My driving question is "How can I use an in-class flipped model to differentiate learning in a first grade classroom?"
Here are some key ideas from Clark, Baggio, and Dervin and how they connect to my driving question:
0 Comments
I’m not sure how much I've evolved as an innovative thinker, but this course definitely has made me think more about technology, pedagogy, and what to do with all of this newfound knowledge.
During this course, I've taken more chances with technology. I’m not afraid of technology in the classroom; in fact, my background is in software development and tech writing. However, I tend to avoid personal technology in the classroom because I’m not yet convinced of its benefits for first graders. This course has helped me to refine my action research project so that technology actually may be extremely beneficial in my classroom. I’m looking forward to trying my new and improved “differentiation through technology” very soon. The wide range of reading material in this course has definitely contributed to my knowledge about good pedagogy. I’ve learned at least a little about topics ranging from neuroplasticity to interface design. I’ve learned about the importance of avoiding cognitive overload in my students, and about the educational value of peer teaching. I’ve learned about details as small as the value of left-alignment in a presentation, and about topics as broad as sensemaking. Through Baggio, Merrill, and Clark, I’ve learned about design in e-learning, and their principles of simplicity, flow, contrast, examples, and accessibility apply not only to my online presentations but to worksheets and handouts, as well. Finally, I've learned about how much more I have to learn. I’m hoping to somehow connect and aggregate what I’ve learned in this class -- and throughout the Masters program -- and put it all together so that I can succinctly articulate my thoughts about education and learning. And then, I want to learn more. From Linda Darling-Hammond to Sir Ken Robinson, from Dan Pink to John Medina, from Ruth Clark to Sandrine Thuret, I’d like to connect the dots to create a complete picture. Perhaps an infographic? Growing in TPACK is a constant and ongoing process. Every day in the classroom is a new opportunity for me to refine my content knowledge, streamline my pedagogical approach, and optimize technology use. For my project, I’ve had to work hard on all three.
What makes teaching with technology so challenging, or “wicked,” is that it’s an area that is full of interrelated and constantly changing variables. These variables include all of the aspects of the SITE model, including different and changing learners, levels, content, pedagogy, and environment/sociological conditions. What makes this most challenging for me is the climb up the SAMR model. While I’m comfortable using technology, I still struggle to find uses that aren’t simply online replacements for what I already do in the classroom. And in first grade (and all grades), I don’t want to use technology for technology’s sake. It needs to be meaningful. So, here’s where I am in TPACK with my current project. First a little background….my project began as an attempt at using an in-class flipped model for first grade math, in which students would watch leveled screencasts for instruction, then use the bulk of in-class time for math groups, independent work, and partner practice. The amount of work required to create screencasts for each lesson became prohibitive, so I tried to find a different use for this technology. As a result, my project has since evolved into creating a reference library of screencasts that are available for students at an in-class center. Rather than learning initially from the screencasts, the screencasts exist as support for students who need to reinforce a concept or are ready for a head start on a new concept. Because they can be used both to reinforce or to learn, they support differentiation. However, they’re not designed to replace initial in-class instruction. So, how do I apply TPACK to this wicked problem? The pedagogical content knowledge (PC) part is probably the easiest (although “easy” is relative). This is the sweet spot in which I know what I’m teaching and how best to teach it. For example, in a math lesson about the “counting on” strategy in math, I need to know the strategy (i.e., identify the bigger number, then “count on” the smaller number). I also need to know the best way to teach it for each of my learners. The technological content knowledge (TC) is harder. This is where technology enhances or supports the acquisition of content knowledge. In my project, the technology is really acting as a teacher replacement. My students can use the screencasts to refresh their knowledge of concepts or skills, rather than asking me. So, technology is support the acquisition of learning, but at the most basic level of SAMR. By far, the most challenging aspect of the “wicked problem” is technological pedagogical knowledge (TP): This is the intersection of pedagogy and knowing the optimal way to employ technology so that students can learn. This is the most challenging area for me, as I’m really using the screencasts as a video lesson. They’re not maximizing the use of technology to facilitate instruction in a new and innovative way. With my limited classroom time and huge amount of content to cover, I’d love to find ways that that my first graders could benefit from all that technology has to offer in knowledge acquisition and skill development. The tricky part is finding these ways….and in finding the time to find these ways! I’m trying to refine my driving question based on my experience this year. My original question was “How can I use an in-class flipped model to differentiate learning in first grade?” Now I’m I’m wondering if there is enough value in using an in-class flip so that I should keep using it. It’s so much work to make the screencasts, and I have so many levels of learners in my classes, that it’s almost easier for me to use more of a guided math approach than it is to use the screencasts for an in-class flip. I also have to be very nimble about what I’m teaching so I can adjust to what my kids need. Sometimes I have to add in a lesson, sometimes I need to take one out. This makes relying on pre-recorded screencasts even harder. I wonder if a different approach makes sense. Rather than using screencasts for an in-class flip, I could potentially use screencasts to create a “reference library” for basic math concepts and strategies. Kids could then refer to the screencasts for help, rather than having to wait or come to me. If they need a refresher on a concept, they could view the screencasts, too. This idea is making a lot more sense to me. A guided math rotation, along with a reference library of screencasts. Now, to apply our readings to my screencasts, I like the Baggio approach to visuals. Simple, clear, aligned with objectives, and aligned with my learners. CRAP also applies: sans serif font, contrast between large and small elements, alignment that’s easy on the eye, placement and proximity that lets the brain make sense of different objects, repetition of terminology so that it sticks. Here’s a sample screen that incorporates these elements:
My learners are first graders, so I’d also add “brief” to the approach. It’s all about understanding the 7-year-old brain and creating content that will stick. So, here’s a go at a new driving question: “How can I use screencasts to differentiate learning in first grade?” My students are first graders, with a wide range of interests, skills, family backgrounds, and current levels of proficiency.
So, how does SITE apply to my students and my driving question? Sociocultural: The "S" in SITE refers to sociocultural. This is the unique social and cultural background of each of our students. In first grade at our private, parochial school, many of our families highly value secular education and technology, while others prioritize the religious education and practice. Some of my students come from very supportive and involved families, and others come from families who are unable to provide educational support for their children. Some students went to traditional kindergarten, some were home schooled. Understanding each of my students’ backgrounds helps in designing instruction, and in setting reasonable expectations and goals for each child. Informational: The "I" in SITE refers to informational. These are “the resources that exist to help the learner employ the ways and means represented by the technical subcontext to achieve worthwhile goals.” It also refers to “the skills and knowledge that learners need to will help them access the principles, rules, guidelines, directions, suggestions, conventions, codes, and so on that will allow them some measure of control over tools, systems, devices, procedures.” For first grade, this includes very basic skills like reading, understanding directions, writing, sharing materials, and using technology. For example, in order for my first graders to be able to play a math game, they need to know how to use the materials. For my math graders to solve a math puzzle, they need to learn to read and recognize directions. To read on Kids A to Z, they need to know how to turn on the iPad. Technical: The "T" in SITE refers to the tools, devices, procedures, systems, strategies, tactics, or techniques that would empower learners to achieve their goals. For first graders, this includes a creating a very relevant context and purpose for the learning, accompanied by plenty of hands-on activities so that they experience the learning as relevant. (The purpose can be something they’re already interested in, or introducing them to a whole new purpose or goal.) It also means recognizing that first graders have a short attention span and need lots of movement. Educational: The "E" refers to educational context. This brings the S, I, and T elements together as just some of the factors that are important in the overall education of a person. For my first graders, this broader definition of education includes social and emotional education, and cultivating an overall love of learning. In fact, in order for my first graders to synthesize the content learning, they need to feel successful and valued as members of our class and as learners. When they feel that they are successful as first graders, then they develop the confidence they need to continue to learn and grow both in and out of school. The audience for my research project is teachers. Since my driving question involves using an in-class flipped model to facilitate differentiation, my audience, more specifically, is teachers who are interested in using technology for differentiation.
Based on reading Dervin, Baggio, and Clark, I have several initial thoughts about creating a resource to share knowledge and research.
After reading this article, I drew a picture that helped me to understand, in a simplistic way, Dervin’s theory of sensemaking. It looked something like this: This process is called sensemaking.
I found myself longing for real-world examples throughout the article, so I was delighted to see that the author included examplars. I found interesting how different factors, including self-perception, view of the situation, and perception of outcome can influence (or not) someone's sensemaking. One counterintuitive point is that, in at least two of the exemplars, race and demographics didn’t affect sensemaking. In most of what I’ve read elsewhere, life experience and environment greatly affect a person’s perspective, which would, in turn, affect their sensemaking of a situation. If I were to I attempt to explain sensemaking to high schoolers (disclaimer: I teach first grade), we would absolutely act it out. We'd start off with a real-world scenario and work through the resolution. Of course, this would require the students to use their own sensemaking abilities. After resolving the situation, it would be time to reflect. How did you make sense of the situation? How did your life experience affect your sensemaking? If you were to try to understand someone else’s sensemaking, what questions could you ask or observations could you make? What are factors that affect sensemaking? Why is this important to understand? For my study - about the effectiveness of using an in-class flipped model to differentiate in first grade math - I’m planning to collect and analyze quantitative data...at least, at first.
The plan is to give the students a pre-assessment for the math unit. Then, the students will learn the content of the unit by watching in-class screencasts at a math station (and, of course, meeting in small groups with me and working on various types of independent and partner practice). Finally, at the end of the unit, the students will take a post-assessment. I’ll then compare the scores of the pre- and post-assessments to quantitatively evaluate student learning. Presuming that this experiment in “flipping” yields promising results, I’d like to follow up with several additional types of analyses. First, I’d like to repeat the study with a similar quantitative analysis for a different type of math unit. I wonder if this type of in-class flip might work better with some math concepts/units than others, so it would be revealing to experiment with other units like geometry or graphing. Second, I’d like to repeat the study without using an in-class flip for a similar math unit. I’d then compare the post-assessment results for the flipped and un-flipped units. It would be revealing to quantitatively see the difference (if any) in student learning between the two. Third, I’d like to include a qualitative analysis of student perceptions of their flipped experience. So much of how first graders learn is driven both by their enjoyment and by their feelings of self-efficacy. Do the students enjoy learning from the screencasts? Do the students think that the screencasts keep their attention as well as a teacher would? And do the students believe that they are good at learning math from the screencasts? Do they think that they are growing as math learners? Finally, I’d like to include qualitative data about the impact of this model on the teacher. Does an in-class flip require significantly more or less planning? Does the screencasting have an up-front increase in preparation and planning, yet significantly make math group rotations more smooth? Is the increase in preparation worth the (hopefully) increase in results? My driving question is: What are the effects of using screencasts on differentiated learning using an in-class flipped model?
The educational context for this driving question is really a combination of the need for differentiation with the benefits of a flipped classroom. There’s a huge diversity in any classroom. In my classroom alone, there are students who speak English and some who don’t. There are kids who are still building number sense, and those who understand the basis for multiplication. There are kids with well-developed fine motor skills, and those who can’t properly hold a pencil. There are kids who just turned 6, and those who just turned 7. All of these - and more - necessitate differentiation. There’s also a huge range of readiness for independent work in my classroom. At any moment, there may be half a dozen students who need my attention or who have a question. There may be students who can read directions, and those who can’t. There are students who know how to use resources around the room to help themselves, and those who don’t. There are students who “ask three and then me,” and students who only “ask me.” There are students who need more support, and students who need less. All of these reasons - and more - necessitate accessible (and appropriate) curricula and directions for all students at all times. This content can be provided by screencasts in a flipped model. The intersection of all of these needs provides the educational context for my driving question: what are the effects of using screencasts on differentiated learning using an in-class flipped model? My driving question is: What are the effects of using an in-class flipped model for differentiation in a first grade classroom? So, my research lies somewhere in the intersection of differentiation and flipped learning.
At the core of differentiated learning is Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. The ZPD is the learning “zone” in which students are learning material that is too difficult to master on their own, but that can be learned with guidance and encouragement. This is the zone in which true learning occurs. If students are working beneath their ZPD, then the material is too easy. If they are working beyond their ZPD, then the material is too hard. Teaching students within their ZPDs is one of the goals of differentiated instruction. In the field of differentiation, one of the seminal researchers is Carol Ann Tomlinson. She is known as a major advocate for differentiation in the classroom as a way of addressing the needs of all learners. Her philosophy is encapsulated in this quote from her website: “The idea of differentiating instruction is an approach to teaching that advocates active planning for and attention to student differences in classrooms, in the context of high quality and curriculums.” Tomlinson discusses how curriculum can be differentiated by content, process, and products; within these areas, the learning can be further differentiated by a student’s readiness, interest, and learning profile. In the area of flipped learning, Jon Bergmann and Aaron Sams are two of the premier researchers. According to Bergmann and Sams, flipped learning is “a pedagogical approach in which the direct instruction moves from the group learning space to the individual learning space,and the resulting group space is transformed into a dynamic, interactive learning environment where the educator guides students as they apply concepts and engage creatively in the subject matter.” They are known for discovering the idea of flipped learning when trying to find ways to maximize the benefit of “face to face” in-class time with their students. Bermann and Sams are advocates of the “flipped mastery model,” which implements mastery learning (all students master the objectives, though at different paces and in different ways) using the flipped model. They also elaborate on additional benefits of a flipped learning, including using the recorded lessons for students who were absent or who need to review material. Coincidentally, this dovetails with differentiation, in which students learn at different paces and in different ways, depending upon their different learning needs. As Bergmann and Sams say, “Flipped learning, at its core, is individualized learning.” |
Masters in Innovative Learning:
|