"Different Approaches- Common Implications: Brain Based and Constructivist Learning from A Paradigms and Integral Model Perspective” by Ajda Kahveci (Walden Library, Journal)
There is a wealth of resources available out there in the way of brain and learning, information processing theory, and problem-solving methods during the learning process. The Walden University Library is an indispensable space for essential information. One journal I found is entitled "Different Approaches- Common Implications: Brain Based and Constructivist Learning from A Paradigms and Integral Model Perspective” by Ajda Kahveci. Originally written Turkish and translated to English, I found it extremely useful because it explores the relationship between brain-based learning and constructivist theory. One thing I have been trying to do is make meaning out of all this theory and this article helped me do just that. He presents a definition of brain-based learning as “knowing how the brain woks and taking an interest in discovering ways to maximize learning” (Carolyn, 1997). The author presents the idea that the brain has an “unlimited capacity for learning” (Caine & Caine 1994) which is amazing to me that the brain can absorb so much information. It reminds me of the concept of “built in core knowledge” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 43) because it is amazing that even at “24 hours of age, an infant can recognize whether an object is near or far” (Ormrod, 2008, p. 43). It makes me wonder: does a human ever stop learning? But also makes me wonder, what makes some learn quicker than others?
I particularly like the idea that “learning is enhanced by challenged but inhibited by threat” (Caine & Caine 1994). What types of threats are we talking about? Bad grades? Standardized Tests? Under his heading of constructivist learning, I really think Kahveci’s article is begging educators to rethink how we assess as well as how we teach. Another piece that speaks to me is his ideas are that although currently hot right now, the constructivist theories are not NEW approaches (Kavveci, 2008, 125). This is aligned very well with much of the education cycle, trends seem to be repeating themselves; so which do we accept as “right?” Finally, I like how he addresses the role of educator in all this as “mediator” who “provides quality experiences for learners for meaningful learning” (Kahveci, 2008, 125). This aligns with my practice because we have been moving from teacher as information giver to teacher as facilitator of learning.
"Metagognitive Knowledge About Problem-solving Methods" by Allesandro Antonietti (Walden Library, Journal)
Examining the course readings and lectures makes me realize that there are many ways humans can solve problems; I was interesting in reading more about this. Another great article I came across is entitled "Metagognitive Knowledge About Problem-solving Methods" by Allesandro Antonietti. The study explores five ways humans solve problems. I particularly like the findings of the study about the “most frequently used method of problem solving being analogy” or “finding correspondences between two or more situations in different domains (Antonietti, 2000 p. 4). This enforces Ormrod’s idea “encoding” and “retrieval” as part of the problem solving process. It also highlights the importance of making relevant comparisons in the classroom. However, it is disturbing in a sense because the article also expresses this method as the easiest to apply and “step by step analysis and combining to be the most difficult” (Antonietti, 2000, p. 4). So should we be making comparisons for them or should they be doing it on their own? Do I as a teacher want them to be problem solving in a way that is “easy” or “difficult?” or does this not matter at all? According to Jeanne Ormrod, in her video, much depends on how the problem is posed. I can relate to this because I have experience with creating questions for responses. I often can get a feel for which questions to ask to get a good response versus which to ask to get an excellent response- but this took a lot of time to learn and I still struggle. In many ways, the way the problems are posed is everything.
Antonietti also finds that for some, the “solution to a new problem is favored by a process in which a wide range of ideas are produced” (2000, p.2). This seems like a fancy way of saying “brainstorming” which is a likable way to solve problems since it allows us to “think up wild, unusual, imaginative ideas, no matter how silly they seem” (Osborn, 1953). I do a lot of brainstorming with the kids because particularly with English, it is a great way to pre-write and think about literature. Both Antonietti and Ormrod mention part of metacognition is knowing “how much time must be spent applying the strategy” (Antonietti, 2000, p. 3). I think far too often kids simply give up if they cannot figure something out quickly and perhaps as teachers we need to teach methods of time management on problems.
“Almost Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Educational Technology” (Website)
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~smflanag/edtech/cip.htm
This website is perfect for me because it provides ideas about information processing theories that I can take into the classroom. The site mentions that we should emphasize “the use of graphic organizers and emphasize words that are important in texts (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). I personally have found graphic organizers to be very helpful to students because they can categorize information in a way that suits their learning style. I also like this site because it introduces the importance of feedback to information processing. It states that “feedback has two important functions in the cognitive information processing theory. These functions include: (1) feedback provides the learner with some type of response so that they know if their answer is correct or incorrect; and (2) feedback can be used to provide corrective answers/responses to incorrect answers/responses” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). There is also a section about analyzing and defining, performance task and performance assessment that I am definitely going to think about. The site is also excellent because it has many definitions of terminology associated with IDT as well as a list of important people and events surrounding IDT.
References
Antonietti, A. (2000). Metacognitive Knowledge About Problem-Solving methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 1-16. Retrieved from Ebsco database.
Kahveci, A. (2008, December). Different Approaches- Common Implications: Brain Based and Constructivist Learning from A Paradigms and Integral Model Perspective. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(3), 108-123. Retrieved from Ebsco database.
Reiser, R.A. & Dempsey, J.V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment