Information Processing

The role of the mind's sensory register is to store everything one sees, hears, or otherwise senses in the information's original and unencoded form. Though the space is large the information retention is short-lived: visual imagery is stored less than one second, and auditory information is stored about 2-3 seconds. Once information in the sensory register is being paid "attention" due to emotional stimuli, incentive, or novelty, the information is moved to "working memory". Anything not moved to working memory is lost.

Working memory is commonly called "short term memory". Information here is being mentally processed for retention and placement into long-term memory. Working memory has a duration of between 5 to 20 seconds. The information can be processed automatically (if interesting) or by purposeful chunking.

Long term memory has a purportedly unlimited capacity. Information moved here has been encoded and connected with prior knowledge to anchor it. This is where the mind stores declarative knowledge like procedures and facts, and personal memories of emotional stimulations (like hiking the Grand Canyon). Retrieving the information is connected to how the information was stored. For instance, using a mnemonic device to learn the mathematical order of operations (Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally) means that the operational order Parenthesis, Exponents, Multiply/Divide, Add/Subtract, [PEMDAS] can be called to use by reciting the device.

A student seeing PEMDAS for the first time is storing the visual (and possibly auditory) information in their sensory register. Being required to learn the information for class, they pay Attention and the information is moved to short term memory. The students know they need to be able to recall this info. One student tells themself they will "remember", and another student recites "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally" three times and writes it down to repeat it in sets throughout the day. The student using the Mnemonic device and paying purposeful attention is storing the information in their long term memory and connecting the order with information they already know (as they know what parenthesis are, how to multiply/divide, and add/subtract). The student not using a mnemonic or paying further attention risks the information expiring from short term memory after 20 seconds and will be surprised and dismayed when he seems it on the exam.

This model of human memory was described by Dr. Richard Atkinson & Dr. Richard Shriffin. In their Model of Human Memory attention plays the key role in moving information from sensory memory to short term memory. Without attention the information does not make it past sensory memory at all.

Two strategies to rehearse information and encode it into long term memory are mnemonics and meaningful learning. In the high school science classroom students will learn a great number of cycles and hierarchies that will be difficult to relate to previously learned information. By creating mnemonics for these cycles the students are creating an easier framework to stitch the information into. For example: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, is the phylogenic hierarchy in biology. That is a LOT of words and some of them have probably never been heard before. A mnemonic, created with the first letters of each word and turned into a humorous or meaningful ditty, gives the student something catchy they can rehearse. Dear King Phillip Came Over For Good Soup! Encouraging students to make up their own helps them make the mnemonics meaningful, although some of the ditties they come up with may not be school appropriate, at least they will remember.

Making learning meaningful is a worthwhile strategy for turning short term memory into long term memory but can require more work. Encouraging the students to put things in their own words and connect new material to old material helps the student process the information on a level they are comfortable and familiar with. It is much easier to recall that urea breaks down and releases ammonia if the students can connect the words and concept with that unforgettable smell of cat urine.

References:

• Microsoft Free Clipart. Retrieved from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/images/results.aspx?qu=memory&ex=2
• Santrock, John W. (2011) Educational Psychology. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Willems, Patricia. (2006) Educational Psychology Casebook. Pearson Education, Inc.
• Willems, Patricia. (2013) Information Processing (Slides). Retrieved from www.Blackboard.com.

Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura developed a reciprocal determinism model for Social cognitive theory that consists of three main factors: behavior, person/cognitive, and environment (Santrock 2011). His theory states that environmental factors and observational will influence learning. The model can be considered cyclic, in a Person-Behavior-Environment loop: environment influences the person's cognition (expectations, beliefs, attitudes, strategies, thinking, and intelligence), which is reflected in their Behaviour, which causes an effect on their environment, which again influences the person. The cycle can also be describes in reverse. This model differs from Classical Conditioning and Operant Conditioning in that the conditioning of classical and Operant tend to be purposefully enforced on the learner. Classical conditioning uses triggers to condition the learner into a behaviour, and Operant Conditioning the consequences of behavior produce changes in the probability that the behavior will occur. Both models are considered methods "used" on a learner. The Bandura model takes into account everything used and not used around the learner to influence their social cognition.

For example, a child may engage in Response disinhibition if they observe that, though they were scolded for taking a cookie without asking their sibling got away with the same behaviour, the child may actually engage in the cookie-stealing behaviour more often.

A child may display Response inhibition, or, engaging in a previously learned behavior less often if they see someone get punished for it. To paint a traumatic example, if a child learns to roller-skate on Tuesday but on Wednesday observes a friend get pushed over by a bully while roller-skating the child may engage in their learned behavior (skating) less.

A common example of how modeling effects learning is Observational learning. A child sees a behavior and mimics it, such as a toddler clapping when an adult claps at it, or a teenager learning how to reproduce circles with a compass in Geometry class. According to Bandura there are four key processes to observational learning: Attention, Retention, Production, and Motivation. In Attention a child sees or pays attention to the model of behaviour, usually their parent. The model is influenced by their own affective output such friendliness, grouchiness, laziness, etc. To reproduce the model's behaviour the child engages in Retention; they code the information and keep it in memory so they can retrieve it (Santrock 2011). The more vivid or engaging the behavior the more likely it is to be retained. Though the information is coded the child may not be able to produce the behaviour (especially if the behavior is throwing boulders around like Superman). For realistic models, like throwing a basketball instead of a boulder, practice and coaching from a model can improve Production of the behaviour. Last in the Observational Model is Motivation. The learner may not be motivated to produce the modeled behaviour (see the teen and his Geometry circles above). Subsequent reinforcement of the behaviour, or incentives like report cards, can supply the motivation to imitate the model's behavior.

Self-efficacy is the belief that one can master a situation and produce positive outcomes. It is not motivation, per say, but can be a source of motivation.  Self-efficacy is cognitive-domain-specific and should not be confused with self-esteem, which can apply to a wide variety of activities (Willems 2013). Self-efficacy effects learning and achievement in that a child with high self-efficacy and believes they will do well on a test may be motivated to try their best to achieve that, or an even better, grade. A child low self-efficacy might not even try to study for a test because they don't believe it will do them any good (Santrock 2011). To use an academic example, if a student has low self-efficacy and thinks they just cannot "get" reading they may be less likely to even open the book. If they were to have their self-efficacy increased, maybe through some positive feedback from a teacher or parent, the child will be more likely to try. A child with high self-efficacy has probably already read the book, just to prove to themselves how awesome they are. To a certain extent self-efficacy can be influenced by environmental modeling (viewing of others successes and failures) and persuasion; helping to raise the self-efficacy of a child to the high level of the book-devourer should be a goal of every educator. In the classroom a teacher can help to increase a student's sense of self-efficacy through positive modeling and prosocial behaviors such as voluntary behavior intended to benefit another.

According to Santrock succinct definition, Self-regulatory learning consists of the self-generation and self-monitoring of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in order to reach a goal. These goals might be academic (improving comprehension while reading, becoming a more organized writer, learning how to do multiplication, asking relevant questions) or they might be socioemotional (controlling one’s anger, getting along better with peers) (Santrock 2011). Learners with a well developed sense of self-regulation set goals for themselves and are aware of emotional factors that may conflict with these goals, such as getting "stressed out" and taking a walk or stepping away from the frustrating activity. Educators can help students to become more self-regulated by giving them opportunities to be so. In 1996 Sebastian Bonner and Robert Kovach published a model to help low-self-regulatory students increase their self-regulation. In this multistep cycle the student engages (probably at the behest of an educator or mentor) in self-evaluation and monitoring by keeping a log or diary of their activities. These logs provide a record of what "worked" and "didn't work" at the end of their activities. With the help of a teacher the student sets a goal and outlines a plan to achieve it. A teacher can help the student break their goal into components or bite-size pieces and provide strategies to reach those goals. The student then goes about these strategies and continues to monitor their actions and progress. At the next conclusion the student again sees what "worked and didn't work" and this time achieved some or more of their goals. The cycle continues until the student no longer needs educator assistance in providing strategies and has become self-regulated and thereby more independent, confident in their abilities, and with a higher self-efficacy!



Santrock, John W. (2011) Educational Psychology. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Willems, Patricia. (2013) Social Cognitive Theory (Slides). Retrieved from www.Blackboard.com.

Critical Pedagogy and Social Justice

Implementing multicultural education from the perspective of critical pedagogy, social justice pedagogy, or critical multiculturalism, requires the unlearning of what we think we know and responding to the unique needs of each classroom. Critical pedagogy is the process of learning and unlearning and conscientization. An effective multicultural teacher is constantly unlearning that they think they know about a particular culture, language, lesson, and student. They relearn, not in the light of how they "should" do something but in the light of how something works best at that moment. Truisms are challenged and the effective multicultural educator must be prepared to have what they know challenged, proven insufficient, and rebuilt every year.

Critical multiculturalism is the concept of seeing into and beyond the complexities of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is more than the celebration of various surface cultures and means to endeavor to understand why people think and act the way they do. This requires the educator to not only look into the cultures of their students but to examine their own national and gender culture and explore how it effects their teaching and interactions.

Conscientization is the power to recognize that you know what you know, and the courage to use it. The educator may encounter various negative social structures that need to be challenged for the good of the students, such as gender or racial socialization, group silencing or marginalizing, thought schooling, and more. Following one's conscientization engages the educator in pursuit of social justice in pedagogy. wink uses a great example in her text "Critical Pedagogy" where an instructor is to teach a lesson containing material they know to be outdated and scientifically inaccurate. Without a developed sense of conscientization the educator may simply slog the students through the material and be done with it. However, the educator CAN bring the fact that the material is outdated to the department and make a case for removing it from the curriculum.

John Dewey "linked education to democracy" expanded the understanding of multicultural education through pragmastism (a philosophy of usefulness and practicality largely based on merit). Dewey felt that to be an effective citizen in a democracy one needed to be educated, intelligent, and participate in social and political life (Russell 2013). Though in 1916 gave little weight to history, except in the light of the present, he felt contemporary citizens and society where complementary. In his work on Democracy and Education he wrote "the one thing every individual must do is to live; the one thing that society must do is to secure from each individual his fair contribution to the general well being and see to it that a just return is made to him (Dewey 1916). By the end of his life and work Dewey sought to provide educators with strategies for reaching students that would honor each child's individual strengths and interests, thereby providing the basis for individualized instruction, multiculturalism, and special education (Davis, ND), and these strategies are inherent in the modern multicultural classroom.

Like Dewey, Paulo Freire was a strong advocate for multicultural education and is best known as an influential theorist of critical pedagogy through his work "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". Freire believed that education was the right of all and not "a gift from the oppressor to the oppressed" (Russell 2013). He advocated for critiquing of the educational system, arguing "there can be no teaching without learning and no learning without teaching". This suggests that if the education system and educators do not learn from and adjust to their pupils the system is ineffective at best. Freire himself admitted that he was forced to update his own book and relearn gender neutrality when women responded to his book negatively; they felt their voice was omitted from the Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Wink 2005). In today's classroom educators recognize his contribution by actively learning from their students as often as the students learn from them. A teacher "unlearns" their schooling, socialization, and tendencies to marginalize or silence, to reach every student in a way that is effective and beneficial.

------------------

Au, W., Bigelow, B., & Karp, S. (Editors), (2007). Rethinking our Classrooms - Volume 1. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Ltd.

Davis, Donna (ND) John Dewey (1859-1952) - University, Education, Philosophy, and Students - JRank Articles. Retrieved from http://social.jrank.org/pages/199/Dewey-John-1859-1952.html#ixzz2LIlgas86

Dewey, John (1916). Democracy and Education. Norwood, MA: Norwood Press. Retrieved from http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Democracy_and_Education

Russell, C., (2013). Pedagogy and social justice PowerPoint. Retrieved from Blackboard.com.

Wink, Joan (2005) Critical Pedagogy: Notes from the Real World (Third edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Image credit: Tim Raynor at http://philosophyforchange.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/unlearning-in-crisis-and-change/

Blueprint for Reform

In reading the “Blueprint for Reform – Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act” by the United States Department of Education and forwarded by President Barack Obama, I am struck by the President's comment “[other] countries are being smarter about how to educate their students”. Based on this, and my interest in teaching science, I chose to dissect the section “A Complete Education”. The section addresses strengthening instruction in literacy and in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, while reforming standards. It addresses support for teachers in implementing and dealing with “more rigorous standards”. It particularly focuses on “high-need” schools and the awarding of state funded, competitive, “Focus Grants” to the ones who have adopted common, state-developed, college- and career-ready standards, or use technology to address student learning challenges in literacy. The reform mentions plans to expand access to college coursework and other accelerated learning opportunities, and improving access to a well-rounded education in general. In the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics section the reform states:

States will award competitive subgrants to high-need districts to support comprehensive STEM instruction in the grades and schools with the greatest local need. Programs must provide effective professional development for teachers and school leaders; high-quality state- or locally-determined curricula, instructional materials, and assessments; and interventions that ensure that all students are served appropriately. Subgrantees may use program funds to integrate evidence-based, effective mathematics or science programs into the teaching of other core academic subjects and for technology-based strategies to improve STEM education.

The reform goes on as such, mentioning higher standards and teacher support, answering all the hows with “throw money at the one's most in need”. What about the ones not “most in need”? The President said that the renovation of the plan would “renovate a flawed law” but “raise the expectations for our students [and] for our schools”. In this document I simply could not see how this motivating talk of higher standards and smarter graduates through higher standards and grants could be implemented in my own neighborhood school without qualifying for the self-identified rigorous grants for those only in the highest need. So I asked the Internet.

The Department of Education's website contains a more thorough explanation of the plan for the Complete Education. Chillingly, it first informs me that “From among U.S. postsecondary institutions, 16 percent of undergraduate degrees are awarded in STEM-related fields. By comparison, ... South Korea awards 41 percent (Phillips, 2007)”. In fact, most of the section is statistical data of the failing of teachers and students, with occasional sprinkles of victories like “The proportion of students achieving at the Basic level or above on the NAEP mathematics exam is increasing”. Then, an obvious and yet profound statement is made: “Teacher content knowledge in mathematics and science is important … Content experience varies among high school science faculty, who may not have a degree in the subject they are assigned to teach”.

This very important statement is addressed in the Supporting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education document. It claims the reforms plan to ensure that more prospective teachers, including STEM teachers, have access to high-quality preparation programs by doubling the funding for these programs. According to STEMfinity and the Department of Education's website this funding largely comes in the form of grant programs like “Investing in Innovation Fund” and competitive programs like “Race to the Top”. The document also asks states to hold teacher

preparation programs accountable for preparing teacher graduates. Quality teachers who are successful in their preparation can be recognized and rewarded with advancement opportunities (the document does not specify what kind, perhaps the proposed “Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Master Teacher Corps”) and additional compensation.

The reform appears to address the inability of current United States graduates to compete in the global job market in the STEM fields, and it's solution is to “raise standards” either metaphorically or through “improved assessment” and offer grants for the most needy schools who are willing to align their standards to the Federal standards and show they are making headway. Since I have never won the lottery I will presume my school will neither be the schools who do not need such grants (who does not need more resources, after all), nor be among the “most needy” schools that will receive them. The quality of my teaching falls to me. I must accept the teacher-preparation education I can get and build on it through periodic self-assessment and continual cultivation of my skills and resources. Money would certainly afford a teacher physical resources for their students in the form of newer textbooks, overhead projectors or computer projectors, and laboratory materials. Barring governmental windfall my greatest resource will be my dedication to instilling the passion and curiousity of science in my students, and my creativity. As a future science teacher I appreciate the possibility of more resources for my neighborhood school but do not believe these standards and methods effectively address the issue for the majority of schools.

Resources.

STEMfinity (2013). STEM Grants. Retrieved from http://www.stemfinity.com/STEM-Education-Grants.

United States Department of Education (2010). Blueprint for Reform – Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf .

United States Department of Education (2010). A Complete Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/complete-education.pdf.

United States Department of Education (2010). Supporting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/faq/supporting-stem.pdf.

United States Government (2013) Reform for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/reform.

Goal Driven Assessment

Assessment is the broad term for obtaining information about something in order to evaluate it (Nitko 2011). The teacher derives a number of tests and non-tests from the learning targets presented to the students. The student's job is to understand the learning goals and strive to master them and display mastery through the tests and non-tests. Tests are systematic observations of a students' knowledge usually obtained using short-answer recollection or multiple-choice selection of facts, concepts, and procedures. Non-tests can be described as projects, essay papers, oral presentations, etc. The results of the tests are classified and numerically assessed or measured for grading and to represent the degree to which the student mastered the concept. These measurements combined with the teacher's experience of the student's performance is used to judge the evaluate the mastery of knowledge in the curriculum (Nitko 2011). 

Any and all information that a teacher gathers about a student can be considered an assessment used to inform various decisions, though not all of the information will be assessed for the student's educational evaluation. A teacher may assess, through observation of a particular student struggling with a lesson, that the student could reduce their struggle through a different study habit. The teacher may assess, through observation of the the entire class, that foundational material needed for the current lesson was not completely understood. 

Learning objectives should clarify the purpose and intent of the block of instruction for both the student and the instructor. By stating the objectives with behavioural criteria, such as particular verbs to universally mean particular actions, a teacher can succinctly state learning objectives to mean what they were intended to mean (Kizlik 2012). An example of an unclear objective is asking a student to “understand” something, as in “understand global climate change”. The student may not know where to start and probably will not study whatever learning objective the teacher had in mind. By using behavioral criteria and stating “identify causes of global climate change” the student has a concise goal. Having these concise goals helps the teacher communicate the lessons more fully as the students understand their part more easily. Within a lesson plan these specific learning targets written in behavioral language the teacher's curriculum and objectives can be communicated more efficiently to all parties and thereby helps organize teaching. 

A broad, heterogeneous domain tends to represent a developmental learning target that will require various mastery learning target to cover the whole domain. Each of the skills required will develop at different rates throughout the learning process. Reaching one mastery learning target does not represent mastery of all the learning targets within the broad domain, thus the two contraindicate each other. An example of such a broad, heterogeneous domain is “interpret statistical data found in material from a variety of disciplines” (Nitko 2011). The name of the task itself belies its broad and nonspecific nature. A narrow domain would be “construct a scatter plot of the statistical data presented in the paper Physiological Effects of Generational Organochlorine Contamination on Arctic Seabirds by J.A. Kepley”. In this narrower domain the task will show mastery of one of the skills contained within “interpret statistical data found in material” while concentrating the task on a single objective. However this domain is too narrow as the head and beak length of the Arctic penguin is not the real target of learning. A better learning target would be “construct a scatter plat from statistical data”. To determine if a learning goal is too broad, attempt to find several mastery objectives within it; if multiple objectives can be identified the learning goal is not suitable as a “mastery learning target”.

References

Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A. (2010, May 5). General format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Kizlik, Bob (2012). A rationale for learning objectives that meet demanding behavioral criteria. Retrieved from http://www.adprima.com/objectives2.htm

Nitko, Anthony J. (2011). Educational Assessment of Students. Boston, MA: Pearson.

(Image Credit) Developers are not good testers. What you say? Software Testing Help (2012). Retrieved from http://www.softwaretestinghelp.com/developers-are-not-good-testers/

Bloom's Taxonomy

The original Bloom's Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl,1956) contained six hierarchical levels of learning comprised of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis. Each level was defined by what the student could achieve once mastering the level and the website gives sample verbs that would appear in learning objectives pertaining to that level and a sample behavior.

In 2001 the taxonomy was revised to “fit the more outcome-focused modern education objectives “ (Huitt 2011). Some of the hierarchies were reordered, renamed, and titled “Cognitive process dimension” but the real revision was in adding the “Knowledge dimension”. In this second dimension each of the original “Knowledge” dimensions now had an inner hierarchy. The Cognitive dimension includes Factual Knowledge, Conceptual, Procedural, and Meta-Cognitive Knowledge. The intersection of these two dimensions shows how a student can “know” the cognitive process after learning the material. For example, using the Bloom's taxonomy, to “apply” “conceptual knowledge” of Bloom's Taxonomy a student should be able to “write objectives using taxonomy” (Huitt 2011).

Personally, as an aspiring teacher, this new taxonomy does not change my opinion about what assessment, evaluation and test are based on my reading of Chapter 1 in Nitko's fifth edition of Educational Assessment of Students. What this revised taxonomy will do is increase the effectiveness of evaluation,testing, and overall assessment by allowing me to refine my learning targets using the two-dimensional taxonomy as a sort of map. I will be able to ensure that throughout the course of instruction in a concept or unit I cover learning objectives from nearly all of the two-dimensional intersections presented in the revised taxonomy, thereby giving my students better scaffolding for their study.

References:

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive.Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.html

(Image Credit) Heer, Rex (2011) A Model of Learning Objectives–based on A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, Iowa State University. Retrieved from http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/RevisedBlooms1.html

Learning Targets

Learning targets are statements about the information or skills students need to learn. There is a hierarchy of learning targets: State Standards are learning targets written by the local government mandating what students should know or master by a certain grade. These can be broken down into “content standards” written within a discipline to mandate what the student should know after instruction, or as “performance standards” which state what the student should be able to do after the content is learned. With these two types of standards the teacher shapes the curriculum. The teacher takes the content and performance standards and breaks them down into specific learning targets which define, in concise language, what the student will do or learn and be assessed on. These specific learning targets may be either “mastery learning targets” that can be assessed by knowledge recall such as a multiple choice test, or “developmental learning targets” which require several modes of assessment to accommodate the lifelong nature of the learning goal.

There are four major ways that learning targets contribute to improved classroom assessment. The instructor is able to align assessments with mastery learning targets and ensure that the assessment is really evaluating what the student is supposed to be learning from that unit. Secondly, learning targets allows the instructor to evaluate a student's progress in developmental domains by giving them concrete skills and processes that can be assessed in part and contribute to an overall assessment of the degree to which a student is mastering the developmental learning target at that level. Third, learning targets allow instructors to align assessments with state standards. This is especially true when the learning targets are derived directly from the state standards (which are really just learning targets) (Nitko 2011)! Fourthly, since learning targets specify what student should achieve by the end of instruction (Nitko 2011) the student, and their parents, will have scaffolding around what to be assessed on and thus study accordingly.

Nitko, Anthony J. (2011). Educational Assessment of Students. Boston, MA: Pearson.

(Image credit) Townsend, Matt (2012) Target's City Ambitions. Retrieved from

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-31/targets-city-ambitions