Two Interesting Articles...

Although these articles do not necessarily go with Bloom's Taxonomy, I found them thought provoking.  Until this morning when I was reading through my Google Reader, I had not heard of Waldorf principles of teaching.  When most schools that you hear about are trying to incorporate and have access to as much technology as they can (and can afford), here are two schools that do NOT have technology in their schools and do not recommend it for home.

On one hand, I like the idea. I think students and people can be too connected and especially in elementary schools, students need to learn how to socially interact with others.  I also feel there are many hands on teaching techniques and methods, etc. that are sometimes the better option over a technical tool.  Kids love to play outside, and touch slimy things, and explore new toys.

On the other hand, technology is our world and at some point they will need technology for their future.  Many parents and some of the Waldorf principles mention that technology is easy to pick up and that they are not worried about their students being tech savvy. 

It seems as though students attending these private (expensive) schools are students who's parents are very tech-connected working for places like Google, and Apple, and in being a child of one of these members, would have access to technology when mom/dad are ready for them to.  However, students in lower SES and without access to technology at home and whenever they want, I wonder if a no-tech school would be for them.

A Silicon Valley School That Doesn't Compute


Technology, Schools, and a Big Black Bug

Bloom's Taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy According to the Pirates of the Caribbean

I found this on YouTube and thought, "What a fun way to see Bloom's Taxonomy in action."  I also thought more than getting a new way to see this taxonomy, the person who put together this video was in the level of "Creating."  The author had to use his/her knowledge, understand it, etc. (through the levels of Bloom's Taxonomy to be able to get to the "Creating" level).

Student Engagement

Student engagement is a big part of constructivism.  Students need to be active in their learning.  From undergraduate classes, to student teaching, inservices, and discussion with other teachers (among the few things) I have added to my repertoire of strategies to use to engage students. 

A few examples are using response cards, use of white boards (in which everyone has to respond/participate), thumbs up/thumbs down, and buddy buzz.  I think a big piece of constructivism is this buddy buzz/talking with a partner.  Students ask questions of each other to help clarify their own meanings.

Here is a neat website wit the A-Z's of engagement. ( I love the alphabet that they use at the top)

26 Keys to Student Engagement

Constructivism and Field Trips

When thinking about the constructivism learning theory, I had a couple things pop into my mind.  One of them was a specific lesson that I used in fourth grade that tied in with Dr. Suess' book Bartholomew and the Oobleck.  Students had to experiment and interact with the Oobleck and figure out the properties.  It was a really great experiment and way to use the scientific process.

The other idea that came about was the idea of field trips.  You can tell a student all about a place, object, painting, etc., but nothing comes close to getting to experience it yourself.  Here is an article from the Smithsonian Magazine.

Field Trip!

Constructivism

I found a couple videos on YouTube on constructivism.

Constructivism, Inclusion and Technology


Constructivism in Education