Behaviourism Weebly Project:
Click Here for: Online Learning Conference: Behaviourism
Thought Paper #1-
I would most definitely agree with this statement because teachers are able to teach behaviours to students that will make them better learners, but ultimately, the mechanics of learning comes from intrinsic motivation. The quote that I go back to is at the beginning of Chapter 3, where Standridge says, “I think you focus too much on what you see and not enough on what you don’t see” (Standridge, 2002, p. 71). When we see a child misbehave, we automatically look at what they did, rather than all the factors that lead up to this split second decision. In order for students to be in a good place to learn/behave appropriately, teachers must consider and understand many factors that may be going on in a student’s life such as: whether they get enough sleep, their current living conditions, family issues, whether they are hungry or not, friendships at school, anxiety, illnesses, and also relationship with the teacher. It’s safe to say that we have all been guilty for listening to what the child did wrong and punishing them immediately, rather than look at the scenario that lead up to this “misbehaving” moment. Standridge discusses throughout chapter 3 that when “students are not ready to learn or do not possess the prerequisite skills, then attempting to learn is punishing and a waste of time” (p. 75). If a boy comes to school and hits another kid, we would normally focus on punishing him so that he won’t do it again. Instead of punishing him and getting temporary compliance, we should be seeing what lead to this behaviour. After speaking with the child, we find out that he is angry because mom is getting hit by dad, so he thinks it is okay to hit others when he is mad. Instead of punishing him, we need to make sure that we build a relationship with this child to show him that we care. Once this relationship is formed, helping him modify/control behaviours will be much easier, because he will want to do it for himself, rather than doing it because we tell him to.
Thought Paper #2-
I agree that teachers need to receive more training on the functions of a student’s brain as education is developing. When I look back on my education with teaching at SFU, I can’t say that I’ve learned or had any instruction on how the brain functions. Teaching would be easier if neuroscientists gathered some evidence-based research on student brains and how they learn. I assuming that all teachers want to learn more about how children learn best, “but teachers are rarely exposed to primary source of neuroscience evidence or neuroscience methods in their training” (Coch & Ansari, 2009, p. 546). If teachers were trained in neuroscience basics, we would be able to answer questions such as: how long should each lesson be, how many times a week should we teach math, what is the best time to learn? One question that arose in this week’s discussion board is whether teaching students to memorize “math” facts is still useful or not. During a lesson on equivalent fractions, a few students in my class expressed that they didn’t know how to multiply; so, I went back and taught them the process of how to figure out what ‘2X2=’ (first number is how many groups you have, the second is how many pieces are in each group). They found it tedious to do this for every multiplication step, which made me revert to the old-school method of “table towers.” When students are able to retrieve information from their long-term memory within seconds, they don’t question whether they’ve done the basic facts right or not, which allows them to focus on the “big idea.” So, why don’t education programs teach more about the brain and how it functions? I’m hopeful because neurologists are looking at sports head injuries and brain trauma (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy- CTE).
Coch, D. & Ansari, D. (2009). Thinking about mechanisms is crucial to connecting neuroscience and education. Cortex, 45(4), 546-7.
Thought Paper #3-
Constructivism would argue that knowledge is not something that can be passed on from one mind to another; rather, it is something built from experiences. Von Glasersfeld argued that knowledge comes from experiencing something and from building upon prior knowledge and experiences to create meaning from every new experience. The first quote, “… to assess the truth of your knowledge you would have to know what you come to know before you come to know it,” (Glasersfeld, 2008, p. 37) is stating that there are no ultimate answers in life. If someone claims to know the truth about something, then they would have to know something fully before they have even developed an understanding of it. Or else, how can they possibly evaluate the truth of the knowledge they had just come to learn? Glasersfeld argues against the traditional “knowledge could be transferred from a teacher to a student” (Glasersfeld, 2008, p. 34), as constructivist teaching allows students to build knowledge through inquiry and experiences. Students must experience it, in order to understand it. Teachers cannot transfer an experience to a child. They can talk about their experiences with the child, but until the child experiences it for themselves, they will not understand it. This is what Glasersfeld was talking about in the quote, “… it appears that knowledge is not a transferable commodity and communication not a conveyance” (Glasersfeld, 2008, p. 48). Constructivism encourages teachers to inquire about what their students know, and help guide them as children begin to inquire and seek answers to their questions. A teacher’s role has now shifted from instructor to facilitator – teachers no longer are expected to transfer knowledge; instead they are learning with the students. Teachers guide and direct their students to help them find information that is relevant and meaningful to their lives.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.
Available online: http://anti-matters.org/articles/73/public/73-66-1-PB.pdf
Lesson Plan Critical Analysis:
Introduction:
Throughout this course, we have looked at various theories and how they influence learning and success in our classrooms. The lesson plan “Paper Aircraft,” is designed for a Grade 3 Applied Design, Skills and Technology (ADST) curriculum in British Columbia. This lesson plan aligns with BC’s new curriculum, which focuses on: creative thinking, self-awareness and working collaboratively with their peers. My choice for this lesson plan is based on the need for students to continually develop and redevelop their knowledge through hands-on activities.
I chose to modify the original lesson plan (OLP) into three individual lessons because there were too many tasks to complete in one allocated time. The lesson is restrictive because didn’t allow my students enough time to access their prior knowledge beforehand nor reflect on the experience afterwards. By creating a series of separate lesson plans with the core competencies in mind, each session focuses on a specific task rather than merging multiple skills into a single lesson.
This OLP was provided by a student teacher I had worked with during my practicum a couple years back, which focuses on the Grade 3 Applied Designs, Skills, and Technology (ADST) curriculum in British Columbia. The big idea is to provide students with cross-curricular opportunities to develop foundational mindsets and skills in design thinking and making, through exploratory and purposeful play. According the BC’s new redesigned curriculum (2016), the main purpose of the ADST curriculum is that “As they get older and develop interest in knowing how things work and making things that work, they will have opportunities to develop foundational skills in activities that have practical and real-life maker mindset in cross curricular contexts that they will bring to future explorations in ADST.” This critique will discuss three theories and how they are present or absent in the attached lesson plan. Further, I will focus on the ways in which the lesson plan reflects the zone of proximal development, constructivist theory, and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory.
Zone of Proximal Development:
The zone of proximal development is defined as “the distance between the actual development level as determined through independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 86). Vygotsky believed that people develop because we learn through peer interaction. This lesson plan utilizes Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development theory, because the task of determining what makes an aircraft fly further is slightly beyond the learner’s capacity. This is why scaffolding and guidance from the teacher is necessary as students begin to develop these reflective skills, as students at this age needs modeling and help from a more knowledgeable adult. Once the student’s master the task of designing a paper aircraft, the scaffolding can then be removed and the student will be able to continually redesign the aircraft again on his/her own. This lesson utilizes cooperative learning exercises, where less competent children can develop/construct knowledge with the help of more skillful peers in their group – within the zone of proximal development. The aim of this lesson plan is to provide students the opportunity to connect their prior knowledge with new strategies, as they gain the skills to effectively communicate and move towards conducting experiments independently, with minimal adult supervision.
To improve the OLP to fit this theory, I would break it up into three separate lessons. It will allow the teacher to observe which students need extra support and scaffolding, as the students access their prior knowledge to create new knowledge. I would break the lessons down as follows:
- Lesson #1- KWL chart on airplanes (what makes them fly, parts to an airplane, how wind affects the direction it flies, etc)
- Lesson #2- Provide step-by-step instructions for 3 different paper airplanes for them to build. We would fly them together as a class, and then talk about why one plane flew further than the other one
- Lesson #3- Give them time to design, test, and redesign their personalized paper aircrafts to see which plane goes the furthest distance
It is essential to spend Day 2 guiding the students through folding paper airplanes, as some students may have little to no experience with folding paper airplanes. It is also important to provide opportunities where children can imitate a variety of actions that go well beyond the limits of their own capabilities. “Using imitation, children are capable of doing much more in collective activity or under the guidance of adults” (Vygotsky, 88). By providing step-by-step instructionals first and then giving them an opportunity to build their own aircraft, students are bound to be more successful in creating an aircraft that stays in the air the longest. When students become more involved in the learning process by applying the theoretical concepts into practice, they will naturally become more engaged and more receptive.
Constructivist Theory:
This lesson garners the main posits of constructivist thinking; however, it relies too heavily on the need for the teacher to deliver knowledge, rather than allow the students to construct knowledge themselves. Ernst von Glasersfeld (1987) suggests that knowledge is not a transferable commodity and communication not a conveyance. When providing the students with a step-by-step procedure, it doesn’t allow for them to be creative when creating a ‘great’ paper airplane. The modified lesson plans (MLP) employs the fundamentals of inquiry, where students construct meaning through building and rebuilding – a specific step-by-step lesson plan will not be provided. In addition, the MLP will utilize a variety of activities that encourages student discussion, promotes involvement and engagement, and stimulates feedback from their peers and/or teacher.
Sociocultural Theory:
Vygotsky’s social learning theory states that learning occurs through social interactions with others. Social interactions are precursors to integrating mental processes such as problem solving and conflict resolution. The OLP does not include students working collaboratively during their experiment, nor is there any discussion time after the experiment to debrief what happened. “Every function in the cultural development of the child appears on the stage twice, on two planes. First, on the social plane, then on the psychological; first between people, and then inside the child” (Vygotsky, 57). It is important that the teacher groups the children according to their current skill level, in order for collaboration and problem solving to take place. It is also important for the students to problem solve under the guidance of the teacher and more capable peers. “What a child is able to do in collaboration today he will be able to do independently tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 40).
Vygotsky’s social learning theory can be seen in MLPs, where students will be working in groups of 2-3, as well as include more time for discussions before and after the experiment. Vygotsky would accept working in groups because he believed in learning by socialization and interaction with other learners. Scaffolding is also present in this experiment, where students must use their prior knowledge as they are continuously creating a better aircraft. The teacher will act as a facilitator in the learning process, the teacher will float around, asking questions and providing my knowledge, as the children proceed with creating several paper aircrafts. Discussions will allow students to discuss their findings and consider multiple perspectives. Lastly, I would also include more resources (readings, video clips, sample aircraft instructionals, etc.) for my student’s to access as they develop their aircrafts. Creating a classroom community where children are willing to take chances in learning, will encourage students to continue to develop/redevelop their creations even if they have not found success at first.
Conclusion:
The “Paper Aircraft” lesson plan provides an opportunity for students to engage in meaningful discussions, while learning the fundamentals of conducting an experiment. In order for deeper learning based on the three theoretical perspectives mentioned above, the original lesson would need to be extended into three separate, more specific lessons. The purposes of these changes is to support student learning and understanding by encouraging practical application. The adjustments encourage more collaboration and group work, as well as more opportunities to create/recreate their aircraft designs to see which aircraft of theirs fly the furthest. The revisions are personally relevant to the child and their developmental level. Vygotsky described concept formation as being a primary teaching strategy that helps students from a solid understanding of a concept by viewing it in small sequential steps. The revision of this lesson plan takes Vygotsky’s theory into account by providing a more comprehensive unit that gives students the chance to work through their own creations to create the best version of an aircraft. Essentially, the goal for my students is to help them develop skills that will allow them to take chances when develop/redeveloping their knowledge through hands-on activities.
References:
BC Ministry of Education (2016). Applied Designs, Skills and Technology (ADST). Available online: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/applied-design-skills-and-technologies/introduction
Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as a Constructive Activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.
Available online: http://anti-matters.org/articles/73/public/73-66-1-PB.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.