Theories of Critical Thinking- Petty

    In today’s educational environment, there are many opportunities for students to gain more knowledge than at any point in human history. Students walk around with a computer in their hands in the form of a cell phone or a school provided device that gives them immediate access to a wealth of information and knowledge at instant speeds. Teachers and students have to work together at a time that is very uncertain for many administrators and teachers in the profession. In my experience there has been a push back to “a more traditional approach of learning” with “paper and pencil” being the standard and the norm in teaching strategies. This is not my opinion. I agree with the ideas behind Deep Learning and Bloom’s Taxonomy (especially as it relates to technology integration in the classroom) as it pertains to teacher efficacy as well as providing a classroom environment that is conducive for proper use of technology in the classroom.   

    In Fullan and Langworthy’s A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning from 2014 old and new, pedagogies were contrasted by pedagogical approach and technology integration. This idea is elaborated on within the article explaining how a teacher’s effectiveness was determined on their ability to deliver direct instruction within their content area (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). However, according to Fullan and Langworthy, “the foundation of teacher quality is a teacher’s pedagogical capacity – their repertoire of teaching strategies and their ability to form partnerships with students in mastering the process of learning. Technology in the new model is pervasive and it is used to discover and master content knowledge and to enable the deep learning goals of creating and using new knowledge in the world.” (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). This information is the summation of my belief as it relates to my job in the classroom. As a chemistry teacher, it is important to not rely on direct instruction fully as students do not have the opportunity to immerse themselves in the content at a deeper level by engaging with the topic hands on and presenting their mastery in multiple ways. Students must engage in the content and relate it to their world. Technology definitely serves a significant purpose in this venture and provides students an opportunity to show mastery in ways that previously they may not have been able to. Examples of this for me would be physical or virtual labs or inquiry based learning, where students are the driving force behind their learning and I am in the role of a supporting facilitator. I can accomplish this through online AI generated programs that specifically accommodate each student’s needs or I can provide a simple Phet simulation activity to preface a topic.  It would be irresponsible for me to think as the educator that this could be the only type of instruction in my classroom as direct instruction has its time and place; however, it can not set up shop full time in the classroom. The mixing of pedagogical strategies along with student engagement in their learning provide the best results of retention. 

    Along with Deep Learning, Bloom’s Taxonomy plays a key role in my beliefs as a classroom teacher as it relates to technology. It is my belief that technology when employed correctly will provide a student with the necessary tools to obtain the higher level orders of learning. According to the article referencing Bloom’s Taxonomy, “The levels are understood to be successive, so that one level must be mastered before the next level can be reached” (Huitt, 2011). In my view technology can take a student from application to synthesis by a simple means. In my chemistry class, a student may be able to proficiently apply the information related to intermolecular forces as it is needed to answer higher depth of knowledge questions correctly; however if a student were to make an information graphic explaining with images the differences among the forces, the student is able to provide an argument that they are synthesizing materials for fellow students to be able to understand the material from student led instruction. This along with the ideas of types of adopters from Everett Rogers coincide. As teachers we must be at the forefront of changes as it relates to our field. Our students are different than they were ten years ago. They have a different skill set, they have different ideas about their future and what they want for their life, their ideas and values may be different too. As educators we have to remember what Mr. Everett was saying back in 1963. To look at the chart in the published article, it summarizes characteristics as well as values and social relationships (Everett, 1963). When it comes to technology integration as well as understanding the value that it has in our students’ lives, we as educators must fall in line with the “Innovators”, “Early Adopters”, and “Early Majority” at the latest (Everett 1963). To adopt after the Early Majority group with our students is to not know our students at all. It is our job and responsibility to know our students and provide them a path in a world that may or may not be foreign to us, and we must encourage our colleagues to feel the same to be able to increase their effectiveness in their content as well.

References:

Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson. Retrieved from https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/about-pearson/innovation/open-ideas/ARichSeamEnglish.pdf

Huitt, W. (2011). Bloom et al.'s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/bloom.pdf  

Rogers, E. M. (1963). The adoption process II. Journal of Cooperative Extension, 1(2), 69-75. Retrieved from https://archives.joe.org/joe/1963summer/1963-2-a2.pdf