Theory of Instruction

8/7/2019 Theory of Instruction

1/10

RICES THEORY OF INSTRUCTION 1

Rices Theory of Instruction

Martha Rice

Texas A&M University Texarkana


2/10


Rices Philosophy of Middle School Student Scholarship

In the past two years that I have taught middle school 7th

and 8th

graders, I have noticed one thing

in particular about how middle school students learn: for the most part, they learn most

effectively from using computer applications, especially games, and from interaction with each

other rather than simply by listening to me. Students who are young teenagers have grown up

with computers and advancing technology. They feel comfortable with computers, computer

applications, and cell phones, all of which they have played with at home and at school for years.

Given the amount of technology they use in their lives, classrooms that do not have technology

must seem severely dated to these students, and it is really no wonder that some students view

teachers who refuse to integrate technology into their classrooms as irrelevant. I have seen

students who cannot (or will not) understand a given mathematical principle come into my

computer lab during core class study time on Fridays and fight to understand that same principle

in order to receive a reward from the computer program. They will ask each other how to do it,

they will ask me to come help, they will ask to go back to their teachers to ask them so that they

will be able to perform better in an educational application in which they have to provide the

right answer before they are able to play a game. Middle school students love to play

educational games, love to play simulations, and love to help each other understand technology.

Students who struggle in most areas are suddenly elevated to class expert in another area as they

go around the class helping other students with something that suddenly nobody, not even me the

teacher, knows how to do but them. Students who would normally disrupt class are happy to

help other students, and disruptions in my technology applications classes are minimal.

Although my classroom is usually loud with students talking to each other and walking around

freely, it is not the chaos that some or my peers might think it is. I try to be flexible to best meet


3/10


students needs, especially with my middle school students, given the personal turmoil that some

of these young teenagers face in the hallways and their homes and within themselves every day.

Rices Theory of Instruction

Theory Overview

My theory of instruction includes aspects of Constructivism and Enactivism. I believe that in

every class I teach, I am part of a team made up of my students and myself. I am educational

leader of this team, but the students themselves are most important. I have to know what the

students want to learn and need to learn and try to guide them towards that learning. One of the

most interesting aspects of teaching technology to digital natives is that although I know more

about education, my students know more innately about technology than I do, and as we work

together, we can share ideas and techniques, and so students begin to understand that they are

intelligent, they can be successful, and school can actually be fun and educational.

Literature Review

Constructivism is basically the idea that students create their own knowledge based on what they

experience. Constructivism is a key learning theory for the 21st century, in which digital natives

are using technology to understand their world, and contrasts with the old school standard

Objectivism, the idea that the teacher provides access to a set knowledge base, and the students

should note, memorize, and parrot back teachers notes in order to demonstrate mastery of that

knowledge base (Hannafin & Hill, 2007).

Enactivism takes the basics of Constructivism and includes brain theory about how students

learn, integrates student environmental learning context, acknowledges students subconscious


4/10


knowledge and emotions, and advocates self-reflection and learner assimilation with technology

(Qing, Clark, & Winchester, 2010). In Constructivism, teachers act as educational guides

(Hannafin & Hill, 2007), but in Enactivism, teachers, as part of the educational context for

learning, provide educational environments and funnel students activities toward educational

goals that teachers and students together have predetermined. Teachers in an Enactivistic system

must be flexible and as instructional designers, teachers must monitor students, continually

evaluate learning systems, and change aspects of the learning system as instruction continues and

student needs evolve (Qing, et al., 2010). Enactivism takes the idea of Enactive mastery, the idea

that students subconsciously have knowledge that can only be unlocked when they experience

success (Driscoll, 2005), and builds on that idea, suggesting that subconscious knowledge can be

realized when learners engage in self-reflection after rich, authentic learning experiences. These

kinds of enactive explorations, which are by nature subject to learners making mistakes or not

performing to high standards, must be governed by instructors who can redirect positively

without making the learner feel unsuccessful (Wood, Kakebeeke, Debowski & Frese, 2000).

Enactivism also suggests that digital age learners are in effect symbiotic partners with

technology, which can act as gentle instructional redirection as the learner works through tasks

using online programs, simulations, learning games, etc. (Qing, et al., 2010). Technology is not a

fad; teachers can use technology to reach their students and are and will be expected to use

technology (Buehl & Fives, 2009). Groups advocating 21st century learning call for teachers to

instill creativity, problem solving, communications, media literacy skills (The Partnership for

21st Century Skills, 2004), and social learning (The 21st century learning initiative, 2010) in

students whose lives have been and will be shaped by technology. Both Enactivism and


5/10


6/10


7/10


as teacher and experts like our school safety officer), students make blog entries using the free

online system Gaggle.net for safe online email and communications among students. Students

read each others blog entries and make comments. Their blog entries quality has improved, and

should continue to improve over time because they are writing for themselves and each other, not

just to please the teacher, as they would in an Objective system.

Students have the freedom to talk about their Internet safety research to each other both

electronically and in person in class. They can help each other with technical problems and

discuss their research in ways that I as a teacher cannot effectively do. From a Constructivism

standpoint, Middle school students tend to listen to each other more intently than they listen to

adults, and when they teach each other, not only does the learner learn better from a peer, but the

peer reinforces his or her own understanding, which is an Enactivistic means of encouraging

self-reflection on what the learner actually knows but might not realize.

To accomplish culminating projects, students review and critique what the group votes to be the

best Internet safety teaching videos they have found online. Using their created and shared

knowledge base, student groups write scripts for their own Internet safety public safety

announcements that they will post on SchoolTube.com, a school friendly, safe video site.

I remember a few years ago when I came to Pewitt Junior High to teach technology from a ten-

year stay at Pewitt High School teaching English to juniors. I enjoyed the rapport I developed

with my middle school students, but we had old and slow computers, no applications to work

with, and a tiny budget of $200 to run the lab. I had to become innovative in figuring out how to

find free applications and online resources for my students and me to use. I am grateful for those

difficulties, however, because each year has been a learning experience for me and for my

students as a team. We find new resources and try them out and learn about them together.


8/10


9/10


References

The 21st century learning initiative. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.21learn.org

Buehl, M., & Fives, H. (2009). Exploring Teachers' Beliefs About Teaching Knowledge: Where

Does It Come From? Does It Change?. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 367.

Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=38807822&site=ehost-

live

Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.

Edmodo. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.edmodo.com

Gaggle. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.gaggle.net

Hannafin, M.J. & J.R. Hill. (2007). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In

R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and

technology (53-61). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Li, Q., Clark, B., & Winchester, I. (2010). Instructional design and technology grounded in

enactivism: A paradigm shift?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 403-

419. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00954.x.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=49159761&site=ehost

-live

Moodle. (2010). Retrieved from http://moodle.org

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004). A framework for 21st century learning.

Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.php

SchoolTube. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.schooltube.com

Studysland. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.studyisland.com


10/10


Wood, R., Kakebeeke, B., Debowski, S., & Frese, M. (2000). The Impact of Enactive

Exploration on Intrinsic Motivation, Strategy, and Performance in Electronic Search.

AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 49(2), 263. Retrieved from Academic

Search Complete database.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3263826&site=ehost-

live

Documents

Theory of Instruction