Tracie - Blog #3

I had to go back and reread my first blog, because honestly, I couldn't remember what I wrote. At the beginning of the course, I was behaviorist in my classroom management, and constructivist in my instruction. I don't think that has changed at all. I am perhaps more aware of why I teach the way I do, or why I build my instruction the way I do, but my underlying reasons and beliefs have not changed.
I still struggle with how to motivate kids/people to learn. Reading through the case studies, I realize how much harder it is to motivate adults who are potentially set in their ways than children who are still somewhat willing to learn. I struggle with the kids who have so much baggage that they just don't care about learning, or have learned that no one at home cares, so why should they. As I worked on my project, I tried to pull ideas and resources that would make it as hands-on and interactive as possible, to try to pull in even these reluctant learners. I think I succeeded to some extent. However, it is frustrating to note that I had to write up three students during one activity for squirting each other with food-colored water during a lab. Not a shining moment, and it did include one of those kids who just doesn't care.
That brings me to my connections to the readings. The first is in Chapter 9 on page 164. The authors state, "The events of instruction should be considered a reciprocal process in which instructors and students make contributions that lead to an effective learning experience." That screams to me the reason why students who are carrying too much baggage from home have difficulty learning. They cannot focus long enough on the task at hand to actively participate and make the contributions that will leat to an effective learning experience because they are so overwhelmed by their home life. So, how do we get them past that so they can achieve success?
I also connected with Mager's Approach (p. 146) to setting goals and objectives. His use of Action, Conditions, and Criterions reminded me of writing/reviewing IEP's for students. They always have a % criterion for the goal to be considered met. As I mentioned in class, I still have an issue with teachers who create a lot of activities, but have no sound basis for them. In Chap. 10, (p. 178), it specifically says that instruction could be designed this way, but the approach would never be recommended. I think teachers should have to justify the activities they are doing in class, and show how they are going to bring students around to learning, not just playing.
Finally, I enjoyed reading the chapter on evaluation. I use most of the test items described, except true/false. I try very hard not to use them, and found it interesting that the first bullet under guidelines is, "use them sparingly, if at all". I like that! The one thing that I do differently is matching. Over the years, I have learned that kids have a really hard time doing matching where the word is on the left, and the matching definition is on the right. Instead, I put the definitions or answers on the left, and have the single word on the right. In this way, students read the longer definition, then find the matching word. My special educators also like this way, as it is easier for sped. students. Also, for sped. kids, I chunk the matching into groups of 4-5 items.