|
|
Post by Steve Gibbs on Feb 12, 2009 17:44:33 GMT -5
Can you give at least one way technology compliments each of the big pedagogical ideas discussed in class?
For example, technology validates behaviorism because technology is skill-based and observable changes are evident once students learn how to use various applications.
|
|
|
|
Post by agesoloiut on Feb 12, 2009 21:42:47 GMT -5
?
|
|
|
|
Post by melharley on Feb 12, 2009 21:46:44 GMT -5
I have just given my students an assignment on math website...a 5 question automated quiz...a perfect example of behaviorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogpence on Feb 12, 2009 21:49:39 GMT -5
I activate prior knowledge (cognitivism?) when teaching about animal evolution and classification.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heidi on Feb 12, 2009 21:49:42 GMT -5
Cognitivism's emphasis on active participartion is totally supported by students using computers in class.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradupton on Feb 12, 2009 21:57:13 GMT -5
Behaviorism: without practice, students can lose their technology applications skills.
Cognitivism: technology often requires processing symbols.
Constructivism: technology can offer multiple experience opportunities
|
|
|
|
Post by burckinh on Feb 12, 2009 21:59:30 GMT -5
I can relate behaviorism to edutainment, which comes up in my thesis. Most of that software is based on drill and kill with little glimpses of [glow=red,2,300][/glow]fun[glow=red,2,300][/glow]to reward the kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carolyn on Feb 12, 2009 22:03:00 GMT -5
I think it's behaviorism when I have to line my third period class up before they enter the room. It is the only way they come in quiet and ready to learn. If I let them filter in on their own it takes several minutes after the bell to get them focused. The lining up works perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carolyn on Feb 12, 2009 22:04:03 GMT -5
Okay... ignore my last post. It has nothing to do with technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by cocomo on Feb 12, 2009 22:08:05 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300][/glow]behaviorism: drill with practice...give the test
cognitivism: many kids cannot produce the proper algorithm on paper, but can always tel me what to do verbally...I have heavily weighted a few students' grades in my career based on their verbal demonstrations of the topics and even interviewed one many years ago for an exam. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gibbs on Feb 15, 2009 12:45:24 GMT -5
Behaviorism = Spring semester brings all new students to this one-semester elective. They came in and as predicted began gaming, emailing, surfing, goofing around behind their monitors while I was teaching. They did their work, most of them, but the gaming was spreading.
I took the opportunity to show them our VISION program, which allows me to monitor their screens from my desk. "Ohhh."  They didn't know that. I then showed them my gradebook on the big screen. The first grade of the semester is a gigantic high-point participation grade worth 10X any assignment. If they stay on task all semester, they get to keep all those points. Each time I catch them goofing, I subtract 5 - 10 points. Thus, what is currently a big boost to their grade could potentially turn into a lead anchor.
I noticed everyone on task after this lesson. Now, that is good behaviorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gibbs on Feb 15, 2009 12:50:10 GMT -5
I'll take a stab at cognitivism. Hmm. Let me see. What have they learned that doesn't come out on the screen in the form of an assignment...
They have been told in 100 ways the importance and relevance of computer fluency in the 21st Century. They've been told how much it will help them in college.
Did they learn it? Can I check without measuring a behavior? Do I just move along and hope they got the message? Perhaps their behavior is changed by them trying harder to learn everything.
How does one measure cognitive learning without behavior change?
|
|
|
|
Post by lilian on Feb 22, 2009 0:24:12 GMT -5
[/size]I believe I should give it a try since it means more points
If you can measure cognition by behavioral change JOKE: why is it that men do not learn that they would have the last word by simply saying [size=2]YES DEAR
|
|
|
|
Post by cocomo on Feb 24, 2009 15:49:10 GMT -5
ok, I'm with Carolyn. I did not use technology in my post. I need to think on this more , and perhaps reread your powerpoint Steve, since you caught me goofing off. Perhaps I could use your idea on my algebra students who told me teachers make school so boring! I told them I could take them into the lab for activities but that I didn't trust this particular class to actually do what I was asking. They admitted they would play games, which validated my theory. They also asked to play games. I told them I had some, but couldn't play them without them studying the foundation so we could actually play and have success. How do I incorporate technology into their class under these circumstances? How does it relate to behaviorism? If they are bored and they don't do their work, do I reward them with games? Or do I look it as a way to get them to learn? As I said, I can't get them to play the games for practice without first learning the material. This class has big motivational. issues minus a few..any help out there?
|
|
|
|
Post by T on Mar 11, 2009 23:39:39 GMT -5
Most people don't realize it, but one of the main reasons for having geometry placed between Algebra 1 and Algebra 2 is the "average" student is undergoing the transition from concrete operational to formal operational. Due to geometry's abstract nature and spatial aquisition, educators felt that students wouldn't be "ready" until their teens.
Knowing that tends to explain why some people just can't do word problems.
|
|
They didn't know that. I then showed them my gradebook on the big screen. The first grade of the semester is a gigantic high-point participation grade worth 10X any assignment. If they stay on task all semester, they get to keep all those points. Each time I catch them goofing, I subtract 5 - 10 points. Thus, what is currently a big boost to their grade could potentially turn into a lead anchor.