T/TAC Topics
January 2021
|
|
Strategies for increasing student engagement in a virtual world |
The 2020 school year has brought new challenges to the classroom, both in-person and in virtual instruction. One challenge teachers face daily is engaging all students in class activities and discussions. Furthermore, it has become an even greater challenge for teachers who have students learning in a remote setting, but completing lessons and activities asynchronously. According to the research of John Hattie (2018), the use of technology in all disciplines has a positive impact on student engagement, and therefore, achievement. Additionally, the effect size of using technology ranges from 0.21 for using technology in small groups to 0.54 for using interactive video methods to 0.57 for using technology to support students who have specific learning needs (Hattie, 2018). Knowing that the effective use of instructional technology impacts student achievement, we must consider how we can use technology to engage teachers, students, and peers students with instruction when they are not physically face-to-face. Incorporating these instructional technologies and strategically planning lessons that allow for peer collaboration (effect size 0.34), cooperative learning (effect size 0.40), and classroom discussions (effect size 0.82) cannot only promote a student’s cognitive engagement, but also foster opportunities for the emotional engagement so many are missing out on at this time (Hattie, 2018; Fisher et al., 2020).
The question now is if we wish to incorporate instructional technology to provide these opportunities for cognitive and emotional engagement, what strategies might we use and what tools are available? Several strategies to promote engagement during virtual learning and tools to enable engagement are listed below (Fisher et al., 2020; Fleming, 2020; Loes Vergroesen, 2020; Tucker, 2020; Winkel, 2020).
|
|
|
|
|
- Breakout Rooms
- Google Docs/Google Slides
- OneNote
- Jamboard/Padlet
- Nearpod/Peardeck
- Flipgrid/Animoto/Storybird
|
|
|
|
|
- Breakout Rooms
- Google Docs/Google Slides
- OneNote
- Jamboard/Padlet
- Flipgrid/Loom
- Mural
- Mindmeister
|
|
|
|
|
- Google Forms/Google Surveys
- Google Docs/OneNote
- Whiteboard.fi/Whiteboard.chat/DESMOS whiteboards
- Padlet/Note.ly
- Mural
- Mindmeister
|
|
|
|
|
- Discussion board feature in your learning management system
- Jamboard/Padlet/Note.ly
- Whiteboard.fi/Whiteboard.chat/DESMOS whiteboards
|
|
|
|
|
- Screencastify
- Flipgrid
- Rubrics in Google Docs/OneNote
|
|
|
|
|
- Nearpod/Peardeck
- Socrative
- EdPuzzle
- Kahoot
- Quizizz
- Quizlet/Quizlet Live
- Gimkit
|
|
|
Although these are not the only strategies that might be used in a virtual classroom, they are ones that may help increase daily student engagement, enable students to collaborate with their peers, and provide evidence of their level of content understanding. Lastly, students can access many of these tools asynchronously, providing an opportunity to stay engaged with their peers after class ends while also providing teachers with a method of formative assessment to guide future lessons.
References
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Hattie, J. (2020). Distance learning playbook, grades k-12: Teaching for engagement and impact in any setting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
For more information, contact Leslie Murphy-Brown ( lmmurphybrown@vcu.edu), Program Specialist, T/TAC at VCU. |
|
Math discourse communities |
A math discourse community is a community in which “individuals assist one another’s learning of mathematics by engaging in meaningful mathematical discourse” (Hufferd-Ackles et al., 2004, p. 81). It involves creating a community where learners practice questioning, explain their thinking, and share mathematical ideas. In a math discourse community, students hold the responsibility for learning (Hufferd-Ackles et al., 2004). A discourse community is a teaching approach that reveals student understanding of mathematical concepts and reasoning (Gresham & Shannon, 2017). Teachers listen and support student thinking rather than act as the sole bearers of knowledge and students increase their ability to reason by justifying and explaining their thinking (Wagganer, 2015). The practice of using math discourse strategies helps teachers identify student misconceptions quickly and deliver explicit instruction to clear up misunderstandings. A culture is established where mistakes and academic risk-taking are encouraged. Students participate in each other’s learning by engaging in meaningful discussions and sharing ideas around problem-solving.
In a math class with an established discourse culture, lessons begin with a brief whole-group review and discussion. Questions are formatted to generate discussion. Thus, closed questions such as “Which pencil is the shortest?” are not targeted during the discussion. Instead, teachers ask questions such as, “Tell me how you measured your pencil” and “How do you know?” This whole-class discussion is then followed by station activities, which include one teacher-led activity, a collaborative hands-on activity, and an independent computer activity. Finally, a short whole-group discussion and exit slip can close the lesson (Gresham & Shannon, 2017). Students are encouraged to ask questions of each other and the teacher. Scaffolding using sentence frames and discourse moves teach the language skills and hold students accountable for participating (Gresham & Shannon, 2017). A discourse move is a deliberate action taken by a teacher or a student “to participate in or influence the discourse in the mathematics classroom” (Xin et al., 2020, p. 43). The Inquiry Project’s (2011) Checklist: Goals for Productive Discussions and Nine Talk Moves describes several discourse moves and the goals for using each of them. Curriculum Associates (2020) has a free resource for sentence frames that are classroom-ready conversation starters for integrating math discourse into your lessons.
The benefits of establishing a math discourse culture include increased student sense of belonging and contribution to the group, mathematical learning, and student motivation to engage in content related discourse. Additionally, this learning structure increases mathematical learning and social skills as students hear each other’s ideas and encourage each other to persevere through difficult problems.
Resources
References
Gresham, G., & Shannon, T. (2017). Building mathematics discourse in students. Teaching Children Mathematics, 23(6), 360.
Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K., & Sherin, M. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81-116.
Wagganer, E. L. (2015). Creating math talk communities. Teaching Children Mathematics, 22(4), 248.
Xin, Y. P., Chiu, M. M., Tzur, R., Ma, X., Park, J. Y., & Yang, X. (2020). Linking teacher-learner discourse with mathematical reasoning of students with learning disabilities: An exploratory study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(1), 43-5.
For more information, contact Jennifer Askue-Collins (askuecollij@vcu.edu), Program Specialist, T/TAC at VCU.
|
|
|
Curriculum framework: A case for comprehensive, child-centered instruction in early childhood programs |
|
The long-lasting positive effects of early education on the development and acquisition of essential behavioral and academic skills of young children is widely documented. Numerous studies have shown that when children receive intervention and support prior to starting formal education at the age of five, they tend to have higher achievement scores in math and reading, and fewer risky behaviors such as criminal behavior, to include drug use and antisocial behavior, and increased employment in adolescence and adulthood (McCormick, et al., 2006, Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, and Schweinhart, 2016).
As quality early childhood programs continued to reflect the ever-changing needs of our young children and their families, states and territories began to recognize the necessity for stronger developmental standards on which to build their programs. Related to standards-based curriculum, came the inception of child outcomes, as proposed by the Office of Special Education Programs of the U.S. Department of Education in 2007. States were required to report outcome data on the percentage of infants and toddlers with Individual Family Service Plans (IFSP) and preschoolers with Individual Education Plans (IEP) who demonstrate: 1) positive social relationships, 2) acquisition and use of knowledge and skills, to include thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, and early literacy skills; and 3) use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs (Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, n.d.).
In order to effectively synthesize the vast amount of information necessary to understand the scope and sequence of a comprehensive tiered system of early childhood programming, the authors of Adapting Early Childhood Curricula for Children with Disabilities and Special Needs have outlined in their latest edition the basic developmental domains of human development and the principles of how children learn. This resource demonstrates the application of these principles and strategies to meet the needs of a wide range of children within inclusive environments (Cook, Klein, & Chen, 2020). The authors highlight the importance of four main features: 1) the importance of understanding the nature of how young children learn and grow; 2) the appreciation of families’ roles in the development of their child and understanding why respect for their concerns and priorities is critical to effective curriculum design and program development; 3) the importance of having a thorough understanding of developmental domains and how they impact children’s learning; and 4) the appreciation for the whole child when implementing activity-based and play-based approaches to intervention.
Specifically, Copple & Bredekamp define curriculum as a framework for developing a coherent set of learning experiences that enables children to reach the identified goals (Cook et al., 2020). When thinking about how curriculum should be adapted for students with disabilities, Cook et al. (2020) outline five fundamental assumptions of a quality curricula: 1) it should be founded on evidence-based practices; 2) it should include functional and meaningful goals that are ecologically-relevant to each child; 3) intervention strategies should be embedded in activities that target specific skills within the context of daily routines and activities; 4) long-term goals and short-term objectives should consider information related to the stages of typical development; and 5) teaching strategies used to reach targeted goals should reflect a strong, social-transactional approach.
For more specific information on understanding the process of adapting early childhood curricula, be sure to check out these instructional videos:
References
Cook, R., Klein, M.D., & Chen, D. (2020). Adapting early childhood curricula for children with disabilities and special needs. (10th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
McCormack, M.C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Buka, S.L., Goldman, J., Yu, J., Salganik, M. & Casey, P.H. (2006). Early Intervention in low birth rate premature infants: Results at 18 years of age. Pediatrics, 117, 771-780.
Schweinhart, L. J. (2016). Use of early childhood longitudinal studies by policy makers. International Journal of Child Care and Educational Policy, 10(6), 1-10.
Shonkoff, J.P., & Phillips, D.A (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
For more information, contact Mary Szymanski (mpswingle@vcu.edu), Program Specialist, T/TAC at VCU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
