What evidence exists regarding anchored instruction and its effectiveness as a pedagogical design?
Vanderbilt (1992), Zydney et al (2014) and Bottge et al. (2018) found that anchored instruction can improve knowledge transfer and problem solving skills when paired with appropriate teacher instruction. For example, Bottge et al. (2018) reported that students with disabilities’ successes were tied with the level of involvement special ed teachers played in giving instructions.
What are some important nuances of the research that are pertinent to your practice?
Parent involvement, in the Vanderbilt (1992) study they mentioned that children are the “best salesmen” (p. 308) mentioning not only children’s increased interest in problem solving, but their ability to guide visiting parents through the problems. At my school giving verbal feedback is supported over written feedback, stating it is more meaningful and more likely to be remembered, yet when reports are still the primary mode of communicating child progress. I have students whose parents supplement their learning with extra worksheets so the children can complete calculations above their year-level expectations, but word problems, an often used measure of mathematical understanding is completed carelessly or incomplete. Inviting parents in so they can take part in the learning process seems to be necessary for them to appreciate the learning process.
This is a necessary part of anchored instruction, as seen from the Vamderbilt (1992) article, children’s attitudes towards learning is a leading factor in whether they continue learning maths or if they end their learning as soon as possible. What happens at home not only affects learning retention, but learning attitudes.
What further inquiries or questions does the research reported in the articles raise for you (e.g. regarding evaluation, professional development, disabilities and/or the content area you teach or would like to promote etc)?
The Zydney et al. (2014) study addressed issues noticed in a previous study, such as providing text to voice software so learning is accessible to students with lower reading abilities. With today’s technology, couldn’t voice to text and text to voice softwares be more widely incorporated into the maths and science curricula? Next year I have students whose maths and reading abilities are two year-levels behind expectations. Students who need additional support, students who need extra challenges and students at year-level expectations, they deserve more than a supplemental worksheet at the same time they should be empowered to solve calculations independently. How can I use voice to text apps to increase learner independence/agency?
Different online maths programs/apps often have a text to voice feature, but like Zydney et al.(2014) discovered, student engagement may increase at the expense of concrete understanding—student responses on apps were correct after some guesses, which did not translate to improved test outcomes. What options are there for gamification that encourages students to review the material rather than relying on guesswork? Perhaps google forms to make an escape room (specific answer must be typed rather than multiple choice options)
Finally, in what ways might a current technology for math (Eg. IXL Math, Dragonbox, Math Genius or others) relate to this question?
It’d be relevant to see if students use of voice to text features increases when multiple choice questions are eliminated or if students are limited to one or two attempts.
References
Bottge, B. A., Cohen, A. S., & Choi, H. J. (2018). Comparisons of mathematics intervention effects in resource and inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 197-212.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
Zydney, J. M., Bathke, A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2014). Finding the optimal guidance for enhancing anchored instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(5), 668-683.