Monday, December 30, 2013

Session 9 - December 30. 2013

AGENDA


Article Discussion
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. & Clark (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2), 75-86. LINK
  • Kumar, D. D. (March, 2009). Approaches to Interactive Video Anchors in Problem-based Science Learning. LINK

Anchor Video
To view the lesson video click HERE.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Session 8 - December 26, 2013



Students discussed New York Times article and brought up more interested thoughts about how they would implement math or science reviews and use of type face.

The students presented and refined their presentation topic which they will now use to develop an anchor video. They were assigned to read Kirschner, et. al (2006) to discuss on Monday.

Tomorrow they will work on their idea behind their anchor video and prepare to present it on Monday.


AGENDA

Welcome
Class Discussion
  • Discuss New York Times Article

  • Develop outline of anchor video

Readings
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. & Clark (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41 (2), 75-86. LINK
  • Kumar, D. D. (March, 2009). Approaches to Interactive Video Anchors in Problem-based Science Learning. LINK



Videos
Session 8 Video  HERE
Session 7 Video  HERE.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Session 7 - December 24, 2013

Today the students would take the lead and explain the challenges and problem encountered in developing a problem. There still needs to be more work to be done. I'm certain that the next two class meetings will open their minds to other ideas.

One critique was that the project did not integrate science content. Several ideas were provided, but the project idea is still a little fuzzy. I believe there needs to be more specificity in their idea so that they can begin working on the next part of the project.

The session provided more insight into the philosophical leanings of the students. They confided in that they were interested in a particular area, math or science, based on the experiences that they had in high school. For example, one student indicated that they loved science in middle school, but lost interest when they reached high school.

The students presented using Google Drive presentation slides and shared it with everyone.


AGENDA

Welcome

Project Team Presentation

  • Challenges and Problems Encountered
  • Solutions
  • Presentation




Video
To view the video for Session 6, Part A HERE




Reading for Thursday, December 26, 2013

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/health/19mind.html?_r=1& HERE

Anchor Video

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Session 6 - December 23, 2013


Implementing the class has become easier. Both the students and I have begun to develop a good feel for how to conduct the class. What is becoming more apparent is that students seem to be more open in discussions and have begun to take part without asking. The initial sessions required that I select a student to speak. I would then select the students in sequence (e.g., Round One - Student A, Student B, Student C; Round Two - Student B, Student C,  Student A, and so on...). The last few times it just took asking a question and then someone responded. I then continued to rotate the students, but now I've allowed the students to pick up on the thoughts of another student.


Survey Results
A survey for the week was distributed so that students could rate their understanding of class content, their participation, and the implementation of the course by the instructor. The survey results indicated high scores on the six questions asked. Students rated their involvement in class sessions as the weakest area. They rated their ability to communicate in class and satisfaction with the instructor as high. They indicated that collaboration with peers as an area that needs work. I recommended that they consider using Google Plus for collaborative work.

Article Discussions
Unfortunately, neither the students or I were able to access all of the articles. Rivet & Krajcik's was read and discussed. Also, the instructor provided an additional link to support the development of a project plan. Students were able to read a webpage resource to support their project development. We all went over the components and the instructor responded to questions.

The big idea behind Rivet & Krajcik's article was to understand the behavior of students' participation and involvement in a project based activity. Students were able to connect to student behaviors.


AGENDA

Welcome

Class Discussions
Survey Results from Week 1

Survey Questions
Q1 – Rate your satisfaction with the course this week.
Q2 – Rate your ability to communicate in class discussions.
Q3 – Rate your understanding of the course content this week.
Q4 – Rate your satisfaction with the instructor.
Q5 – Rate your level of collaboration with peers.
Q6 – Rate you involvement in class sessions.


Today's session will be split in to two parts.

  • Part A - Discuss what to expected when implementing an inquiry lesson.
    • Readings Discussion - Limited access
    • Read Krajcik & Blumenfeld (2006) (Not in Library Collection)
    • Read Rivet & Krajcik (2004) (science) OR Petrosino, Lehrer, & Schauble (2003) (math); (Not in Library Collection)


Video Archive

  • The video for Session 5 can be found HERE.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Readings and Substitutions

Two of the articles that we were to read could not be accessed or they are not in the UTB Library Collection. See below what I've posted. They are probably at the UT-Austin Library Collection. I'm making a request to have them sent to me. Unfortunately, I'm not certain if the library is open as noted on their webpage. I'll check on Monday. If I can't get the articles before class on Monday, then we'll concentrate on Rivet & Krajcik's article, but will order them for us.

In the meantime, we'll concentrate on the article that we do have and work on the project'w development. If you have any questions, don't forget to e-mail.

·   Read Krajcik & Blumenfeld (2006) (Not in Library Collection)

- Read Rivet & Krajcik (2004) (science) OR Petrosino, Lehrer, & Schauble (2003) (math); (Not in Library Collection)

Friday, December 20, 2013

Session 5 - December 20, 2013

Another great session today. Got off to a little rocky start, so what I'm going to do from now on is to send the invites right before the session.

Student teaching workshops will be held from Wednesday, January 8th through Friday, January 10th, 2014. Hopefully, I've sent an email request, so hopefully I'll get a response about the workshop times before class starts. Coral provided an e-mail noting that the workshops were from 8:30 - 3:30.

Please be advised that you will be submitting a preliminary Teacher Work Sample. I'm not certain if this has been described in any of your UTeach classes. The TWS is required of all student teachers and a preliminary TWS is completed in the course prior to student teaching. The documents that you have been uploading and storing in Google Drive will help you prepare. This will need to be completed and submitted prior to the end of February.

Plans for our class meetings will in January will no change since my hip replacement surgery is scheduled for January 2nd. If you don't hear from me for a couple of days, its because I'll be recuperating. As soon as I'm able I'll make contact and we'll begin the class. What this will mean is that I'll be changing the observations and teaching to later on in January or early February 2014. My tentative plan is for you to conduct your observations at the campus where you'll be student teaching and have you teach on a couple of Saturdays. More on that to come.

Tuesday Presentation - The presentation is scheduled for Tuesday, January 24th at 9:30 a.m. That will give you a chance to be home by Christmas Eve.

The session began by reminding everyone that the archived lessons were available on Youtube at the links provided on these session write-ups. Today was split in to two sessions, Session 4, Part A and Session 4, Part B.

Our first topic was a discuss on constructivism. I used an article from the Northwest Regional Laboratory (2002) as a reference (See link to article by clicking HERE). The purpose for going over the article was to emphasize the importance of constructivism theory to it's use in many facets of teaching, learning, and life.

After the article was discussed, the students presented what they had discovered from their research about constructivism. The development of solid ideas by students employed a reductionist strategy which included three rounds of selecting a single term to describe the key points of of what students thought about PBI. The nine derived terms were experimenting, real life, active learning, experience, student centered, discovery, cooperation, encountering, and engagement. These terms were later connected to the discussion.

The last part of the class was taken by discussing what it would take to complete an effective PBI lesson. Students were asked to connect the PowerPoint discussion to the nine terms that you used to describe PBI above.

Students were reminded about Tuesday's presentation, reading assignments, and filing their documents in Google Drive. Three terms were brought up: metacognition, reflection, and ontology. We'll be meeting tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.


AGENDA

Welcome
  • Youtube videos of Sessions - Documenting Time in Class
  • Survey on student to teacher interaction


Discussion on Constructivism


Parameters of Project Topics

  • Video - Picturing the Possibilities - Project Based Learning  Click HERE
  • Implementation of Field Experiences HERE.


Next week's calendar


PBI Resources

  • Readings for Friday - USE RSQ Model for Class Discussion and Reporting
  • Youtube Video Links on Project Based Learning HERE


Readings 
Due on Monday - Use RSQ Model for Class Discussion


·   Read Krajcik & Blumenfeld (2006) (Not in Library Collection)

- Read Rivet & Krajcik (2004) (science) OR Petrosino, Lehrer, & Schauble (2003) (math); (Not in Library Collection)

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Session 4 - December 19, 2013

Another great session today. Got off to a little rocky start, so what I'm going to do from now on is to send the invites right before the session.

Student teaching workshops will be held from Wednesday, January 8th through Friday, January 10th, 2014. Hopefully, I've sent an email request, so hopefully I'll get a response about the workshop times before class starts.

Please be advised that you will be submitting a preliminary Teacher Work Sample. I'm not certain if this has been described in any of your UTeach classes. The TWS is required of all student teachers and a preliminary TWS is completed in the course prior to student teaching. The documents that you have been uploading and storing in Google Drive will help you prepare. This will need to be completed and submitted prior to the end of February.

Plans for our class meetings will in January will no change since my hip replacement surgery is scheduled for January 2nd. If you don't hear from me for a couple of days, its because I'll be recuperating. As soon as I'm able I'll make contact and we'll begin the class. What this will mean is that I'll be changing the observations and teaching to later on in January or early February 2014. My tentative plan is for you to conduct your observations at the campus where you'll be student teaching and have you teach on a couple of Saturdays. More on that to come.

Tuesday Presentation - The presentation is scheduled for Tuesday, January 24th at 9:30 a.m. That will give you a chance to be home by Christmas Eve.

The session began by reminding everyone that the archived lessons were available on Youtube at the links provided on these session write-ups. Today was split in to two sessions, Session 4, Part A and Session 4, Part B.

Our first topic was a discuss on constructivism. I used an article from the Northwest Regional Laboratory (2002) as a reference (See link to article by clicking HERE). The purpose for going over the article was to emphasize the importance of constructivism theory to it's use in many facets of teaching, learning, and life.

After the article was discussed, the students presented what they had discovered from their research about constructivism. The development of solid ideas by students employed a reductionist strategy which included three rounds of selecting a single term to describe the key points of of what students thought about PBI. The nine derived terms were experimenting, real life, active learning, experience, student centered, discovery, cooperation, encountering, and engagement. These terms were later connected to the discussion.

The last part of the class was taken by discussing what it would take to complete an effective PBI lesson. Students were asked to connect the PowerPoint discussion to the nine terms that you used to describe PBI above.

Students were reminded about Tuesday's presentation, reading assignments, and filing their documents in Google Drive. Three terms were brought up: metacognition, reflection, and ontology. We'll be meeting tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.


AGENDA

Welcome
  • Youtube videos of Sessions - Documenting Time in Class
  • Survey on student to teacher interaction


Discussion on Constructivism


Parameters of Project Topics

  • Video - Picturing the Possibilities - Project Based Learning  Click HERE
  • Implementation of Field Experiences HERE.


Next week's calendar


PBI Resources

  • Readings for Friday - USE RSQ Model for Class Discussion and Reporting
  • Youtube Video Links on Project Based Learning HERE


Readings 
Due on Monday - Use RSQ Model for Class Discussion


·   Read Krajcik & Blumenfeld (2006) (Not in Library Collection)

- Read Rivet & Krajcik (2004) (science) OR Petrosino, Lehrer, & Schauble (2003) (math); (Not in Library Collection)

Session 3 - December 18, 2013

One of the assignments that I failed to talk about yesterday was the reading list. Please read Moll, et. al. (1992) by Friday. We will be referencing Moll (1992) several times during the semester, so keep it handy.

I also wanted to know if you are available at 9:30 a.m. on Friday for class. We can meet early during the day and not have to meet Friday afternoon. I'll also try to work up a schedule for next week, so that we don't have to be in limbo about when we can meet.

I'm awaiting word from Dr. Carmen Caceres about the student teaching workshops in January. I'll update you on her response this afternoon.

Yesterday was a great session and I believe that I have all of the confidence in your ability as teacher education candidates and in your future as STEM teachers. Please continue to ask questions because, as you could see, if there is something in your head that you don't understood it is often the instructor that may not have made it clear and it's the students' responsibility to bring it up. At least it is in this class, and probably in yours.

Before the overview, I spoke a little about the parameters of project selection. This will continue to unfold. I reminded you that your project topic should be selected by next Tuesday.

After our overview, we discussed selected education theorist/philosophers. Each of you participated and were involved in the discussion. The discussion was set up by asking for a volunteer to summarize the life and ideas of a philosopher and then the other students were given an opportunity to help the presenter begin to develop a big idea that you would formally write. As we went from one philosopher to another the same sequence was used. Finally, we compared each one of the education theorists/philosophers to each other. Hopefully, this developed a pattern and a comfort with answering future questions. Your written response to the philosopher was to use the RSQ model and share it on a Google Drive folder.

Our next discussion was to review "What Experts Say" on the Eduphoria website. Again, I was very pleased with the interaction and participation of each one of you. You were asked to select from one of the experts on the site and provide the Big Idea that the expert had. After the discussion of the experts, we compared our three education theorist/philosophers to what experts currently say about Project Based Instruction.

We ended the session by talking about the development of your project. I encouraged you to work with each other by creating Google Hangouts where you meet to discuss your project.

Recording for this session can be viewed by copying the following URL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2bXdVUnFz4&feature=share) or clicking HERE.


Moll Reference:
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory  into  Practice,  31(2), 1321141.