Teaching With Technology So That Students Learn With Understanding

1. Teaching With Technology So That StudentsLearn With Understanding 2003 Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference Donald P. Buckley, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Director of Learning Technology, School of Health Sciences Quinnipiac University Hamden, CT 06518 Apple Distinguished Educator Smithsonian Computerworld Laureate

3. The Information Age Has Changed the Educational Landscape The meaning of ‘knowing’ has shifted from being able to repeat and remember information to being able to find and use it Herbert Simon, Nobel Laureate Bransford et al., 2000 Learning Goals Have Changed Information Age Industrial Age 1800’s 1900’s 2000’s

4. Student Preparation Standards May Be Lower Now • Vocabularies of entering college freshman 1962: 10,000 words Today: 4,000 words • The region of our brain most related to language has multiple duties: • Communication • Synthesis • Long term memory

5. Educational Consequences: e.g., Scientific Literacy • In the early 1990's... The United States ranked 13 out of the top 14 industrial nations of the world • By the late 1990's... The United States ranked halfway among the worlds nations

6. NRC 2000 - How People Learn Learning Standards Emerging Trends today A Revolutionary Opportunity Has Emerged NRC 1995 - National Science Education Standards Content Standards 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s

7. 1. Soul-searching about alarming levels of literacy: • Emergence of the Learning Paradigm 2. The Decade of the Brain: • New insights about the cognitive development of learning 3. Information technology: • Authoring tools promote the construction of knowledge • Simulations enable students to experience investigation • Communication tools promote learning in a social context • Formative Assessment …the glue that holds it all together A Revolution in Education!

8. What Is Our Greatest Challenge?Institutional Transition to the Learning Paradigm Instructional Paradigm Learning Paradigm emphasis on Delivery of Content emphasis on Learning with Understanding Barr and Tagg, 1995

9. Current Practice Is Mismatched with the Pedagogical Potential of Instructional Technology Pedagogical Potential of Instructional Technology Instructional Paradigm Learning Paradigm emphasis on Delivery of Content emphasis on Learning with Understanding

10. Bottlenecks to Transition to the Learning Paradigm • Problem: Most faculty reside in the Instructional Paradigm • Effective transition to the Learning Paradigm will require transformational faculty development • Transformational faculty development must be coupled to institutional change processes to be effective

11. What Should the Highest Priority of IT Be? • Technology Integration?

12. What Should the Highest Priority of IT Be? • Technology Integration? No, a secondary goal • Promoting Institutional Transition to Learning Paradigm • How? • Providing a Repertoire of Learning-Centered Tools • Transformational Faculty Development • Coupled to Institutional Change Processes

13. Let’s Consider… • How People Learn • Pedagogical Feature Set of Learningware • Transformational Faculty Development • Institutional Change Process

14. Let’s Consider… • How People Learn • Pedagogical Feature Set of Learningware • Transformational Faculty Development • Institutional Change Process

22. “What we need to learn before doing, we learn by doing.” Aristotle

23. But Where Do We Start? Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

24. High Priority Educational Goals 1. Learning with understanding 2. Experiencing investigation

25. Learning with Understanding Memorizing Facts Is Not Enough Students Need to Construct Knowledge Learn with Understanding Transfer Application to Later Learning & Real World Problems

26. Learning with Understanding(Transfer) Results FromStudent Construction of Knowledge

27. Key Principles about How People Learn • Learning must be reconstructive • The path to expertise has cognitive structure • Students must develop metacognitive skills Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

28. Key Principles about How People Learn • Learning must be reconstructive • The path to expertise has cognitive structure • Students must develop metacognitive skills Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

29. Reaching Students: Teaching Hamlet • Jake's Pedagogy: Passion for formal literary scholarship Linguistic flexivity Modernism In-depth analysis of soliloquies Memorization of long passages • Steve’s Pedagogy: Connecting with student emotions, asking: How would you feel if your father died all of a sudden? …and then your mother immediately remarried? …and her new husband took over the family business? …and the new guy may have murdered your Dad? …and your Mom might have helped him to do it? How would your feel? How desperate would you be? What would you do? Would you be yourself? What circumstances might drive someone to extremes? Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

30. Key Principles about How People Learn • Learning must be reconstructive • The path to expertise has cognitive structure • Students must develop metacognitive skills Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

31. factoid Big Ideas” novice expert Construction of Knowledge: Novice versus Expert

32. Constructing of Knowledge Requires Chunking with Background Knowledge (schema) • Train to remember digit strings • From 7 to over 70 within 30 days • Then same with letters …back to 7 again, but no progress thereafter because there was no schema to organize letter strings • Break big strings into smaller number of elements (chunking) • Each chunked element was remembered with a trick: races (background knowledge …schema) 94100 = 9.41 seconds for 100 yards 3591 = 3 minutes, 59.1 secs for 1 mile

33. chunked content TRANSFER Expertise new chunked content new chunked content Expertise schema new chunked content revised schema new chunked content revised schema revised schema new chunked content schema early schema student interests, emotions and prior understanding Learning for Understanding Involves an Iterative Construction of Knowledge

34. Key Principles about How People Learn • Learning must be reconstructive • The path to expertise has cognitive structure • Students must develop metacognitive skills Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

35. Learning with Understandingis based onStudent Construction of Knowledge

36. the Barbara Johnson modelTeaching so students Learn with Understanding… • Barbara starts a unit by asking her students: • How does this topic relate to you? • How do these issues relate to the world? • Students connect with prior understanding • Student groups identify and prioritize issues and seek themes Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 2000.

37. the Barbara Johnson modelTeaching so students Learn with Understanding… • Groups create a research agenda together • In conducting research, they are constructing knowledge • Students are surprised to discover that their interests were intermeshed with formal disciplines and that so many disciplines had been engaged • In these investigations, students have: • engaged prior knowledge, interest, and emotions • reconstructed previous knowledge • constructed new knowledge on previous foundations • developed critical inquiry skills • assumed the authority of knowledge-making • built a community of learners and team mates

38. What enables Barbara to use this method? • PEDAGOGICAL-CONTENT KNOWLEDGE • FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT …guides individualistic student paths: from their prior knowledge and interests to the her curriculum and their competencies Teachers model metacognition in formative assessment

39. High Priority Educational Goals 1. Learning with understanding 2. Experiencing investigation

40. The Process of Critical Inquiry consider alternative explanations & jeopardize with evidence understanding Hypothesis A Hypothesis B study BELIEF defer judgement understanding This is how the brain seems to be wired! study BELIEF

41. Let’s Consider… • How People Learn • Pedagogical Feature Set of Learningware • Transformational Faculty Development • Institutional Change Process

42. Technology can be an Enabler COMMUNICATING SIMULATING VISUALIZING COMMUNITY OF LEARNERS DATA COLLECTION ANALYZING MODELING BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium

43. Pedagogical Feature Set of Instructional Technology Interactivity: fosters active-learning experiences Multimedia: engages important cognitive processes Communication: promotes social construction of knowledge Computing components: • experience with professional tools & skills • simulations to develop critical inquiryskills • authoring tools for construction of knowledge • integration of powerful formative assessment tools

44. Goals of Formative Assessment • To improve the communication of learning goals • To foster mindful engagement …by promoting reflection and metacognition • To construct learning cycles ...”chunking” • To provide timely feedback • To build incentive systems for competency-based learning • To collect diagnostic clues about individual needs

45. Learn Facts Learn Concepts Learn Inquiry main learning goal foundational information Instructional Technology Assessment Tools Vary with Learning Goals Open-ended assessment styles Structured assessment styles Utility of Competing Assessment Styles

46. Examples

47. Let’s Consider… • How People Learn • Pedagogical Feature Set of Learningware • Transformational Faculty Development • Institutional Change Process

48. Current Practice Is Mismatched with the Pedagogical Potential of Instructional Technology Pedagogical Potential of Instructional Technology Instructional Paradigm Learning Paradigm emphasis on Delivery of Content emphasis on Learning with Understanding

49. WE NEED TO SOLVE TWO PROBLEMS SIMULTANEOUSLYTransform faculty communities: learning & technology savvy Instructional Technology Instructional Paradigm Learning Paradigm emphasis on Delivery of Content emphasis on Learning with Understanding

50. Is Traditional Technology Training Enough? • Limited training model (e.g., slide show authoring) …because “faculty don’t have the time to commit to deeper efforts” “a rising tide floats all boats” …what if we need to fly? • Problem: this training is not transformational • Doesn’t foster transition to learning-centered pedagogies • Faculty wonder “why spend the effort?” • Result: faculty willingness to participate in training limited