Reflection 1 Week 2

Engagement Activity - Blooms Taxonomy 

Blooms Taxonomy Bubbl.us

SAMR Model

Source:http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/

When I first started this activity I went in with the idea that I would create a Bubbl.us concept map for Blooms Taxonomy and include links where possible to the SAMR Model. When I tried to do this I found that nearly all components could link into the SAMR Model in one way or another, for example:

• Cognitive - Comprehension - You could substitute, augment or modify traditional methods, such as verbal group discussions and note taking, used for organizing, comparing and interpreting information with Blogs, Wiki's and online flowchart programs such as Bubbl.us
• Psychomotor - The knowledge to use and integrate, new, existing or replacement ICT tools (Enhancing and transforming under SAMR) can be applied to all levels of the Psychomotor domain.
• Affective -  Receiving and Responding - the SAMR model can both enhance and transform, at all four levels, ways to receive and respond, with online collaborative tools, Vlogs, interactive whiteboard use etc...

Any thoughts?

Engagement Activity 5

Engagement Activity 5

This Wordle (my first Wordle) represents a few ideas off the top of my head about good pedagogy, this list isn't complete by far, already I'm thinking about some obvious ones:

• Learning (duh!)
• Scaffolding (double duh!)
• Lesson planning!

And another Wordle for Digital Pedagogy

   
Can you add any others to the lists?

Reflection 1 Week 2

De Bono’s Thinking Hats/ Mobile Phone Activity

My thinking hat!

 Source: http://www.animationlibrary.com/animation/22068/Beanie_2/

Design aspects

The de Bono’s Thinking Hats activity is a learning tool that enables the learner to think ‘outside of their box’. It introduces the learner to critical and creative ways of thinking which may not be their norm, by utilising the ‘thinking hats’ metaphor. In this case six (6) different coloured thinking hats, whereby each colour is representative of a certain way of thinking. The learner puts the first coloured hat on, responds, then the next coloured hat, responds and so on for all 6 hats.

·         Blue       Process

·         White     Facts

·         Red        Feelings

·         Green    Creativity

·         Yellow   Benefits

·         Black     Cautions

In this instance this scaffolding tool was supported by the ICT online program, Wikispaces. The below image is sourced from this Wiki space as an example of the format.

Source: http://debonoshats.wikispaces.com/Group+1

The theory

The design of this activity has features of cognitivism in the scaffolded structure of the learning, social constructivism in the environment students are engaged within and connectivism in the methods to complete the activity. The following table illustrates additional features of these learning theories represented in this activity:

LEARNING THEORY	Feature observed in de Bono’s Thinking Hats Activity
COGNITIVISM	The activity adheres to the ‘Information Processing Model’ referred to in ‘Blog 1 Week 1’, short term to long term memory retaining, adding to and refining prior knowledge and.  The learning is designed in ‘blocks’ and is presented along a predetermined gradient.  This activity is compatible with concept mapping tools and other ICT’s as a form of organisation.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM	The learning taking place, via e-learning or in a physical classroom, engages all learners in the activity as a social construct/interaction. The students learn from the scaffolding provided by the teacher, the opinions of their peers and the collective postings of the group.
CONNECTIVISM	The Wiki page itself is a reflection of a connectivist learning platform, with the embedded linkages, connections and ICT references.

Value of scaffolding and learning outcomes

The learning was scaffolded within the de Bono’s Thinking Hats activity which was supported by a Wikispace page. The Wiki ICT platform and the scaffolding tool (de Bono’s Thinking Hats) is an engaging format that provides a forum for all learners to collaborate, express their opinions, ideas and to present their research.

This is a valuable learning tool because students can fall into their comfort zone when problem solving and follow the same methodology or polarise their responses. The scaffolding tool step-by-step challenges the learner’s initial thoughts and perceptions about the topic and compels and guides them to critically evaluate the issue from different angles using higher order thinking. Furthermore this encourages participants to think in greater depth and detail, analyse other people’s responses and engage in further research to support or contradict ideas.  Additionally, structuring the responses in a group environment is particularly important for those who generally do not speak up in group/social situations. 

Summary of learning outcomes:

• ·         Critical evaluation/analysis skills
• ·         Higher order thinking skills – thinking ‘outside the box’
• ·         Mastering new skill sets
• ·         Engaging in additional research
• ·         Social interaction/group engagement using e-learning tools
• ·         Demonstrated use of a Wiki ICT – editing, formatting, posting etc.

 

Personal reflection: 

I really like this activity, I think I’ll use this in the classroom, hopefully I can master a Wikispace like this one, I think it’s a great digital pedagogy tool. As a biology and geography major, I can see this activity being quite useful when discussing controversial and typically polarising topics such as ethics and vivisection, or geographical situations such as the political and religious geographical interactions surrounding the Gaza Strip. Most people in general would have certain established view points on these topics due to popular culture, media and other external influences. As these are sensitive topics students could potentially hold very powerful beliefs and ideas, the Thinking Hat activity is a neutral way to discuss all aspects of these issues and provides a platform for individuals to express their ideas in a zero judgement forum.

Though I understand for assessment purposes the topic of discussion (mobile phones in class) was not the most important aspect of this process, I still got a lot out of reading others' responses. I sit fairly far to one side of the debate which is 'if you have a laptop you don't need a phone', but some made points to which i definitively agree with such as personal safety, parental communications and integrative use of appealing Apps, such as GPS features. Overall, I must say even with these notable acquiesces the task strengthened my resolve, that mobile phones and classrooms should not mix. I has not given much thought to the safety of teachers and students reputations and produced work with respect to recording devices, and once something is recorded and distributed the damage is indeed, done.

Interesting thought: I seemed to have an affinity for the blue hat!

The below table is a simple comparison between low level and high level thinking, I found this to be a useful resource when looking at this task. This comes from a blog called 'Hello Literacy' hosted by Jen Jones (who is a teacher amongst many other things) and has a suite of helpful pedagogy resources.

Source: http://helloliteracy.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/bee-opinionated-higher-order-thinking.html

Reference List

Brooks, J. and Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding; the case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Culatta, R. (2011). Innovative Learning. Cognitive Theories of Learning. Retrieved from http://innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/cognitivism/index.htm
de Bono, E. (1995). Mind power: discover the secrets of creative thinking, 26 March 2007. Retrieved from http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/groupwork/docs/deBonosHats.pdf 

Jones, J. (2011, Oct, 28). Bee-opinionated: Higher order thinking [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://helloliteracy.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/bee-opinionated-higher-order-thinking.html

Purje, R. (2014). Responsibility Theory (Who’s got the power). Australia, Purje Publications.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviourism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/