Why Vary Instruction?
As teachers return their respective schools and prepare to begin a new school year, many will spend at least part of their time learning the latest research-based instructional strategies. This was always the case at my high school. Each year we would be treated to an exceptional educational speaker who would enlighten us with the newest strategies to achieve classroom success. Our administrators, certain that this year’s strategies would be the ones that “worked”, carefully redesigned our teacher evaluations to include evidence of the specific use of each strategy. One year, we were extremely fortunate to have Robert Marzano as our speaker. Marzano and his colleagues identified nine categories of important instructional strategies that have a high probability of success (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Inspired by what we learned from his presentation, we enthusiastically threw ourselves into designing ways to integrate these newly acquired instructional strategies into our curriculum. As usual, by January, we were becoming disillusioned with the use of our new instructional strategies. Although we had seen some success, the use of those nine strategies just weren’t having the effect we had hoped. This cycle continued to repeat itself year after year with different speakers and different sets of instructional strategies. As I have recently learned, it was not the strategies themselves that were at fault, but our yearly dedication to a particular set of instructional strategies to the exclusion of others. Marzano (2009) has also suggested that this in the wrong approach when he writes “Specifically, educators are making at least three mistakes when using the lists of strategies presented in our books (and others like them). Left unchecked these mistakes can impede the development of effective teaching in classrooms across the country” (p.p. 30-31). He goes on to describe the three mistakes as: 1) Focusing on a narrow range of strategies, 2) Assuming that high-yield strategies must be used in every class, 3) Assuming that high yield strategies will always work (Marzano, 2009). In the video below, Marzano discusses how instructional strategies should be used.
As teachers return their respective schools and prepare to begin a new school year, many will spend at least part of their time learning the latest research-based instructional strategies. This was always the case at my high school. Each year we would be treated to an exceptional educational speaker who would enlighten us with the newest strategies to achieve classroom success. Our administrators, certain that this year’s strategies would be the ones that “worked”, carefully redesigned our teacher evaluations to include evidence of the specific use of each strategy. One year, we were extremely fortunate to have Robert Marzano as our speaker. Marzano and his colleagues identified nine categories of important instructional strategies that have a high probability of success (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Inspired by what we learned from his presentation, we enthusiastically threw ourselves into designing ways to integrate these newly acquired instructional strategies into our curriculum. As usual, by January, we were becoming disillusioned with the use of our new instructional strategies. Although we had seen some success, the use of those nine strategies just weren’t having the effect we had hoped. This cycle continued to repeat itself year after year with different speakers and different sets of instructional strategies. As I have recently learned, it was not the strategies themselves that were at fault, but our yearly dedication to a particular set of instructional strategies to the exclusion of others. Marzano (2009) has also suggested that this in the wrong approach when he writes “Specifically, educators are making at least three mistakes when using the lists of strategies presented in our books (and others like them). Left unchecked these mistakes can impede the development of effective teaching in classrooms across the country” (p.p. 30-31). He goes on to describe the three mistakes as: 1) Focusing on a narrow range of strategies, 2) Assuming that high-yield strategies must be used in every class, 3) Assuming that high yield strategies will always work (Marzano, 2009). In the video below, Marzano discusses how instructional strategies should be used.
Instead of focusing on particular instructional strategies as “must use” tools, teachers can more effectively teach by implementing a variety of instructional strategies, modifying and differentiating as needed to meet the learning requirements of each student.
How to Integrate Technology into Instruction
How to Integrate Technology into Instruction
One way to increase the variety of available instructional strategies is through the integration of technology into the curriculum. This requires teachers to possess technological knowledge in addition to content and pedagogical knowledge. The combination of these three types of knowledge is referred to as "technological pedagogical content knowledge" or TPACK.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Koehler & Mishra 2008)
Choosing how and when to integrate technology requires careful planning. According to Harris, & Hofer (2009),
Planning for students' curriculum-based learning that integrates
appropriate and pedagogically powerful use of the full range of
educational technologies is challenging. Considerably detailed
and deliberate planning decisions need to be made, based upon
multiple decision points, and chosen wisely from among a full
range of possible educational activities that incorporate
technologies in powerful ways (p. 105).
In order to help teachers build their TPACK more easily, Harris & HoferChoosing how and when to integrate technology requires careful planning. According to Harris, & Hofer (2009),
Planning for students' curriculum-based learning that integrates
appropriate and pedagogically powerful use of the full range of
educational technologies is challenging. Considerably detailed
and deliberate planning decisions need to be made, based upon
multiple decision points, and chosen wisely from among a full
range of possible educational activities that incorporate
technologies in powerful ways (p. 105).
(2009) have identified thirty-eight activity types and linked them with
possible technologies. A description of each activity type and a listing of
possible associated technologies, can be found at:
http://activitytypes.wmwikis.net/file/view/HarrisHofer-TPACKActivityTypes.pdf
Harris & Hoffer (2009) emphasize the need for teachers to determine the
activity type before deciding on a technology. Too often, as teachers, we
find new and interesting technologies and then try to build the lesson
around the technology. This results in “technocentric” based instruction
instead of standards based instruction (Papert, 1987). I recognize this
Because of this, as I look to increase the variety of my own instructional
strategies, I plan to develop my lesson plans before selecting the technology
that I want to utilize. I believe that this will result in teaching that is
characterized by multifaceted instructional strategies, strongly grounded
curriculum standards, and interwoven with the technological skills that
students will need for the 21st century.
References
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles
for curriculum-based TPACK development. Research Highlights in
Technology and Teacher Education (2009), 99-108. Retrieved
September 13, 2010, from
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE
Committee on Innovation & Technology (Eds.), Handbook of
technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators
(pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.
Marzano, R. (2009, September). Setting the record straight on
"high-yield" strategies. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 30-37.
Retrieved September 13, 2010, from
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction
that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school
of the future. Retrieved September 13, 2010, from
No comments:
Post a Comment