Reflection on Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom

Image retrieved June 22, 2010, from https://eee.uci.edu/programs/humcore/images/Antigone/faust.jpg

In most courses I have taken during my twenty-three years of higher education, the exciting new ideas, if there were any, came mostly from the course content. But in this course, the most striking revelations have not come from the course content itself, but from my and my students’ experiences as I applied what I learned in my classroom. What I discovered is that inquiry-based learning can be a pleasure for both the students and the teacher. When we move beyond the traditional research report into more authentic and purposeful investigation, beyond the communication model of teaching into the one that prepares students to learn on their own, beyond traditional literacy into a more comprehensive understanding of modern literacies, we break down the often stifling boundaries of the classroom walls and step into a wider world where ideas and action are powerfully interrelated (Laureate, 2009; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008; Richardson, 2006). This course provides a rationale to justify the ways my students want to learn and I want to teach in terms of the goals we are obligated to achieve.



I have a very successful colleague, beloved among the students, who often talks about “putting a mask on the monster.” By this, he means turning a learning activity into a game or project that is more immediately meaningful, fun, or rewarding than the traditional learning task at its root. His room often appears chaotic to outsiders who cannot easily discern the focus of learning. In fact, it often takes them a minute to locate the teacher in the seemingly chaotic swarm of independently active learners. Teachers who misunderstand this as, at best, merely adding sugar to the medicine or, at worst, wasting time sometimes criticize his methods on the grounds that students must be prepared for a “real world” where serious work is not a game and where you do not expect rewards for good performance. They feel his methods are deceptive, juvenile mollycoddling that ultimately undermine students’ development of the ability to stoically put their noses to their proverbial grindstones, and that immediately undermine other teachers’ ability to carry on business as usual without students complaining and comparing their methods to his.


What this course reveals, particularly through the application of its principles in the classroom, is that meaningful, fun, rewarding assignments where students learn about what interests them and immediately apply learning to a personally consequential tasks are better preparation than many traditional assignments for students who will enter a world where serious work is often very much like a game (as games have become very much like serious work) and where you do, in fact, receive sweet rewards for successful efforts (Laureate, 2009). Teachers routinely assure their students that the seemingly pointless drudgery of their classwork, homework, and projects is necessary preparation for the (presumably seemingly pointless) drudgery of higher learning and the world of work. Perhaps this represents the experience of these teachers, but it somehow fails to represent the greater purpose of education, to produce happy, productive citizens.


As I worked throughout this course to produce an inquiry unit plan to use in the future, I began to apply its principles to the classes I was already teaching. What I discovered is that students are motivated by an authentic purpose to fully engage in independent learning and the processes of inquiry. By proposing to my students that they create a wiki-based text to help other students prepare for the AP Language and Composition examination, I gave them a real purpose, with socially significant consequences, for their application of the inquiry process outlined by Eagleton and Dobler’s (2007) QUEST (Questioning, Understanding Resources, Evaluating, Synthesizing, Transforming) method. Consequently, my students, rather than groaning as I imposed instruction and assignments for each stage of a research report only their teacher would see, sought my guidance as they worked to produce a quality product for a wider audience.


As they worked to understand the wiki medium, refine their Internet research skills, and synthesize and transform information to serve their shared purpose, they constructed an understanding together, using me as a consultant on technology, information retrieval, and legal issues. In that role, I shared with them the stages of Eagleton and Dobler’s (2007) QUEST inquiry method, the critical thinking skills represented in November’s (2008) REAL (Reading the URL, Examining the Content, Asking about Authors and Owners, Looking at the Links) evaluation system, and the legal, ethical, and practical issues associated with intellectual property and fair use of source material. Through this experience, they transformed from a classroom of reluctantly cooperative students to a corporation of enthusiastically cooperative and collaborative learners.


My learning from this course will have a profound effect on my future teaching. First, I do plan to use the inquiry-based unit plan I developed in a universal themes inquiry unit to replace the traditional research report assignment with my seniors next year. Moreover, I expect that my new, broader understanding of what literacy means will influence my teaching throughout my career (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007; November, 2008). And, although I enjoy unusual autonomy in my classroom, I feel better prepared to justify my novel approach to literacy learning if it is ever challenged. From now on, neither I nor my students will ever need to dread the research project that has haunted scholars for as long as I can remember. Rather, I fully expect the inquiry unit to be the highlight of my courses, the talk of the school, and a source of pride for my students.

For me, as for my students, the best way to learn is by applying the knowledge I have, and developing the knowledge I need, to accomplish a meaningful task (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007). In that spirit, my primary professional development goal is to apply the knowledge I have gained through this course in my own teaching and inquiry, and to augment and refine that knowledge through its use. This means making information literacy and inquiry a central part of the curriculum of every course I teach. I can imagine no more effective way to prepare my students and myself for an uncertain future than to teach and practice the skills of purposeful questioning, locating and evaluating information, and synthesizing and transforming it into something new that others can experience and appreciate (Eagleton & Dobler, 2007, Laureate, 2009; Leu et al., 2004).



I once believed that the goal of education was to become “learned”—a past-tense verb used as an adjective to describe a condition of final achievement. I am beginning to realize, however, that this state can never be finally reached. My goal for future learning no longer includes one day resting on my laurels. Rather, I now see continuing education as a goal in its own right. Of course, learning can serve the purposes of production, of creating something new and valuable to improve one’s life and the world. But, at the same time, these products may ultimately serve the cause of learning for its own sake. Like Faust, I want to know everything. But, unlike Faust, I and my students no longer have to make a deal with the Devil, because I am beginning to understand that a good teacher does not have to cover the face of the monster of learning with a mask. Instead, I need only remove the monster mask that has, for too long, disfigured the truly beautiful face of inquiry learning.

References



Eagleton, M. B., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the web: Strategies for internet inquiry. New York: The Guilford Press.



Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Supporting Information Literacy and Online Inquiry in the Classroom. Baltimore: Author.



Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In Ruddell, R.B. & Unrau, N.J., (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). (pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.



Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations. In Teaching and Learning with Technology (3rd ed. pp. 2–35 ). Boston: Pearson.



November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousands Oaks: Corwin Press.



Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Male Pregnancy, Head Transplants, and Nanodocs! Oh my!

Evaluating the RYT Hospital Dwayne Medical Center:  A Think-aloud Evaluation

http://www.rythospital.com/2008/

Playing to Learn: Facilitating Active Learning through Computer-Based Gaming

As digital entertainment technology has evolved over the past three decades, the complaint that students spend too much time on video games and not enough time on their studies has become cliché. An adversarial relationship seems to exist between computer-based games, as an entertainment medium, and classroom instruction. Students complain that school assignments are boring, while teachers complain that students neglect their studies and home assignments. As teachers who grew up on video games move into the classroom, however, they question whether these virtual entertainments that so fascinate students might not be employed to foster meaningful learning. I plan to evaluate the potential of computer-based games to foster engagement and improved performance on assessments, particularly of higher-order thinking skills, among secondary school students. To do so, I must find answers to three questions. Do students demonstrate more engagement (on-task behavior) when learning activities are game-based? Might students taught through game-based learning experiences outperform those taught through more traditional instructional methods? What are students’ and teachers’ feelings about, perceptions of, gaming in the classroom, and how might these attitudes affect implementation of game-based learning programs? The future of video-game based instruction depends on understanding what elements of successful commercial off-the-shelf video (COTS) video games contribute to user engagement, what potential video games (both games specifically designed for learning and COTSs) have to foster meaningful curricular learning, and whether attitudes of stakeholders in formal education will prove an aid or impediment to implementation.

Motivation is one of the most important problems any learning program must solve, and the success of video games as “the fastest growing form of human recreation” suggests that their designers have had some success in developing intrinsically motivating activities (Ryan, Rigby, & Przybylski, 2006, p. 347). Ryan et al. (2006) conducted four studies to examine the motivational effects of video games through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT). The first three studies observed subjects playing a selection of video games, noting the relation between player enjoyment and their perceptions of relatedness, self-efficacy, and self-determination fostered by the games. The fourth study surveyed members of a massive multiplayer online (MMO) gaming community to determine their motives for playing and the effects playing had on their short-term feelings of well-being. The first study examined players’ experiences with Super Mario 64, a relatively simple (yet immersive) platform game that, being a relatively linear single player game, emphasizes competence over autonomy and relatedness. Subjects responded, before and after play, to a “Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS)” based survey with questions probing players’ feelings about in-game experiences regarding competence, autonomy, presence, intuitiveness of controls, vitality, self-esteem, mood, enjoyment, preference for future play, and continued play behavior (Ryan et al., 2006, p.349). The results of this initial study suggested to researchers that “that gaming motivation and enjoyment can be accounted for by experiences of competence and autonomy while playing” (Ryan et al., 2006, p. 353). The second study chose two more commercial 3-D adventure games and randomly divided members of a group of fifty undergraduates in half, each half to play a different game. One group played the top-rated Zelda: The Ocarina of Time first, while the other played the much lower-rated game A Bug’s Life. Again, Ryan et al. (2006) found that “perceived in-game competence and autonomy accounted for differences in preference for future play, enjoyment and presence” (p. 355). The third study allowed participants to choose from among four game offerings to accommodate and examine the effects of individual preferences. Researchers found strong individual variance in game experience and preference, but found that “satisfaction of autonomy and competence predicted greater enjoyment and sense of presence and increased preference for future play” (Ryan et al., 2006, p. 357). The fourth study, a survey of active MMO gamers, gave researchers a chance to examine relatedness as it applies to online games with multiple human players, along with the factors examined in the previous three studies. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness all stood out as contributors to participants’ satisfaction with the gaming experience and motivation to continue. Knowing what contributes to satisfactory experiences in recreational gaming offers a key to understanding the motivational power of video games. This is particularly important to developers of educational games, which are often trumped by COTS games in competition for student interest.

The value of educational video games depends on two factors: whether they can be designed to interest students, and whether they can be designed to foster higher-order cognitive skills. One powerful measure of cognitive skills (such as application, analysis, evaluation, and creation) is student writing. Warren, Dodlinger, and Barab (2008) investigated the potential of the educational Anytown video game to facilitate the employment of problem-based learning (PBL) methods for writing instruction in order to reduce the amount of teacher time devoted to procedural and administrative (rather than instructional) tasks, increase students’ voluntary writing practice, and increase student achievement on standardized descriptive writing assessments. Participants were a convenience sample of forty-four fourth grade students selected from two fourth grade classrooms in the same Midwestern elementary school. Students in the treatment group completed a reading and language arts unit in a multi-user virtual environment in which they addressed problem-based writing tasks “customized to prompt the practice of descriptive writing, engagement in problem solving, and student reflection upon their own personal experiences” (Warren et al., 2008, p. 124). Students in the comparison classroom completed a previously developed, traditional instruction unit with an experienced teacher “apprised of the standards that would be addressed by the Anytown curriculum and what assessment measures would be used to compare the performance of her students with the performance of those students in the treatment group” (Warren et al., 2008, p. 125). Warren et al. (2008) employed three types of assessment: activity-oriented written assessments completed during instruction, pre-and post-treatment curriculum-based writing prompts, and pre-and post-treatment standards-based writing prompts. Upon completion of the study, Warren et al. (2008) determined that, after the first two days, teachers in the treatment group spent significantly less time answering procedural and administrative (rather than instructional) questions than those in the comparison group. Students in the treatment group completed twenty-six voluntary writing activities, while students in the comparison group did not complete any. (It should be noted that students in the treatment group received in-game rewards for completing voluntary writing tasks, although these writings were not required or included in grading.) Activity-oriented written assessments completed during instruction were not compared because they were not included in instruction for the comparison group. Pre-and post-treatment curriculum-based writing prompts were scored using rubrics tailored for each prompt by teachers trained in their use, and scores showed that the treatment group significantly outperformed the comparison group. Pre-and post-treatment standards-based writing prompts were also scored using standard, norm-based rubrics and also showed significantly better performance in the treatment group. Researchers admit that these findings have limited generalizability and that members of the treatment group may have been subject to the Hawthorne effect (in which subjects’ awareness that they are participants in a study affects their behavior) (Merrett, 2006). Although this learning experience was designed around a virtual environment specifically designed to facilitate curricular learning, many suggest that, just as literature originally designed for entertainment can be used as centerpieces of instruction in traditional English classes, games and simulations designed for entertainment might be just as effective, if not more so, than dedicated educational software.

In an experimental study, Chang and Chen (2009) investigated the potential of COTS video games to facilitate students’ cognitive learning and achievement more effectively than more traditional computer assisted instruction (CAI). The one-hundred and eight participants were third-graders of middle to high socioeconomic status from a single school district in Taiwan. Participants were divided into two groups. The control group received more traditional computer assisted instruction comprising text-based materials while the experimental group received instruction using a commercially available 3-D video game entitled Fire Department 2: Fire Captain. Chang and Chen (2009) selected this game based on its reflection of “design principles derived from Keller’s (1987) attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction (ARCS) model of motivation to facilitate children’s learning” (p. 2). This manner of instruction was the only independent variable. Dependent variables were measured using disaggregated data from a three-part post-test including sixteen multiple-choice questions, six matching questions, and an application section that, according to Chang and Chen (2009) “measures a higher-level cognitive task that shows understanding of what is being taught and its use in other circumstances” (p. 3). Researchers began with a null hypothesis that “there are no statistically significant differences in students’ achievement when they receive two different instructional treatments: (1) traditional CAI; and (2) a computer-based video game” (Chang & Chen, 2009, p. 2). After analysis of the assessments, researchers determined that the experimental group’s performance on the multiple-choice section of the test was significantly higher. Students who learned with the game also performed slightly better on the matching test, but the null hypothesis was retained because the difference was not statistically significant. But the experimental group did have significantly higher scores on the application section, demonstrating that COTS game-based instruction can increase performance on an assessment of higher-level cognitive application of learning. One of the great potential advantages of COTS games is that student learning based on these games might spill out of the classroom into students’ recreational time.

In “Designing Centers of Expertise for Academic Learning through Video Games,” Squire, DeVane, and Durga (2008) investigate the potential of COTS video games to facilitate relevant learning outside of the school setting. Specifically, their year-long study examined “whether an open-ended game (Civilization III) can engage children who are normally alienated from school in more advanced academic thinking” (Squire et al., 2008, p. 241). The researchers worked with a group of twelve fifth and sixth graders of lower socio-economic backgrounds to develop a learning community around the game Civilization III, with the goal of helping them “develop fluency in world history and advanced problem-solving skills” (Squire et al., 2008, p. 242). In interviews prior to intervention, students showed a lack of interest and competence in both Windows based software and history. After introducing the game to participants, researchers periodically assessed participants’ learning through pop quizzes testing their ability to name early military units, describe the historical importance of military units, name and explain the significance of ancient technologies, name early civilizations and locate them on a map, and other similar tasks (Squire et al., 2008, p. 243). Students demonstrated the ability to respond to questions that had significance in game performance, but demonstrated less improvement on questions (such as the locations of civilizations on a map) that were less germane to success in the game. Throughout the study, mentors consulted with students regarding strategy and other aspects of the game, including modifying the game as developers. The three students who stayed in the program for the full year dedicated many “leisure” hours to the game, developing beyond game-play expertise to explore game modification and scenario design. They also showed “dramatic increases in school performance, as evidenced by an increase in their grades” (Squire et al., 2008, p. 245). Within the game, they developed familiarity with new historical concepts, and demonstrated the ability to apply this knowledge strategically in complex problem solving tasks. In essence, they increased both content-area knowledge and the higher-order thinking skills required to use it. Students who participated in the program, including those who did not complete the year, expressed positive attitudes toward the game and the belief that the game would improve their performance in school history classes.

Of course, game-based learning only has the potential to increase academic performance if all stakeholders in education are willing and able to implement it. Sara de Freitas (2006) investigates the potential and perceptions of gaming to learn in “Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning.” The qualitative study relied on interviews, surveys, and workshop activities to collect data regarding participants’ “beliefs and perceptions about the use of games and simulations in educational and training contexts” (de Frietas, 2006, p. 347). Study participants included tutors of information communication technology (ICT), adult learners studying ICT and Advanced Level physics, and experts on a variety of related subjects including education, e-learning, and game development. Thirty-one tutors and learners were surveyed about their use and perceptions of computer-based games and simulations for learning, while field experts were polled and interviewed. Tutors and learners responding to the survey overwhelmingly (93%) reported enjoyment of learning with simulations and games, felt this method increased understanding of complex concepts (85%), reported increased confidence (73%), and believed that their attention improved (78%). Interviews with experts suggested that some believed that the distinction between games and simulations was becoming less significant, and de Frietas suggests that this distinction will become even less meaningful as games, particularly those geared toward learning, become more representative of external reality. Regardless of this semantic argument, de Frietas (2006) found that “The majority of those experts interviewed thought that simulations and games significantly improved learner motivation” (p. 350). In this study, at least, stakeholder attitudes toward the use of this technology to support learning were very positive.

Each of these studies informs the question of the potential of computer-based games to foster engagement and improved performance on assessments, particularly of higher-order thinking skills, among students. At the same time, there is much left to address. Ryan et al. (2006) provide important insight into the qualities that engage players in successful COTS video games. This information is potentially useful to the developers of education games, but, although the study is only four years old, the game software researchers used is already distinctly dated. Current COTS video games are routinely much more complex, providing users, to a much greater degree, the very qualities this study found to be appealing to gamers, along with many qualities educators might find interesting. Warren et al.’s (2008) investigation of the potential of the educational Anytown video game to facilitate the employment of problem-based learning (PBL) methods shed some light on how game environments can support teachers, motivate students to engage in traditional academic tasks (like writing), and increase students’ achievement on writing assessments. Still, the circumstances of this study might be hard to replicate and conclusions probably cannot be generalized to schooling nationwide. Moreover, it is unclear whether the treatment group students’ voluntary writing was the result of intrinsic motivation brought about by the multi-user virtual environment, or extrinsic motivation based on in-game rewards for completing writing tasks. The Chang and Chen (2009) study on the potential of COTS video games to facilitate students’ cognitive learning and achievement was very interesting, both for its relevance to my topic, focusing on higher-level cognition, and for its use of COTS software rather than targeted educational software. Although the results were promising, it may be unrealistic to generalize the results of a study conducted with Taiwanese third-graders to secondary students in the United States. Squire et al.’s 2008 investigation of the potential of COTS video games to facilitate relevant learning outside of the school setting is probably the most interesting of these studies. The sixth-graders who participated in the study are somewhat closer to the age range of this focus, and the rationale underlying their choice to use the COTS game Civilization III reflects my own observations leading to my initial interest in this topic. Still, the study does not objectively compare the performance of students who received game-based intervention with peers receiving more traditional interventions, leaving some question of whether students’ gains might have been replicated without the use of gaming software. Finally, Sara de Freitas’s 2006 investigation of various stakeholders’ attitudes toward gaming to learn offers some hope that the use of video games in formal education may receive a warmer reception than it may have years ago. Still, the population used for the study does not represent the common secondary school students, teachers, parents, and administrators that interest me, leaving the question of whether political, as well as material, impediments may scuttle our best-laid plans to implement game-based instruction in public schools, even if research wholly vindicates the practice.

These studies, and many others, indicate a burgeoning interest in the potential of video-game based learning. At the same time, they vividly illustrate the need for further investigation. Several of the questions that have been troubling have been addressed. There does seem to be evidence that video game-based learning experiences do increase student engagement, at least in the short term. Still, my investigation should attempt to determine whether this effect is the result of the game or of intervention in general (a Hawthorne or novelty effect). I was concerned about what software I could use in video-game based instruction that would address curricular needs. Civilization III, its sequels, and other games in the geopolitics and history-based strategy genre provide an excellent starting point, although the potential of other game genres is certainly worth investigating. I can easily see collaborating with colleagues to design an A.P. World History unit or course to incorporate such a game. This would help to solve the problem of finding measurement tools to assess students’ ability to apply understandings developed through game interaction to higher-order thinking tasks, as both the objective and rubric-scored essay portions of the A.P. exam for that subject provide an excellent model. I still believe that this problem lends itself to a quantitative design. Questions can be divided into quasi-experimental and non-experimental categories, with some questions approachable in both ways. Because true experimental groups cannot be easily assigned in the school setting intended for this study, the following questions can be addressed using a quasi-experimental design:

A. Do students demonstrate more engagement (on-task behavior) when learning activities are game-based? (Difference Question: This is an observable behavior that can be monitored and documented during game-based and more traditional lessons.)



B. Do students taught through game-based learning experiences outperform those taught through more traditional instructional methods? (Difference Question: Assessments of experimental and control groups’ performances can be compared .)



These questions can be answered through surveys:

1. What are students’ feelings about, perceptions of, gaming in the classroom? (Descriptive Research Question)

2. What are teachers’ feelings about, perceptions of and anticipated problems with implementing gaming in the classroom? (Descriptive Research Question)

Regardless of how I address these questions, it is clear that this area of research, based in ever evolving technology, will require ongoing study for the foreseeable future.



References

Chuang, T., & Chen, W. (2009). Effect of Computer-Based Video Games on Children: An Experimental Study. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 1-10. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from ERIC database.



de Freitas, S. (2006). Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning. Learning, Media & Technology, 31(4), 343-358. Retrieved from ERIC database.



Merrett, F. (2006). Reflections on the Hawthorne Effect. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 143-146. doi:10.1080/01443410500341080.



Ryan, R., Rigby, C., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation & Emotion, 30(4), 344-360. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8.



Squire, K., DeVane, B., & Durga, S. (2008). Designing Centers of Expertise for Academic Learning through Video Games. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 240-251. Retrieved from ERIC database.



Warren, S., Dondlinger, M., & Barab, S. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL Writing: Effects of a Digital Learning Environment Designed to Improve Elementary Student Writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113-140. Retrieved March 31, 2010, from ERIC database.

Video Gaming for Higher Order Thinking

I plan to evaluate the potential of video games to foster engagement and improved performance on assessments (particularly of higher-order thinking skills) among secondary school students and to determine what software exists, is in development, or could be developed that would facilitate the use of gaming to that end. I plan to evaluate the potential of computer-based games to foster engagement and improved performance on assessments, particularly of higher-order thinking skills, among secondary school students and to determine what software exists, is in development, or could be developed that would facilitate the use of gaming to that end. This problem seems to lend itself to a quantitative design. Questions can be divided into quasi-experimental and non-experimental categories. I. Quasi-Experimental Questions: These questions are best answered through an experimental design, but true experimental groups cannot be easily assigned in the school setting intended for this study. A. Do students demonstrate more engagement (on-task behavior) when learning activities are game-based? (Difference Question: This is an observable behavior that can be monitored and documented during game-based and more traditional lessons.) B. Do students taught through game-based learning experiences outperform those taught through more traditional instructional methods? (Difference Question: Assessments of experimental and control groups’ performances can be compared .) II. Non-Experimental: Some of my questions could be answered by either experimental or non-experimental study. Others are best addressed through survey. A. Ex Post Facto: Past studies may help to answer these questions: 1. Do students demonstrate more engagement (on-task behavior) when learning activities are game-based? (Difference Question) 2. Do students taught through game-based learning experiences outperform those taught through more traditional instructional methods? (Difference Question) B. Survey: 1. What are students’ feelings about, perceptions of, gaming in the classroom? (Descriptive Research Question) 2. What are teachers’ feelings about, perceptions of and anticipated problems with implementing gaming in the classroom? (Descriptive Research Question) I am finding that this problem is pretty complex. In any experimental approach, there will be many variables to account for. As I conduct research, I hope to find that some of my questions are addressed adequately in the literature, so that I might narrow the focus of my study. One question that I expect might be answered almost entirely through a review of related literature and similar investigation (How would I categorize a search on Amazon, eBay, or at Best Buy? Would such investigations inform my review of related literature?) is: What software exists, is in development, or could be developed to facilitate student engagement and performance? I also need to research assessment designs that can measure higher-order thinking skills such as application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Again, I hope that I can narrow the scope of my problem through my investigation of related literature, in order to focus on a single question in the final design. I am now beginning to question whether I will be able to find any educational game software that focuses on the higher-order thinking skills that interest me. Computers are not truly thinking machines, so most computer learning software is rote focused. I hope I am not painting myself into a corner with this topic. I can envision a game that would fit this bill, but there are few that I know of, none of which fit into the "educational" genre. This begs the question, would students using entertainment game software for learning demonstrate greater motivation and performance on higher-order thinking assessments than peers taught an equivalent lesson without gaming software? Although many entertainment video games may lack intellectually challenging content, and others may contain content that is inappropriate for a school setting, there are others (For example: strategy games, construction games, simulations) that may have great merit as teaching tools. I am very interested in any insights and advice anyone may have, particularly regarding focusing my topic.

Playing to Learn

In Behaviorism in Practice , I mentioned a game called Typing of the Dead.  I love to play games, and believe we have only begun to tap their potential as learning and productivity tools.  So I have decided my research focus should be on gaming to learn. 

Born in 1969, I witnessed the evolution of the personal computer. When I was a child, a computer was, at least in my imagination, a room full of beeping steel cabinets studded with flashing lights and slowly spinning reels of magnetic tape, tended by white coated scientists in sterile and secure government facilities as it performed mathematical calculations. I remember the introduction of TRS-80s in school, and the first home game consoles. These machines promised a new era for education, but what fascinated me at the time were the new games that allowed you to “play the TV.” I remember the appearance of Pong (computer table tennis) at the arcade and on joysticked home consoles, and the accelerating evolution from 8 bit graphics (See the circle eat the dot!) to today’s immersive “virtual reality” gaming environments. For the most part, my parents and their generation considered these games a complete waste of time, even an abuse of the powerful technology that made them possible. But others felt that computer gaming could be a valuable learning medium. When I became a teacher, one of the first things I “splurged” on with my new “adult” salary was a Playstation game console with a copy of the hit game Tomb Raider. At that time, the new 3-D environment seemed so vast and immersive that I feared I would get lost, so I fell back on my travel experience and bought a guidebook with walkthroughs for every level of the game. Reading and playing, I worked my way through the game, dedicating unconscionable hours of study and repeated effort to meet every challenge and explore every corner of that magical digital world. That year, a few days after I finished the game, I discovered that I had a student in detention for some recurring behavior problem that I cannot now recall. He was amiable enough, for a student in detention, and we ended up talking about video games. He, too, was playing Tomb Raider, but he was stuck at some puzzle about a third of the way through the game. I gave him a tip to help him get past it and, when he asked me how I had figured that out, told him I was using the game guide. We ended up establishing a contract stipulating that I would lend him my game guide if he would extinguish his undesirable behavior. He ended up doing fairly well in my literature class, and even better in the game, and he thanked me for both—especially the loan of the game guide which, he confessed, he had relied on heavily. And that made me think. These game walkthroughs, especially in those early days, were filled with fairly complex technical writing. And mine, being cheap, had little in the way of illustrations. It occurred to me that my student had demonstrated diligence, reading comprehension, and application of what he had read in completing the game. If he had applied these abilities to his studies, I thought, he could easily have earned an “A.” I wondered if it would be possible to design learning games, focused on our curricular goals, which would be as appealing and sophisticated as Tomb Raider. Unfortunately, as computer games had evolved greatly, learning games failed to compete in quality with games designed purely for entertainment. Of course, there were plenty of education games on the market, but most were poorly designed, with low production value and correspondingly low appeal. Even the best games seemed to do little to encourage the higher-order application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation skills that I seek to foster in my students (Paul, 1985). As a high school teacher, I wanted to see games that dealt with the literature and thinking skills that are the foci of our system’s curriculum. Over the years I have seen evidence of progress in the development of learning games. I have also seen an increase in the relevance and perceived legitimacy of computer gaming in mainstream culture and business. I am convinced that play is not only compatible with learning, but that the primary purpose of play is learning. I use games as instruction and assessment tools in my classroom and often find that students are more engaged and enthusiastic about learning experiences when they are packaged as play. Still, I find that game software specifically designed for learning is less appealing than that which is designed strictly for entertainment, and that learning games tend to focus on mechanical skills, simple calculation, and rote memorization of isolated facts. But just as television in the 1970s was only beginning to realize its potential as an instructional medium, I believe that computer gaming has yet to reveal its value as a learning resource. I hope to investigate the potential of games to facilitate active learning among secondary school students, particularly regarding these higher order thinking skills, and what software exists, is in development, or could be developed that would facilitate the use of gaming to that end. I believe that this problem is amenable to research based on the “Guiding Principles of Scientific, Evidence-Based Inquiry” proposed by McMillan & Schumacher (2008, p. 7). This issue is significant because it could inform the development and implementation of curriculum and classroom lessons. Students may be more motivated to engage in learning experiences presented as games. Research on this issue can be linked to relevant educational theories as well. Many of the effective learning games, and recreational video games, have employed behaviorist techniques, but I believe computer games have the potential to support implementation of a wide range of learning theories, including constructivism, constructionism, connectivism, and social learning theory (Beaumie, 2001; Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2001; Palmer, Peters, & Streetman, 2007; Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). This is particularly true in relation to creative and simulation games, but any game genre has the potential to create a context in which learners can construct meaning, individually or socially. A cursory review of search terms related to my topic has revealed that others have conducted research in this field, but the ever-changing nature of technology recommends ongoing study. I believe that this research problem lends itself to the systematic data collection and logical analysis that defines research. The results will be interesting to teachers looking for ways to increase student engagement and motivation, and may well offer a vision of a major aspect of the future of educational practice. References Beaumie, K. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2001). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2008). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (Laureate custom edition). Boston: Pearson. Palmer, G. Peters, R., & Streetman, R. (2001). Cooperative learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/ Paul, R. W. (1985). Bloom's Taxonomy and critical thinking instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 36-40. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Reflections on My Personal Learning Theory in Light of Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology

At the beginning of the Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology course, I characterized my personal theory of learning as “a synthesis of theories supported by research and my own experience both as a teacher and as a learner.” Throughout this course, my understanding of learning theory, pedagogy, and the technologies available for their implementation has grown, and this growth is reflected in my approach to facilitating student learning in the classroom.

This course has reinforced my belief in the wisdom of learner-centered pedagogy. Behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, constructionist, and social constructionist learning theory remain foundations of my own teaching philosophy, and these theories support my understanding that lasting and relevant learning occurs when the student is actively involved in building meaning (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009; Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008). This course has added to my understanding of this principle by developing my knowledge of how technology can support pedagogical approaches that reflect modern, student-centered, learning theories.

Our second week in this course focused on behaviorism. Like many thinkers in education, I had begun to consider behaviorism less relevant in modern education than more cognition-centered learning theories. But revisiting behaviorist learning theory through our course readings reminded me of its lasting significance and applicability in concert with other learning theories in modern schooling (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007; Smith, 1999). Like all worthy theories of learning, behaviorism addresses the importance of relevance in learner motivation.

Our third week focused on cognitive learning theory which, unlike behaviorism, attempts to explain the processes through which new information is incorporated by learners into their existing understanding of the world (Novak & Cañas, 2008). Through our readings, I gained a greater understanding of how cognitive learning theory can be applied in the classroom, adding to my repertoire of technologies that support strategies such as cues, questions, advance organizers, summary, and note taking. Although I have employed these strategies throughout my teaching career, I gained a greater understanding of why they work and what resources have recently become available for their application. We learned how several technology tools can support cognitive learning in practice. Some—like concept mapping, Word features, presentation tools, and online communication and collaboration tools—I immediately applied and will continue to use in student-centered learning contexts.

In week four we explored constructivist and constructionist learning theory, which suggests that meaningful learning occurs when learners construct meaning for themselves through active experience (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). For me, this is the most exciting of the learning theories we have investigated, and offers the most promise for changing the way I teach. As an English teacher, I have always engaged my students in constructivist and constructionist learning experiences. Traditional reading and writing assignments reflect these principles, as learners must construct meaning for themselves in transactions with the text and other readers, and writers must develop understanding of their topics as they construct written artifacts of their thinking. New media, however, offer me the opportunity to employ constructivist and constructionist learning theory in exciting new ways. Students can use computer and Internet technologies to engage in authentic problem-based and project-based learning experiences that make new learning relevant and immediately applicable in authentic contexts to aid in motivation and retention (Pitler et al., 2007). Already, I am applying these ideas in class projects where students are building their own understanding, not only of new content, but of how to learn and apply new knowledge independently and collaboratively to solve real-world problems and create valuable resources. My AP Language and Composition students are currently building a wiki-based study guide for the AP test and SAT vocabulary presentations they will use to prepare their peers for college entrance examinations and coursework. Their study guide and its development incorporate many skills, technologies and tools besides the host wiki, including summary, organizers, concept maps, tables, illustrative images, and rubrics. The skills my students develop for learning and applying content knowledge will be at least as important to them as the content knowledge itself.

Week five of this course introduced connectivism and social learning, examining how people learn with and from others. From the connectivist perspective, students in social learning situations apply their diverse perspectives, experience, and prior knowledge to actively construct meaning, creating connections to interpret seemingly unrelated events and ideas (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2001). Cooperative learning, in particular, is an effective instructional strategy that reflects social learning theories by enabling students to work together to actively construct knowledge and transform it in ways that aid comprehension for group members (Palmer, Peters, & Streetman, 2007; Pitler et al., 2007). I am particularly excited by the potential of Web 2.0 collaboration and social networking tools to aid and enhance cooperative learning by helping groups of students work collaboratively with individual accountability to construct and share group products. My greater understanding of how to structure and manage cooperative learning experiences for my students, and technologies to serve that effort, will certainly be reflected in my classroom practice.

In week six, we focused on synergizing learning theories, strategies, and technologies (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009; Muniandy, Mohammad, & Fong, 2007). We examined nine proven categories of learning strategy (identifying similarities and differences, summarizing, providing recognition and reinforcement of effort, assigning meaningful homework and practice, using nonlinguistic representation, facilitating cooperative learning, setting clear objectives and providing feedback, generating and testing hypotheses, and providing cues and advance organizers) and found ways to apply them to realize learning theory in our classroom practice (Laureate Education, Inc., 2001). I found that I already apply many of these strategies in my teaching, but also found that I can improve my exploitation of those strategies I already use while developing my repertoire of pedagogical techniques in other areas.

In the long term, I hope to more consciously connect learning theory to pedagogical practice, and to use technology more as a learning tool rather than for instruction. The lesson I developed in week seven reflects a synthesis of much of what I learned throughout this course. This lesson reflects both the immediate adjustments I have made to my instructional practice, like the use of Web 2.0 collaboration tools to facilitate cooperative learning, and long-term changes I will make regarding the integration of technology into my practice. I have already incorporated new learning technologies, like wikis, Google Docs, and concept mapping software, into my daily instruction. I have also developed new ways of using technologies I once used mainly for instruction (such as PowerPoint) as learning tools, by putting them in the hands of students. As my students build their animated PowerPoint “movie” versions of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, I will step away from the front of the classroom to take on a more powerful role as facilitator for a social constructionist learning experience. This lesson is just one example of many to come that will combine cognitivist, constructivist, constructionist, and social learning theories with classroom strategies and supportive technologies to provide my students with meaningful, learner-centered, active learning experiences through which they will develop the skills they will need to adapt to the constant technological change that will define their careers.

In the future, I intend to continue to adapt new technologies to facilitate the application of learning theory and best pedagogical practices to student learning. There are many technologies I hope to employ in applying best pedagogical practices and learning theory, but I am particularly interested in making the most of new presentation tools, such as interactive whiteboards, and Web 2.0 collaboration and publication tools for social constructivist and constructionist learning. Our school has recently received four interactive whiteboards. Already, teachers are preparing lessons to use them for instruction. I am thinking of ways they can be used in a more learner-centered context. As a result of pressure and persuasion on the part of teachers in my system who have been frustrated with impediments to using Web 2.0 technologies in the classroom, our technology department has announced a plan to certify teachers, through an online course, to override the school’s prohibitive Internet filter at their own discretion. I intend to take this course and make the most of the long overdue privileges this certification will confer. With access to image search engines, wikis, weblogs, and the endless variety of Web-based learning tools this will make available, my students will enjoy much greater opportunities to take control of their own education through authentic, meaningful learning experiences. It will be wonderful to have more of these tools at my disposal, but I must remember to always employ them in the execution of proven pedagogical strategies based on sound learning theory.

References

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2001). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Bridging learning theory, instruction, and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Lever-Duffy, J. and McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations. In Teaching and Learning with Technology (3rd ed. pp. 2–35 ). Boston: Pearson.

Muniandy, B., Mohammad, R., & Fong, S. (2007, September). Synergizing pedagogy, learning theory and technology in instruction: How can it be done?. US-China Education Review, 4(9), 46–53. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. Document ID: 31626898

Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Web site: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Smith, M. K. (1999) The behaviourist orientation to learning. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education, Retrieved November 11, 2009, from www.infed.org/biblio/learning-behavourist.htm

A VoiceThread on Impediments to Using Digital Learning Technology in Our School

Follow this link:  http://voicethread.com/share/777235/

This is a VoiceThread about impediments to using Web based and computer learning tools in my school.  It talks about the Bess "SMARTFILTER" Internet filter, the lack of access to computers, our inability to install learning software on the computers without administrative privileges (which nobody in the building has), and the general lack of faith in teachers' ability to make pedagogical decisions regarding the Internet.  This is a work in progress, as is our school system's technology policy.  No doubt, both will evolve over time.

Connectivism and Social Learning in Practice

Social learning can take many forms, but the essence of social learning theory is the idea that people learn with and from others (Laureate, 2001). From the connectivist perspective of Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman (2001), students in social learning situations bring the flexibility enabled by their diverse experience to bear in social learning situations where they combine and share prior knowledge, experience, perceptions, and comprehension to actively construct meaning by creating connections and interpreting seemingly unrelated events and ideas. Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that reflects social learning theories by enabling students to work together to actively construct knowledge and transform it in ways that aid comprehension for group members (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007; Palmer, Peters, & Streetman, 2007). The ability to work collaboratively with peers to build knowledge needed to accomplish a shared task will be the essential career skill of this century (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2001; Leavy & Murnane, 2006). Web 2.0 social networking and collaboration tools can facilitate and enhance the effectiveness of cooperative learning by providing media in which groups of students can work collaboratively and with individual accountability to create and share group products.

Collaborative learning can be used to apply social learning theory by aiding students in constructing their own understanding of the world. According to Kim Beaumie’s (2001) interpretation of social constructivist learning theory, reality is “constructed through human activity” in a process through which people “invent the properties of the world” together (p. 1). In this model of learning, human knowledge is actively socially constructed and reflects the shared understandings, interests, and assumptions of groups. Beaumie (2001) recommends that formal learning experiences include reciprocal teaching, peer collaboration, cognitive apprenticeship, problem-based instruction, webquests, anchored instruction, and other activities designed to support the shared construction of knowledge.

These strategies can be supported by Web 2.0 and other digital communication and presentation tools. Students can construct presentations using PowerPoint, concept mapping, VoiceThread, or other computer and Internet applications to support reciprocal teaching. Collaboration tools such as wikis and Google Docs can aid student groups in collaboratively developing meaningful artifacts of their learning. One particularly helpful feature of these applications is that they keep records of the history of site or document development and contributors’ asynchronous discussions in order to ensure the individual accountability required by cooperative learning strategy (Palmer, Peters, & Streetman, 2007). Social networking tools like MySpace and Facebook also provide a medium for both social interaction and artifact construction, as does the rich virtual environment of Second Life. These digital collaboration and communication tools can also help to convert what Jean Lave described as inert knowledge, knowledge that is not immediately applied by the learner and is unlikely to be applied in future experience, into active knowledge that is, and can be, put to use (Laureate, 2009). Students can consult with experts and community members in fields they are studying through weblogs, email, and chat applications to support a cognitive apprenticeship model or to help answer questions in a problem-based instruction task. Problem-based and collaborative instruction can also be supported through the ready availability of online research tools such as search engines, online libraries, and databases.

As the Web closes the distance that once separated individuals and communities, it offers greater potential for the realization of meaningful and diverse application of social learning theory. But the shrinking or “flattening” of the world through digital information and communication technology also increases the importance of developing in our students the skill of self-directed learning (Davis, et al., 2001; Laureate, 2009; Pitler, et al., 2007). These tools help students collaboratively convert the unprecedented abundance of information now available into useful knowledge that can be practically applied to make sense of the present and make predictions and prescriptions for the future (Davis, et al., 2001; Laureate, 2009). In an increasingly competitive, and cooperative, world, these are more than just classroom strategies; they are long-term survival skills.

References

Beaumie, K. (2001). Social constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2001). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Bridging learning theory, instruction, and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2006). Why the changing American economy calls for twenty-first century learning: Answers to educators' questions. New Directions for Youth Development, 2006(110), 53–62.

Palmer, G. Peters, R., & Streetman, R. Cooperative learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Constructivism in Practice

Constructivist and constructionist learning theories are rooted in the principle that real learning occurs when learners actively construct meaning for themselves through active experience (Laureate, 2009). Constructionist learning theory suggests that this experience should result in the building of an external artifact (Laureate, 2009; Han & Bhattacharya, 2001). Although the validity of these theories has long been accepted, practical impediments have traditionally interfered with their widespread implementation. Now, digital information, communication, and collaboration tools are facilitating teachers’ ability to realize these principles in classroom instruction.


There are many ways to use computer technology to implement constructivist and constructionist learning theory in practice. Dr. Michael Orey suggests that PowerPoint can be used to create the final artifact of a project-based, constructivist lesson (Laureate, 2001). Students are given a challenging topic to address in their presentation and encounter, through their preparation, situations that create disequilibration, a state that occurs when existing schemata do not account for unexpected situations or new information. Students must then either assimilate new information into an existing schema, or create a new schema to accommodate it. Either way, because they immediately apply new knowledge or skills to the completion of a meaningful task, they are more likely to be fully engaged in the learning experience and to retain new knowledge and skills. This process is fundamental to all constructionist learning situations.

In Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, Han and Bhattacharya (2001) describe a workshop on effective Web-based instruction in which the facilitator uses a constructionist learning model. She begins by eliciting background information about participants and their goals for the workshop. She previews activities and opens the floor for questions, asks for ideas about the topic to tap participants’ prior knowledge (which she records on a flip-chart), highlights common themes and significant points in their responses, and integrates them into a PowerPoint presentation representing the collective knowledge of the group. The then presents the PowerPoint to the group with illustrating anecdotes before introducing participants to Web-based instruction examples. When they have examined these models, she records the group’s reflections on their experiences, which they share in a whole-group debriefing. With these experiences, participants individually construct their own Web-based instruction with lists of required components to guide them. These components are learner analysis, timeframe, interface metaphor, multiple presentation modes, assessment strategies, a variety of learning tasks, and a learner centered environment. They then form groups that discuss and select plans for presentation. Presentations are followed by comments and questions from the audience and reflective discussion. The workshop is followed by ongoing online communication through participant facilitated chat sessions. Final individual projects are shared and critiqued online. This process illustrates constructionist learning theory by holding to the principle that “instruction is only effective when the learners can relate personally and take something away from it” (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001, p.2). It moves through planning, implementing, and processing phases with active participant involvement at every stage. The activity is learner-oriented, interactive, based on understanding of learners and their contexts, centers on construction of an artifact, and uses multiple presentation methods (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001).

Ideally, a constructionist learning environment uses rubrics to establish expectations, discussion of and interpretation of assignment parameters, exploration of multiple strategies for the assignment, inquiry and learning during development, presentation of work, revision and development of the idea in the project, learner collaboration, collaboration with experts, and authentic tasks to provide a meaningful context (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001). A good example of problem-based instruction that reflects these standards is the Nikron example Glazer (2001) describes, in which a group of students collaborate with stakeholders in their community in an attempt to determine whether pollution from an important local industry is responsible for recent fish kills. Students are given a personally relevant, real world problem, they formulate research questions, assign questions to groups, evaluate available information resources, devise various forms of final products to present their findings, propose and negotiate projects with their teacher and media specialist, devise methods for research, conduct research, experiment, observe, share and compare research with other teams, analyze evidence, surmise the cause of the kill, return to the hypothesis and develop a presentation, present for whole-class review, and finish with a mock trial as a final assessment of their efforts and findings. This illustrates Glazer's (2001) assertion that “learning is most meaningful and is enhanced when students face a situation in which the concept is immediately applied” (p. 2). Answers to the question come from the learners’ knowledge and experience, rather than from texts or curricula, and the learning community is an integral part of the mechanism of knowledge construction.

Glazer (2001) also suggests other types of problem-based learning projects, such as anchored instruction, in which the problem comes from a learning context such as a story, adventure, or other situation with a problem that students can resolve through inquiry. He recommends online resources such as Web quests and an online desert race simulation. In Web quests, the design includes a task or problem, a process description, resources, evaluation tools, and concluding summary and debriefing.

In Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski (2007) discuss technology enhanced activities in which students are called upon to generate and test hypotheses. In one activity, students are given a sum of money to invest. They use spreadsheet software to predict how various investment strategies will turn out over the course of thirty years. In other examples, students use probeware to examine the relationship between light and color in art, or to determine if the students’ community has acid rain. He also examines an online video game developed by a teacher that helps students discover the causes of World War II through a simulation. In each case, students are actively involved in solving a real problem or constructing an authentic product in a personally significant context.

Many online resources support and describe constructivist and constructionist learning. Edutopia: Project Learning offers several examples of project-based learning experiences. In “Immersing Students in Civic Education,” Richard Rapaport (2007) describes a project in which a class of students was called upon to propose tile designs for a real renovation project for the San Francisco Port Commission. A valuable part of their learning experience was rejection by their evaluator, urban designer Dan Hodapp. This feedback, although painful, drove home the reality of the project and communicated higher expectations than would be expected in ordinary school projects. Students revised their designs to reflect a more focused theme and eventually won approval. This first step led to the difficult discovery process of learning how to actually produce the tiles. Despite many episodes of discomfort, disequilibration, and struggle in their zones of proximal development, the team ultimately prevailed. Now every student on that team can see and show an authentic artifact of their learning experience at the city’s renovated Pier 14.

Apple Learning Interchange offers several examples of online project-based learning activities (Apple, Inc., 2008). In “March of the Monarchs,” students track the northerly migration of monarch butterflies in a project entitled Journey North, funded by the Annenberg/CPB project. Students in states visited annually by the butterflies create a digital map marking sightings to document their migration. In this complex, interdisciplinary collaborative project, student groups measure the growth of plants on which the butterflies feed, calculate the growth time of larvae, analyze weather conditions that affect the migration, observe interrelated species, explore cultural references to monarchs, study other states they pass through, explore and document their life-cycle, take and post photographs, and explore every conceivable aspect of this insect’s life. While they become experts on the monarch, they also develop expertise in many other learning disciplines, all while working collaboratively to address a locally relevant, real-world issue and create an authentic product for a wide audience.

Another interesting project on Apple Learning Interchange is the International Education and Resource Network's (iEARN) First People's Project, which involves indigenous students around the world in creating and sharing artifacts of their local cultures with the global community (Apple, Inc., 2008). Students present stories, interviews, digital photographs, poems, and artwork representing their indigenous cultures, often creating the only widely available information sources on their communities’ ways of life. They share packages with other indigenous participants around the world, providing the genuinely valuable service of preserving and sharing their cultural traditions while developing their own skills and understanding of their heritage.

Problem-based, project-based, and inquiry-based learning experiences put constructivist and constructionist learning theories into practice in ways that engage students and produce cognitive and concrete results, and digital information, communication, and collaboration tools have made these projects more accessible and practical than ever before. Making use of these opportunities, teachers can help their students develop the confidence and abilities they will need to compete, and triumph, in the twenty-first century global marketplace.



REFERENCES


Apple, Inc. (2008). Online project-based learning. Apple learning interchange. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://edcommunity.apple.com/ali/story.php?itemID=598&version=341&page=2

Glazer, E. (2001). Problem based instruction. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved , from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/


Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved , from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Bridging learning theory, instruction, and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Lever-Duffy, J. and McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations. In Teaching and Learning with Technology (3rd ed. pp. 2–35 ). Boston: Pearson.

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rapaport, R. (2007). Immersing students in civic education. Edutopia. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.edutopia.org/intelligent-design

My Concept Map of a William Shakespeare Virtual Field Trip