it’s “immaterial to understanding or describing it” (p. 33); instead, I maintain that the mind plays a large role in how, when, and why the observable behavior is displayed. As a self-proclaimed pragmatist, one would think that I adhere to the fixed nature of behaviorism, where empirical evidence rules, but I know that learning is much more complicated than that. My three-year-old, for example,knows that if he whines he will not get his way. He knows he will be in trouble and get in timeout and can vocalize these consequences (we prefer that term to punishments, as we associate it with the choiceseach person makes) with very little cues. Yet he continues to demonstrate the unwanted behavior. Why? Is it because he hasn’t learned the expectations? Or is it because greater internal forces are influencing his behavior? Cognition and behaviorism, then, seem to complement (or battle) each other. Admittedly, I am a bit lost or confused when the line between cognition and behavior seemed to blur. For example, Driscoll (2005) explores the role of internal triggers that serve as reinforcers. How is that different than a cognitive process? This is a complication that I’m still exploring.

            While in theory the application of reinforcement should impact the repetition of a response, there seems to be many external and internal elements that influence its success. I return to my toddler, whohates being in timeout as demonstrated by his full-on tantrum and prolonged screaming. Yet, he continues the same unwanted behavior as before; clearly that particular strategy isn’t working for him. While I understand the concept of timeout and use it frequently, I’m having a difficult time understanding this practice as a reinforcement removal (rather than a punishment) as defined by Driscoll (2005). To me timeout seems a very aversive situation for my toddler, which implies a punishment, yet it’s also “removing the learner, for a limited time, from the circumstances reinforcing the undesired behavior” (p. 43). Can it be both depending on the perspective?

Consequences (a.k.a. punishments) for my foster son include not being able to do something that the rest of the family gets to, like swing at the playground or swim at the lake, depending on the severity of the misbehavior. Still, he continues to cry and scream and throw a fit (flailing his arms and legs) when he doesn’t get his way. Perhaps this is because, as Driscoll (2005) suggests, “the emotional side effects of punishment [are] painful” and can result in “fear,…aggression, anger, [and] physical or psychological harm” (p. 41). Recently I read Dr. Kevin Leman’s (2008) Have a New Kid by Friday: How to Change Your Child’s Attitude Behavior & Character in 5 Days, in which he advocates the absence of all parental yelling, which generally serves as a model for belligerence (both Dr. Leman and Driscoll are in agreement on this). Instead, Dr. Leman asserts parents should remain calm while administering a consequence, which will help generate a meaningful, productive relationship instead of a hostile, stressful environment. Unfortunately, we are on Day 4 of this plan, and while I have seen some minor improvements, mostly my toddler believes because I’m not “mad at him” he’s not in trouble and therefore does not need to alter his behavior. It’s a difficult situation, to be sure, but I will keep with the tactic for at least another week, to see if his unwanted behaviors continue to dissipate at a reduced rate. I haven’t had to implement these kids of techniques with my girls because the traditional positive reinforcements and consequences work quite well with them. This makes me curious about the successful application of behaviorism in a diverse classroom environment or at different ages. Is it more productive for older, more mature students, for example?

To further shape his behavior, we’ve also tried sticker charts with my foster son, or what Driscoll (2005) would identify as positive reinforcement, when he does demonstrate desired behavior, and while he loves stickers, the reinforcement isn’t strong enough for him to maintain good conduct. It could be that we are attempting “too large a step” and need to break down the expected into more manageable chunks (p. 46). For example, instead of requiring seven stickers until he earns a prize, we might only require three. Once he masters that then we could move onto four, and so on, until we build up to the expected behavior long-term. Or perhaps a more intermittent schedule would produce a greater effect, as Driscoll suggests is true for maintaining a desired behavior.

Another kind of reinforcement removal, our foster son may also get stickers or favorite toys taken away when he hits his sisters or throws a toy, for example; furthermore, as a result of reading Dr. Leman’s (2008) book, we are now applying what Driscoll (2005) labels extinction, where we completely ignore his screaming until it subsides and then calmly laud his acceptable behavior and talk about why his tantrum didn’t help him achieve what he wanted. This corresponds with an iPhone app I was recently made aware of, Behavior Breakthroughs. In this app, a scenario is presented where a young child screams in order to get candy and you have response options including giving him the sweets, telling him to keep quiet, or ignoring him. Your designated actions will then influence the child’s response. If you tell him to shut his mouth, for example, he will run around the room screaming even louder. Ultimately, ignoring the child until he quiets and then encouraging his positive behavior results in a peaceful, settled child who no longer demands candy. Of course, winning takes multiple times ignoring him, and in the real-world a parent’s or teacher’s patience might be worn out by then, but the concept does relate to the basic foundational elements of behaviorism as presented in this chapter.

My husband and I haven’t yet attempted negative reinforcement with our foster son (which I, like Driscoll (2005) suggests, was one who previously incorrectly assumed this was equivalent to a punishment), so maybe that is the next phase, though I’m not sure how that would practically play out for our foster son. The point is that despite the application of a variety of strategies, we haven’t yet found what works for him. This corresponds with Driscoll’s observation that “sometimes, what serves as a reinforcer is counterintuitive, as when a child keeps misbehaving despite the parent’s disapproving actions” (p. 36). I think there is much more going on here than just finding the right consequence or reinforcement. Driscoll notes that “sometimes, individuals simply are not aware that their behavior is unacceptable; it may be that the rules are different from what they have been accustomed to” (p. 42). This is definitely the case with our toddler. As a foster child, he has gone through much more than a typical three-year-old, and his upbringing was far different than where he currently resides in our home. However, I feel that it likely goes beyond even that. After all, he’s been in our home for six months, ample time to understand the expectations. Perhaps his internal cognitive processes may be influencing his behavior; his motivations and imprinting may have a louder voice than any reinforcement we can bring.

While I have obviously been focusing on my parenting experiences, because that’s where I have personally applied the concept of behaviorism, I wonder how this then translates into the classroom. How often do teachers use a simplistic reward system, such as a sticker chart or “token economy” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 57), and yet what works for 80% of the students doesn’t seem to jive with a select few due to unknown (or unidentified) reasons? That being said, I highly value feedback of various sorts and find it effective both as a student and as a teacher. As Driscoll points out, “feedback is one of several environmental factors that support or hinder exemplary performance” (p. 63). In my own teaching of high school and college composition, I’ve utilized a kind of fading, or what I call gradual release, where I begin the course heavy in feedback, both positive and negative, but then “gradual[ly] reduc[e] verbal cues,” theoretically encouraging students to determine the appropriate procedures and behaviors on their own (Driscoll, 2005, p. 48). However, there is still the ever-present issue of students who are not motivated by my style of feedback or who choose to ignore the feedback entirely. This brings us back to my original quandary: is this merely behaviorism at work, or could there be some cognitive processes, such as social learning theory and motivation, that are influencing learning, as Driscoll asserts at the end of this chapter?

Mayer – Chapter 4: Learning to Write

I was very hopeful with this chapter as it specifically relates to one of my greatest areas of interest – writing. As a high school Language Arts teacher for a decade and now a college composition instructor and instructional designer for online courses, I find the power of writing to be of exceptional import in all disciplines. I see writing as a necessary means of communication (not just composition), a way to influence an audience, particularly in this digital age, so the ideas Mayer (2008) presented in this chapter certainly corresponded with my personal and professional philosophies. However, I was somewhat disappointed by the lack of research that has been conducted or at least the variety of conclusions that have been drawn regarding the writing process itself. Even after over a quarter century of exploration of Hayes and Flower’s (1980) general model of writing, Graham (2006) felt it was “too early to tell [its] impact” (p. 461) and Mayer claims that “the study of writing is in its early stages of development” (p. 126). This is slightly unbelievable to me. How can so little be known about writing when it infiltrates and inspires all disciplines?

To begin, I agree with Mayer (2008), that one of the most vital aspects of writing is attention to audience and translating the ideas in a way that generates meaning and impact. However, according to him, adults are generally able to write with the audience in mind and adjust their prose accordingly. I disagree. Sure, they are certainly able to do that far more than children are, but in my experience, even adult college students struggle with selecting and using appropriate content and style in order to influence a particular audience. Mayer admits that “adult writing often shows some of the egocentric characteristics and disorganization” that flourishes in the compositions of youth (p. 124), but I would argue that it is not justsome of the same unfortunate traits, but many. For example, I teach a course in which students are asked to produce four argumentative papers. Rarely are students able to adjust their own ideas to better influence and persuade their designated audience. Usually tone, word choice, or even the kinds of support used are abrasive or, in the very least, confusing to readers. Knowledge of audience needs to go far beyond who an audience is and seep into what an audience believes and feels.

The writing process itself is one of the most vital procedures one can learn in order to become a more proficient and effective writing. According the Mayer (2008), experienced writers take more time to plan and revise than do weak writers. While Mayer suggests that few teachers actually require planning and instead focus on the product rather than the process of writing, I find that to be misleading, at least when it comes to teachers of composition and other humanities (and likely many more disciplines where writing is critical to communicating ideas). While the writing process is definitely time consuming and therefore is impractical for all writing tasks, many teachers do require a brainstorming or outline of sorts, targeting the generation and organization of ideas. However, I don’t think the concern should be whether students are obligated to produce such a plan but rather whether or not they have been instructed on how to do so. Too often, and I am guilty of this as well, teachers assign a task, such as writing an outline, without fully explaining its purpose, providing examples, and walking students through the process. As Mayer explains, “students need guidance and practice” (p. 133); just providing a structure or directions isn’t enough. I think with writing this is particularly challenging since it is such a personal journey and everyone is going to have their own spin on ideas and therefore writing. In fact, I’ve had students argue (unsuccessfully) with me that they should all get A’s on all aspects of writing since it’s such an individualized process. (I retort not every book is accepted for publication or makes the best seller list.) Even when the process is modeled for students, students usually have to translate the procedure to their own topic and often times the process is lost in the conversion.

Once students have a general plan, the next step is to translate those ideas into actual writing. Like with planning, teachers should actually instruct on how to do this. For example, an instructor might take a small section of an outline and then through verbal explanation and visual demonstration, write (and talk about their choices as they do) a paragraph that translates the outline ideas into a cohesive paragraph. Because of limited information processing capabilities, particularly in young writers, students who try to translate without having first planned usually produce less quality compositions. Furthermore, when mechanical issues are the focus, particularly in the first draft, learners may spend most of their energy on grammar and spelling, resulting in minimalized ideas and a lower overall performance, often more in the form of stream-of-consciousness, or what Mayer identifies as “associative writing” or “writer-based prose” (p. 138). As an English teacher, I feel compelled to uphold the value of mechanics, yet I also find myself agreeing with Mayer (2008) on this issue: focusing so much on grammar and spelling can often detract from the overall power of the composition. What I found most interesting is that in one study when a polished preliminary draft was required there were on average .43 mechanical errors per sentence, yet when an unpolished draft was required there were only .23 errors per sentence. This would seem to suggest that limiting the focus to ideas actually produces a better quality product all the way around. Of course, I’m not familiar with the particulars of Glynn, Britton, Muth, and Dogan’s study as identified in Mayer (2008), and I am curious if the two test group subjects are identical in abilities and other characteristics. Regardless, the findings are curious. Would this apply to all writing application or just those undergoing a formal writing process? For example, would discussion boards produce more meaningful discourse if students did not concern themselves with the avoidance of text speak or the application of “proper” English? Perhaps. I can see this to be true. I recall being told once that students are better off misspelling words on a standardized test essay than changing it to something more simplistic in order to avoid the error. But I’m still an English teacher, and I worry that students will become so accustomed to abbreviations and text lingo that they will find it difficult to code switch when it really does matter, like in a professional email response or website design.

Finally, after drafting, strong writers spend time reviewing, reading, revising, and editing the manuscript. But Mayer (2008) admits that “revision is almost totally absent from adult writing” (p, 143). This pains me. As previously explained, I often provide detailed feedback to students in the midst of the writing process, yet many ignore my comments and very few partake in any substantial revision. Instead, superficial errors are repaired and the paper is submitted as “final.” This process step, too, needs to be taught, not just assumed. I’d like to investigate more ways to do this in a time-efficient manner. Though I’ve been teaching composition for over a decade, I still haven’t been able to address this need sufficiently. Perhaps opting for the error-highlighting strategy suggested by McCutchen, Francis, and Kerr (1997) would not only reduce the time I spend providing feedback but would also increase students’ ability to repair those problems, but I still worry that students will continue to opt to avoid the extra work that they see as pointless or not worthy of their time. Ultimately, I do agree with Hayes and Flower (1986) who profess, “the more expert the writer, the greater the proportion of writing time the writer will spend in revision” (p. 145), yet how often is revision crammed into just a day or so before a final draft is due in any given course schedule? Instead, a mantra of all writers should be as Mayer (2008) asserts: “The difference between a good writer and a poor writer is often not in the quality of the first draft but in the number of drafts generated” (p. 148).

While this process of planning, translating, and reviewing seems quite linear, as Mayer (2008) points out, it is actually cyclical, with each phase interacting with the rest. For example, while Mayer argues that strong writers spend time planning, I personally very rarely do this. As an experienced, advanced writer, I do engage with a text as a read it, so while I’m familiarizing myself with the content or topic, I try to mentally make connections between the new ideas and my existing knowledge, much like Matsuhashi (1982, 1987) proposes some writers do in the pauses between words and sentences. Then when I go back through my annotations, as I’m doing at this moment writing this particular reading response, I plan and organize as I go, inserting ideas into the order that I see fit as I write. Theoretically this should mean that my performance suffers as a result of my lack of global planning and increased cognitive load as I simultaneously try to plan and translate. Yet, I nearly always do quite well with my writing and even have a few pieces professionally published. Still, I acknowledge that many novice writers are unable to multitask as I do, and I do require my students to complete some kind of invention, whether it’s brainstorming, outlining, freewriting, clustering, or a related strategy, prior to their first draft. After intentional instruction and practice at such planning strategies, however, I find that once you have mastered the process of planning that some of that can be internalized as an advanced writer and the planning step becomes more parallel with the translating stage. However, the question remains, how does one teach students to develop as strong writers when usually the steps in the writing process are taught as separate and distinct rather than fluid and related as advanced writers demonstrate?

Here I need 2ed comment about what you read it above

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leman, K. (2008). Have a new kid by Friday: How to change your child’s attitude, behavior & character in 5 days. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell.

Matsuhashi, A. (1982). Explorations in the real-time production of written discourse. In M. Nystrand (Ed.),What writers know. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Matsuhashi, A. (Ed.) (1987). Writing in real time: Modeling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 667-676.