Web 2.0 Resources

As a high school science teacher, it is absolutely necessary that I incorporate technology into my course. Additionally, this course has opened my eyes to possibilities with web 2.0 options. Let me start by reflecting on the ways that students already use technology, shared information interfaces, and the internet in my classroom. Then, I will discuss the ways I’d like to incorporate blogging.
This year I had a lap top for every student. Being able to create digital content was more efficient and as we saw during the vide week one, it will prepare them more adequate for the demands of the 21st century. Further, using laptops made students more engaged and excited during class. Students use Microsoft excel to collect data and create graphs during lab investigations. During experiments, students record data and share this data electronically share their data with their classmates and other periods using a variety of programs. Students use Microsoft word to create lab reports during class and submit these lap reports in a paperless format and also share digitally. Students use internet explorer to research data and studies in order to form hypotheses. Students use Microsoft photo story to create narrated still-life films depicting a violent storm. Students use PowerPoint to create presentations on various content specific objectives, and to share their data analysis and conclusions.
One of the coolest ways we shared information this year is by using the district’s network. Students use shared drive access to log in to integrated science folder, open the PowerPoint for the day’s lesson and supplemental activities for the day’s lesson. This allows me to differentiate the lesson (example: students open the “color” of lesson they are assigned to), and also allows them to go back to slides they didn’t understand or didn’t have a chance to finish taking notes on. It allows the advanced kids to go ahead of the pack, and begin honors or advanced level assignment while others are still completely lesson. Finally, it allows students who were absent to easily obtain missed information by logging in, viewing power point, and opening supplemental resources.
At our school, we also had promethean boards in every classroom. I sued the promethean board for at least one part of every lesson. It goes beyond just a regular projection screen and it allows students to manipulate content on the screen. I see the time-and-hide function to set clear expectations for do now, and exit questions. I use the timing, calculator, visor, zoom, highlight, pic-in-pic, tools to supplement lesson. I used the board to allow students to solve multi-step equations in front of class. Using promethean boards allow me to save notes, student work, data, that was handwritten from class to class, day to day, and year to year.
I also had access to a document camera daily. I used the document camera to show student work and anchor papers and have students correct/revise other students lab reports, data, homework, do nows, pop, and other assignments. I used the document camera to demo labs or how to use various tools (spring scale, electric scales, atomic modeling kits, triple beam balances, how to culture yeast, etc). I also used the video feature to have students share with class, and other period’s findings or procedures for the day’s lesson. I used the snapshot feature to take pictures of lab apparatus and upload these pictures to the computers or to the lab directions so they can easily set up the lab.
One of the former teachers at my school wrote a grant to obtain highly precise scientific probeware devices called Novas. The Novas are essentially a miniature lap top with a variety of tools that can be attached to take measurements. Students can manipulate the speed of dependent variable measurements frequency from once an hour to 100 times per second. The sensitivity of these devices is incredible. We used the Nova probe ware devices in order to accurately and precisely collect enormous amounts of data instantaneously. Students can attach up to 4 devices at the same time, so it allows them to have multiple trials going at once, thus cutting down on the uncontrolled variables when students must repeat trials subsequently. The devices we used this year are CO2, Dissolved O2, temperature, pH, conductivity, voltage, water testing, and soil moisture. Students attached selected measurement device based on their dependent variable. The Nova’s can be adjusted to record data and various time intervals, and can display data in a variety of forms. Additionally, data is stored in the Nova and students can easily retrieve their saved data, or compare their data to other classmates who used the same Nova in other classes. Students can upload this data to the shared drive, class website, or Google docs and share with other students. This was incredible because it allowed students to figure out the group average during experiments and compare that to their own results. Students became better at self-critiquing when they are able to see the results of others.
During science there are times when a student needs to do extended writing. Teaching them to be succinct writers is extremely important, and it is equally important that they are critical in their analysis and creative in their arguments. Usually, it is really difficult to encourage students to write. Having them type on the laptops does make the process more engaging, but I think that using blogs would increase this motivation even more. Having a blog allows the students to individualize their content; something that is really important to teenagers. I could have them write reactions to class activities on their blog and I could go in and respond to their blog entries and they could respond to each others. Further, it allows them to access it anytime, anywhere. It would be a really powerful tool to use vertically. Meaning, students could begin their blog freshman year, and add entries throughout each year culminating with a graduation blog. Alderman describes the importance of creating social context and an environment in which students feel a sense of belonging. By having an on-going blog throughout high school I think that would provide belongingness and community. Teachers and peers could give out rewards for creative content and students could respond to each other blogs. I am very excited to begin using blogs in the classroom. I think using blogs will add to the internet-sharing of documents and data that my students are already engaged in. On our class website, students download instructions for the lab, preform the lab, then upload their results. They can also get access old ppt notes, get copies of homewor assignements, send messages to each other and me, and read importatn announcements.

You can check out our class website here:
http://physical-science.manual.schoolfusion.us/modules/groups/integrated_home.phtml?gid=1505059&sessionid=aa4f272b7a563a549f4982bb6bc199de

Punished by Rewards

In our course we had the opportunity to read a powerful article “Punished by Rewards” by Alfie Kohn. This article deeply affected the way I view my classroom.
Alfie Kohn explains that punishments and rewards are things that we do to students rather than with. By providing rewards and consequences we take away students own ability to construct genuine desire to learn. He explains that rewards are just as aversive in the long run as punishments; they are both methods of controlling students’ behaviors. According to Kohn, rewards are most damaging when students already intrinsically enjoy the task. He further explains that even when students are uninterested, this does not give us a license to “treat kids like pets” and supply rewards for behaviors. Instead, we should rethink the task itself. Social psychology demonstrates that the more you reward someone for a behavior, the more they attribute that interest to receiving the reward, and the less intrinsically interested they become. He explains that 70 different studies show that extrinsic motivation including grades and praise, are not only ineffective over the long haul, but also counterproductive; they reduce the desire to learn. Further, when offered a reward quality of work can decline with rewards. Kids deserve an engaging curriculum and a caring atmosphere. Kohn explains that we shouldn’t confuse motivation with compliance. Motivation is something kids start out with, they begin life intrinsically motivated to learn. Positive feedback should be informational not a reward. We can praise students, but not to control behavior, but to inform them of their progress. When we reward students they begin to ask themselves “What do the teachers want me to do?” and “What will I get for doing it?” rather than “What kind of person do I want to be? And “What kind of classroom do we want to have?”
One of the arguments raised by the interviewer is that lower-achieving students don’t have as many opportunities for rewards and rewards should be in place for even the slightest bit of growth. Kohn discourages this non-genuine rewarding. He explains that students use this information as evidence of their low ability. Alderman confirms this phenomenon. Rewarding students for minimal tasks confirms their beliefs that they are low ability. Kohn discusses the three “C’s” of motivation; content, community, and choice. In order to strength intrinsic motivation in your classroom you need to ensure that the material and lesson is worth learning. Next, you need to develop a cooperative learning environment in which kids feel safe to ask for help and care about one another. Finally, teachers must ensure that students are asked to make decisions about what they are doing, how, and with who, and why they are doing it. I am going to use these three C’s to influence my lesson planning process. I am also going to begin phrasing praise as informational feedback rather than as a reward.
This was one of the most interesting articles I have read and it has profound implications for my classroom instruction. First, let me start with the ways that I agree with the article. Kohn explains that all people have had the experience of loving to do something innately, then having that behavior rewarded by pay or other incentives, and subsequently losing the initial love of doing it. I had this experience with basketball. I played basketball most of my life and always loved it. I always played for fun and practiced hard because I enjoyed practicing hard. When I played in college it took on different connotations. No longer was I choosing to go to practice, I had to go to practice. I spent upwards of 8 hours a day practicing, lifting, and working out. I spent weekends on road trips and holidays in hotel rooms on the road. Largely my life revolved around my basketball career. I remember going to the NCAA tournament my freshman year and having to turn in all of my final papers earlier. Two of my professors docked points from my grade because I missed class, even though it was for a tournament in which I was representing the school. Of course, I was really excited that we made it to the NCAA tournament and I was really excited to be heading off to play in it, however, I couldn’t shake the feeling of obligation. Slowly the feeling got worse. As I had to make sacrifices like not being able to go home for Thanksgiving and Christmas, not being able to attend classes that conflicted with practice schedule, and missing prominent speeches on campus because I was at practice, basketball slowly lost the intrinsic reward it once held. Now that I was being rewarded for it and being expected to participate rather than choosing to, I lost some of the intrinsic motivation I originally had. Interestingly, I played basketball for 18 years straight, after college I have begun playing ultimate Frisbee and soccer, but have not entered a basketball league since I graduated.
I largely agree that providing extrinsic rewards for classroom behaviors is inspiring compliance not motivation; however I disagree that it is so black and white. You don’t have to be just intrinsically motivated nor just extrinsically motivated. You can be either, and learn to develop either. In my social psychology class we are learning how initial compliance can lead to internalization of behavior and eventually intrinsic motivation to do the behavior. For example, you may choose to do something like stop smoking for a reward or to avoid punishment: This is compliance. However, over time, other secondary rewards result from this behavior (i.e. wake up without a sore throat, have better smelling breath, more money, etc) and you begin to value these secondary rewards that were a product of the initial behavior. You may continue to do this behavior for the inherent rewards it offers. Essentially, everything we do is for a reward. We may learn because it makes us feel good, happy, excited, but somewhere along the way, learning may lose those positive connotations. Can’t teachers reward positive learning behaviors such as studying or doing homework, then as secondary rewards start to happen for the students such as they become happier in school, have better relationships with teachers and parents, remove the rewards and allow the behavior to continue as chosen?

Attributional Retraining (an answer to the question posed in my first blog entry)

In an effort to answer my question from my first blog entry (Are healthy motivation skills best taught by someone other than the classroom teacher in secondary schools?) I did some research. I mostly focused my research on attributional retraining. There was an abundance of information on AR that was in accordance with much of Alderman’s suggestions. I did find one particularly interesting article “Attributional Retraining” by Raymond Perry and Nathan Hall on education.com. The authors explain that attributional retraining (AR) is a motivational treatment developed in the latter half of the 20th century along with social cognition theories. In accordance with Alderman’s suggestions, attribution is most powerful when combined with cognitive strategy instruction. AR is linked to Weiner’s attribution theory that we have read in Midgley & Arunkumar’s article. Here is a link to the article by Perry and Hall:

http://www.education.com/reference/article/attributional-retraining/

In this article, Perry and Hall explain that in achievement settings, a variety of AR treatments have been implemented. These AR treatments vary in terms of content, delivery formats, and audience targets.
Content ranges from modifying attributions, to changing certain properties of those attributions. For example, AR may involve encouraging effort instead of ability as explanations of failure. Alderman explains that students who attribute success to effort are more likely to persist, and have higher achievement than those that attribute success to ability. Other AR treatments seek to increase controllability for negative experiences. According to Alderman, when students feel like events are external and success is largely a matter of luck or other factors, they are more likely to experience learned helplessness. These AR treatments center on shifting the individual’s focus from test difficulty and luck to effort and strategy.
Delivery formats also range in a variety of ways. Material may be video-taped, written, or structured lectures. The length may vary and the format may be individual or group. In typical AR experiments, individuals are encouraged to think about past performances, or receive feedback on a task, and then AR treatments are administered immediately thereafter.
Audience targets range in terms of age, demographic, and psycho-social variables. The AR treatments administered also vary in order to be appropriate for the target audience. As Alderman points out, young child have different motivation patterns than older, and students with low ability differ from those with high.
AR treatments have been delivered in classrooms. AR has been shown effective in improving academic motivation and performance in struggling students. AR methods can also reduce aggression and help learning disabled students. The authors argue that AR procedures promoting self-talk concerning adaptive attributions may be better than direct persuasion by the instructor. This offers some answer to my original question (who is in a better position to teach motivational strategies to students?). The authors explain; “Instructor-initiated AR in intact classrooms may be less effective than smaller experimenter-led sessions.” AR research in secondary classrooms has demonstrated that intensive, in-person AR programs can increase perceptions of control, persistence, and achievement. Computer-based AR can also be effective. Further, AR plays a critical role in resolving group discipline problems and helping students make career related plans and decisions. The authors go on to explain; “As most educators know, attribution exchanges commonly occur in the daily functioning of classrooms. However, these informal, spontaneous, and anecdotal attributional exchanges are rarely informed by scientific theory and evidence and too often involve the communication of maladaptive (uncontrollable/stable) attributions for failure. Such maladaptive attributional exchanges raise serious questions about the ethics of their use in teaching practices intended to foster motivation.”
It appears this research supports my hypothesis. In the secondary classroom, content area teachers are not in the best position to help students develop healthy attributional strategies. Instead, students should be taught by a specialist, in a small-group setting and these healthy strategies should be reinforced in the classroom. It would be so beneficial for my students to have “Motivation 101” during their freshman year: Especially the at-risk students. When there is so much going on in our 35+ student urban public school classrooms, it can be difficult to spend time allowing students to create attributional styles. Instead, these strategies should be taught and monitored by scientific, trained individuals outside of the content classroom.
Finally, the authors make important suggestions should AR have to be implemented in the classroom. The authors give four guidelines. First, attributional content should be strongly informed by scientific evidence and reviewed by responsible professionals. This is definitely not happening at my school, nor at any of the other DPS schools I have visited. Second, screening procedures should be utilized to identify students that would benefit from AR. Again, this is not happening at the secondary level. Students are identified for special ed, special service, ELA, free-lunch, emotional disabilities, but not for attributional patterns. Third, the intervention format should be based on the needs for that specific population. This is important because often gifted and talented students get overlooked in low-performing, low-SES schools like the one I teach in. Our top students could benefit immensely from AR, but certainly not from the same AR program as lower-ability students. Fourth, follow-up assessments of subjective and objective outcomes should be required to document the effectiveness of the AR and adjust it accordingly. Just like effective instruction, AR needs to be carefully tracked and adjusted to meet the growth and develop of the students.
The research I did on AR has extremely important applications for my profession. I am going to suggest to our advisory coordinator that we rethink the curriculum of advisory and look for scientific-based AR or other motivation-retraining programs to incorporate in our high school curriculum. As an innovation school in DPS, we have a lot of freedom to try new things and figure out what works best for our population. Perhaps if AR is successful, at least for some students, it can begin to be a part of the curriculum learned by all DPS students.

How effective are token economies? And how effective are teachers at evaluating when students are motivated and when they are not?

I was curious to find out how effective behavioral approaches are in guiding student behavior. I did some research into the effectiveness of token-economy behavior systems in elementary classrooms. The experiment, “Behavior Change and perceptions of Change: Evaluation the effectiveness of a token economy” by Reitman, Murphy, Hupp, and O’Callaghan (2004) had really important applications to motivation theory. The authors had teachers in 14 different classrooms evaluate student behavior every 10 minutes and reward positive behavior. If students behaved positively they were allowed to play a simple game. The authors found that token economy system lowered problem behaviors 50-75% (as measured by direct observation) though it did not lower teachers’ perceptions of problem behavior occurrence. This made me think about teacher’s skewed and sometimes biased interpretation of student motivation. As teachers we often mis-diagnose. We use anecdoctal evidence and project our own values and beliefs about what motivated looks like. For example, when I evaluate my students level of motivation, I usually do it through a lens of a what I look like when I am motivated. I project my actions and behaviors onto my students. This happens both implicitly and explicitly. If teachers were provided with objective data regarding student motivational styles and patterns this may be beneficial to everyone involved. If a trained psychological evaluator was allowed to give diagnostic information for all of my causing them to shut down) and avoid missing an unmotivated child that is just really good at looking motivated.

Reflections on the role of a teacher

When is the best time to teach intrinsic motivation and healthy attribution, and who is in the best position to teach it?

I was reflecting on the theme in Alderman’s text that teachers are in the best position to motivate students and that it is there responsibility to do so. On page 6 she explains that negative motivational patterns seen from effort and ability framework may be fostered by classroom practices. She suggests a variety of practical ways teachers can support positive emotional patterns throughout her book. For example, in chapter two, attribution, she offers strategies for teachers to retrain students’ attributions. She suggests that teachers collect attributional information, shift expectancies after success and failure, identify groups of students whose attributions may be self-deprecating, be cognoscente of how you offer help to students, genuinely reflect on your own beliefs about effort and ability, ensure students have ability to succeed, suggest strategies when appropriate, and give feedback according to student’s effort not ability (Alderman, 2001, pp 27-61). I absolutely agree with all of these strategies as well as the sentiment that teachers are in a crucial role to motivate students. I spend a great deal of time and energy looking for ways to get students interested in the material, engaged in learning it, and invested in producing excellent work. In the meantime, I need to be teaching for understanding, assessing each students current level and progress, connecting with students and creating relationships, contacting parents, creating excellent lessons, writing tests, grading assessments and homework, this list could really go on forever. Is there a way for students to take an actual class on motivation as elementary students? Certainly all secondary classroom teachers have an important role in motivating students. But, many of my students begin high school with poor attributional patterns in place. Further, I have had education and training on motivation and have some strategies to help my students. Most of my high school colleagues lack this experience and aren’t experts in motivating students, they are experts in instruction and their content area.

Most teachers receive no training on how to teach students to be intrinsically motivated and don’t have much time to do so. Most of my students have never worked for something in math, reading, or science class, achieved it, and been rewarded, so of course they are hesitant to work for something. Could this reward cycle be taught by a teacher for whom this is the only goal? Could they take a non-academic course in which the whole objective of the course is to teach students to be rewarded? It is so difficult to plan for these situations as teachers, especially when teachers lack education psychology background and value ability simply because it means we can get through the lesson. The long term benefits of a child fall second when you are struggling to teach them to add fractions today.

Connect to their limited motivation in high school; many students lack the ability to think about their thinking. Meaning they lack metacognitive skills. Perhaps this same class that teaches healthy motivation processes could also teach metacognitive skills. My 9^th graders, who are still not able to figure out there own way to understand something seem extremely challenged and behind. The handful of kids who consistently earn A’s, consistently attended class, and grew the most, although, interestingly, they also started the year very self-directed and inclined to seek rewards for academic achievement. All of the characteristics of self directed learners (intrinsic motivation, self-monitoring, and self evaluation) are so bundled. You can not teach one without the student HAVING the others already. Is there one that comes first? Is it hierarchal? Can we gets students intrinsically motivated if they are not able to evaluate their own lack of understanding? Can a student want to know something when they lack the ability to the even metacognitively self-appraise? And the reverse, can we teach a student to be metacognitive when they don’t intrinsically value the process? Must we attempt to solve this during content instruction, or is it best taught in a separate class and reinforced in content-specific classrooms?