Sept+18-+Marzano+Ch+7,+H&A+Ch+2

I'Dr. Erickson addresses issues for improving education. She discusses the necessity of teacher education, comparing the United States' test score oriented educational system to Finland and Singapore's teacher development oriented educational system. Increasing teacher education would undoubtedly improve out educational system, but where would it begin. Erickson suggests teaching teachers the benefits, structure, and pedagogy of concept-based curricula in order for teachers to understand themselves the importance of teaching for understanding instead of remembering factual knowledge. I understand the necessity of teaching us this skill, but the few professional development courses I have been to are addressing this issue. I have learned concept-based lessons for pre-AP biology that have been helpful for me to teach student skills that they can apply to various aspects of the education and life. However, a lot professional development is, for lack of a better description, wasteful. I have spent several hours sitting and listening to someone spout out a bunch of common sense "helpful tactics" that are nothing more than old factual learning techniques that speaker has dressed up. I like Erickson's clarification of the difference between a skill and content objective. Her description of synergistic thinking cleared up some frustrations I had as I was reading this chapter. I felt like she was just telling us the importance of teaching concepts over facts because it is impossible to cover all of the facts. I felt conflicted because the framework I have to follow for biology tells me specific facts that students must know, but it also provides essential understandings that are helpful. Her synergistic thinking combines the essential knowledge and understanding of my framework and helps them make sense while I look at them. Her discussion of brain cell activity when students form relationships between topics is very interesting and provides substance to her argument. Erickson's examples in a history and math lesson are helpful to understand the concept-based curriculum and see it in action. I feel like I do this to a degree, but definitely see room for improvement when reading these examples. I can see myself using a concept lens as a tool to help students focus their knowledge. Erickson's did a fabulous job arguing for concept-bases curriculum and acknowledges the :paradigm shift" for most teachers. If teachers are willing to deal with this "paradigm" the US should have no difficulty following in the footsteps of Finland and Singapore. I like the analogy that our brain is an orchestra that Williams uses to open chapter two. The analogy helped me remember as I read the rest of the chapter that each of the thinking processes described works in concert with each other. I knew that the brain automatically processes information in patterns, but it was interesting to read scientific aspect of this process to understand it on an anatomical level. Our neurons are literally in a hierarchical structure and whole to part to subpart, weird. I honestly did not realize that there was a difference between a brace map and a tree map; I thought a brace map was just a sideways tree map. Williams' explanation was clear and concise and I now understand the difference. I find the multi-flow map and feedback methods useful. Having students make predictions in my class truly has them drawing on what they have previous learned. For example, conclusion questions in my labs offer different scenarios of a similar lab and ask them to tell me what will happen if a few aspect were different. My students then analyze their data and what the know about the topic and make educated predictions. Williams' discussion on emotions is helpful when emphasizing that you must relate topics to students to create a positive learning environment, but I don't feel that I fully understand how that relate to thinking maps. Analogies have always been difficult for me, so I am very interested in learning more about bridge maps. Williams' description of circle maps as brain dumping is quite accurate in my history of using them. I wonder if there is a better way to make use of these maps. The frame of reference is useful as a teacher to see where students are drawing their information from so we can evaluate and adjust their thinking processes if necessary. I understand how thinking maps are essential and useful and this chapter definitely increased that understand by explaining the processes of the brain, but I have a hard time finding their usefulness with students who do not take them seriously. Oftentimes, students just put basic knowledge in them and do not expand so it is difficult to assess how well the student understands a topic if they are not invested in them. I feel there needs to be a way to show these type of students the usefulness of the maps instead of just saying "if you do them correctly you will see the benefits." Not all students jump right in and they see them as busy work. We can "see the brain in action" with these maps, but sometimes students are just going through the motions. --- Helen Phillips

I want to take a look at the Hyerle chapter 2. I found this chapter to be very similar to what my training session on Thinking Maps had to say. I attended a "Thinking Maps" training session this past thursday, and found the session to be very similar, almost a carbon copy, of this text. One of the first few words of the Chapter talk about sequencing and heirarchy of brain neuroligical patterns; I immediately thought of the "Flow Map" and "Tree Map", nevertheless, on page 19, the author mentions those very two maps to be perfect with brain function. This further emphasizes my statement from the past post, about training the brain. I was particularly interested in the first few sections on how the brain actually processes information. The process in which the neurons process patterns through a hierarchy and the movement through the neurons in a specific sequence, makes me think of building a pyramid. I can picture the process in my head, which helped me process the concept (no pun intended). The emphasis on pattherns was shockingly abundent. I believe in one section, I underlined the word "pattern" or "sequence" over 15 times! I find it very useful and intellectually stimulating to know how our brain processes information, that way we, as teachers, can actually understand how our student's brains are working. By understanding how our student's brains function, we can alter our lessons, verbal prompts, and visual prompts, to cater to the brain in the best way possible. We can frame our questions in a specific sequence to boost intellectual activity, and can now understand how our student's learn.

Looking at Erickson's Chapter in the Marzano book, I found it to be very refreshing. The last paragraph of the whole chapter really makes a statement; "What good is information if one cannot think with it, transfer it, understand it at a deeper level, or use it to solve problems? Information without intellect is useless." This statement is very bold, but very true. If we are just reciting information to our students, and they are nodding their heads yes and no, how do we know if they are actually processing the information? On page 188 Erickson mentions another important fact, "Material is not just "facts to memorize," but rather "ideas to understrand"". Just spewing the facts to our students is not going to do any justice to our test scores. They have to be able to digest the information, transfer the knowledge, and utilize that knowledge in problem solving and critical thinking. What good are those 6-7 hours in school, if they are not actually filing the information into their brain using sequences and patterns in order to be able to pull from the archives for laster use? Erickson makes a good point that we have to train our teachers before we can train our students. She mentions that some schools allow teachers up to 20 hours a week to collaborate with other colleagues to plan and research. Our teachers must be up-to-date and knowledgeable on higher-level thinking, and Bloom's Taxonomy, before they can teach in that manner. Some teachers are thrown into a school, with little to no education on the "modern teaching method"... how are they supposed to teach it if they haven't experienced it themselves?! Our students rely on us to teach them what they need to know to succeed in life, how can we do that successfully if we haven't experienced the proper method of teaching. I found that Chapter 7 was a very good, strong proponent for teacher education, and I am a strong supporter of it as well. -- **Caitlin Unterman**

In chapter 7 of Marzano it discusses a conceptual design for the curriculum. I especially like this quote from Erickson, "They realize that their job is to help all students learn to use their minds well as they strive to meet the requisite academic standards" (p.169). In this quote she is talking about master teachers and their commitment to their students. Most of the chapter talked about improving education in the ways that teachers teach the material and thinking. The main point is that called concept based curriculum. The concept based curriculum has been challenging the ideas and methods of the traditional curriculum. Mainly the idea of teaching all the standards is a reason for challenging the concept based curriculum. Teachers believe they must teach to the test and give all the students the necessary information they need to pass the state required exams. I think the quote on page 183 does a great job of summing up essential questions., "the essence of what you believe students should examine and know in the short time they have with you." If you think about it you only have the students in your classroom for less than 45 mins. for about 7 days a week. The essential questions are those questions that get at the most important information you as the teacher want/need your students to take away at the end of the period.

Chapter 2 in the Alper book was honestly kinda confusing for someone who is not very science oriented. I understand basic functions of the brain but the way the material was explained in the text made it honestly very confusing. What I did get from this chapter is that there are 2 main processes of the brain: sequential and hierarchical.  Sequential is when the brain processes information into sequences and the patterns. Hierarchical is when the brains sorts and filters information into a hierarchy. We have discussed in class some of the types of maps that this chapter used such as the double bubble map. I like this map a lot and the examples used in the chapter mirror the types we used in class last week. I think that the multi-flow map could definitely be used in a history classroom because it seems to be more cause and effect oriented. One thing I did agree with in this chapter would be, "Schooling should be all about transfer-that is, helping children learn content not only to do well on a given assessment but also to be able to apply the ideas to their lives outside the classroom"  (p.30). As we have learned in many of the M.A.T. classes already is that what we teach our students should be transferable. That the students should be able to learn a skill or information and transfer it to their daily lives. Like as mentioned before I did find this chapter a little confusing with all the scientific jargon used to describe the process of learning on the brain. -Ashley Knowles

Erickson's chapter on Marzano was interesting in that she addresses the differences between thinking teachers and teachers who "teach to the test". Erickson addresses the issue in the UNited States most concerning for education and teachers by laying out the three central, flawed focuses: mandating academic standards, high stakes testing, and encouraging competition between schools to challenge low-performing schools to improve (Erickson, 169). At first I took some issue with Erickson's assertion that these were flaws. I was under the impression, as I read further, that these were good aspects of education. However, the note that struck a chord in me was the issue of Singapore and Finland spending overwhelming amounts of time developing teachers were the keys to their respective successes in the global education ranks. Teachers in these nations have the ability to plan and collaborate for a healthy chunk of their weeks. They are able to research and also, reach across different academic disciplines to conjoin various lessons. If I as a History teacher could sit with a mathematics teacher or science teacher for part of my week to plan, many avenues of differentiated instruction methods could become available to me as well as the other teachers. By page 177, Erickson divulges a few of the secrets that top education nations incorporate. These include: idea versus coverage centered instruction, conceptual schemata building in the brain, and engaging personal intellect. What really got me thinking as a History teacher was the section of patterning. I can have students memorize dates and facts all day to satisfy the SOL requirements, but the idea conceptualization revolves more around "why?" and "how do we remedy the issue?". My students can either memorize the US Constitution, or they can attempt to assertion the importance to them in their everyday and eventual adult lives. Because of this chapter, it is apparent that change is still very much required of the educational standards in this country. High-stakes testing is taking a more and more evil face as the readings continue for me. Chapter 2 of Alper reinforces Erickson's theories from the physiological aspect of the brain. As Erickson discussed the issue of patterning, Alper examines the process occurring in the brain. Apparently, the brain needs training as well as information. To repetitively study something creates a pathway in the brain for which we learn. What I found very interesting was that educational systems in the US and up until this point in the US direct the patterning of the brain in the wrong direction. The fact patterning is laid out, but teachers and administration fail to listen to scientists who claim the brain is capable of more higher-order thinking versus retention. Page 17 examines what Jeff Hawkins describes as building intelligent machines based on the cortex of the brain. He then goes on to explain how patterning resorts to the hierarchy in the brain and the conjunction of stored information and retrieved information. Between Erickson and Alper it remains evident that curriculum in the US, designed for high-stakes testing, fails to furnish intelligent thought which can be incredibly useful for students to become thinking citizens. A student can learn algorithms in a calculus class, but in order to apply them, correct patterning must occur. - James Cheatham

Lynn Erickson’s chapter discusses how conceptually designed curriculum improves students’ successful learning as this way of teaching promotes the building of connections in the brain and the quest for deeper understanding. Teachers should not focus on just facts but on exploring and understanding the reasons behind them and how they apply to the world. Issues that thwart progress in this area stem from lack of teacher education and competition between schools in testing scores. As Erickson explains, competition for funding leads to the infamous “teach to the test” strategy which only satisfies a school’s financial concerns, not student learning. While I do believe that an educational model that aims to close the achievement gap and create national standards is a good idea, I also believe that what we currently have instituted goes about this the wrong way. Nationalized standards and accountability for test scores has become an obstacle to learning as teachers themselves are not adequately prepared to teach in this environment. This, I feel, is the fault of teacher educators and school administrators who focus on the bottom line. Erickson lists numerous research findings in conceptual curriculum design and higher order instruction and also cites statistics from other countries such as Finland and Singapore where teachers are prepared to teach this way and work together to design lessons, attend seminars, and perform research. Along with the research cited by Berliner concerning high-stakes testing, this highlights a major concern to students’ successful learning and shows that teacher’s should be better prepared to teach under NCLB. As an Art teacher, I intend to focus on how artistic works relate to the contexts in which they were created and how an artist’s intent can be interpreted from chosen subject, form, and material. Yet, as a Chinese teacher, I am concerned with crafting essential questions as language is very structured and not exactly concept-based. I hope I have the opportunity to collaborate with teachers in other subjects so I can try to relate topics and Chinese concepts to Western concepts so students can engage in cultural inquiry, examination, and comparison.

In Hyerle’s Ch. 2, there is much focus on brain processes and neural pathways to demonstrate how thinking maps mimic brain processes. What I found most useful was the way in which thinking maps can graphically represent one’s pattern of thinking to be shared with others. I’m an advocate of collaborative learning and the use of thinking maps in group work to create a “shared vision” and a representation of “collective thinking” is intriguing. I was also struck by Hyerle’s example of a hierarchical structure on page 18 because it specifically relates to how I guide students in moving from one level to the next when teaching a new lesson: I begin with characters/words; I move from words to simple phrases, I move from phrases to sentences; and finally from sentences to paragraph level communication. This aligns with the sequencing and hierarchical systems inherent in brain processes and thinking maps. Though, I’m still not clear on how I could use thinking maps unless it is in an advanced class. **~Joanna Bourque**

Erickson's chapter about concept based curriculum echoes the other chapters we have read - the overlying need to change the curriculum of public schools in America and how to best succeed at doing it. What I find interesting about her approach, however, is that she states up front that she is fully aware that teachers cannot teach everything. She doesn't try to find a hierarchy of subjects, make one subject more important than the others, but instead, she provides a paradigm to teach each subject in an overarching, logical way. In conceptual based learning, big ideas are important and use the "higher level thinking" that we previously read about, making it easier to make connections and find patterns in the way knowledge is formed. I think this method of teaching sounds fantastic in theory and that if students actually could understand higher level thinking and make connections between certain concepts and knowledge, then I think students really would learn more. I am not, however, convinced that this would be well received in today's classrooms with the "teaching to the test" attitudes.  This theory on teaching is the one that has fascinated me the most of the ones we have read so far and I wonder how easily I could integrate this into my own classroom eventually.

Chapter 2 in Thinking Maps fits nicely with Erickson's teaching theories, speaking in length about how the brain forms connections and how the thinking maps help in this process. As I talked about before, I am interested in how these thinking maps help people put their thought process down on paper. This chapter speaks about how repetition creates an actual physical pathway in the brain that helps to facilitate the easy recollection of that knowledge. I wonder how these thinking maps could be used in repetition and if they would help the entire learning process. ~//Erin Caracappa//

Chapter Two in Thinking Maps expands on the former chapter, exploring how Thinking Maps fit with specific brain processes. For instance, in making memories the hippocampus relates new information to existing memories, storing them in categories by comparing and contrasting them with older memories. By using a double bubble map, this existing habit of the brain is communicated on paper. Like Ashley, I'm fond of the double bubble map. It really seems to be adaptable to situations to fully demonstrate differences and even additive elements between two main ideas. While I understand the difference between mapping tangible and concrete parts of a whole and mapping abstractions and ideal forms, Thinking Maps does frustrate me by being strict about having two different kinds of maps. If maps are to be a tool, we want them to be useful, and I'm not convinced that in a concept-learning driven classroom (which I'm finding in my personal experience is trickier to teach than factual lessons, at least with seven year olds) this kind of specification would not sometimes overcomplicate work for both the students and teacher, especially if students were assigned to come up with their own maps of their thinking. In so much educational research on reading, repetition is vital because only by multiple exposures (which would be supported by the argument in this chatper that weak patterns are created in the brain and then have to be strengthened by use of that pathway in the brain) do certain elements of language and comprehension catch in our minds.

Erickson discusses what makes a lesson conceptually-driven as opposed to fact-based, as well as laying out the obstacles and opportunities for teachers in implementing this approach in their classroom. It's a very fair argument that facts are simply too numerous to be taught (especially given that Thinking Maps has made the case the brain doesn't deal in facts but patterns), and I really like how concepts can be used to motivate student participation in their work. Instead of just coming up with facts about a topic, having them evaluate it with a larger purpose lets them tailor the facts they know. By sorting what they know into what fits and what doesn't, they analyse information and are working with a purpose. Similarly to many of you, its frustrating for me to read about the hours of teacher training and the paradigm shift that are recommended to make this transition, given the hours teachers already work (often in overcrowded schools) and the testing culture they work in. I never took AP Bio, but I only ever saw this kind of conceptual-motivated thinking enforced in AP English, where I had to fit literary techniques into an argument about an author's purpose or a larger theme and AP History classes, where adapting time periods, documents, or known information into essays that closely align with the the conceptual questions on page 185. That said, though I learned it, most students do not take AP.  Even among students who do take AP, many only take it in some subjects. I was not about to subject myself to the rigors of AP Bio, so I never learned science this way. While the ability to think may be there, it's never applied across all curriculums.--Noren Bonner

Erickson is very clearly an advocate for teaching the teachers. Something I heard Dr. Schimmoeller say early on in this program was echoing in my mind as I read this chapter, “We teach how we’ve been taught.” Erickson directly addresses this topic under her subheading //Paradigm Shifts for Teachers.// There was a common theme I noticed in this line of tradition, a disconnect—communication breakdown. Erickson writes that the developers of past concept-based curriculums assumed that teachers had the “requisite conceptual background to understand the pedagogy and program goals” to implement these strategies; and in turn some teachers assume that “conceptual thinking, as well as creative, critical, and reflective thinking are a byproduct of factual learning.” I think these assumptions could at least be cut in half if teachers were properly instructed and supported to grow in their professions as Erickson suggests. Students, just as Erickson points out that teachers do, need to be taught how to be idea-centered rather than concerned with fact cramming; that transferring concepts is possible as well as encouraged; the relationship between facts and concepts is active; how to engage in the process of knowing, understanding and doing; how to make connections between prior knowledge and new knowledge; and how to make learning meaningful for themselves. On page 176 the author writes, “I now understand the following with great clarity…Humans are uniquely intellectual animals, distinguished from other animals by their refined ability to think and find joy in thinking.” On this note, I’d like to add that learning and thinking should never be forms of punishment in education. If we want to foster a generation of “thinking citizens,” as James put it, who want to prosper and grow, then assigning more homework or demanding busy work in lieu of recess as a means of behavior management is not going to nurture that sentiment. I also appreciated how Erickson clearly outlined what concept based instruction consists of—I have had similar concerns regarding Helen’s comments about needing to impart facts as a means of understanding the concepts. Understanding how the machine works is only possible if you know what it does and what it’s made of. Concept maps are an incredible way to highlight and expand upon this relationship. Erickson’s charts on page 181 would be an effective tool to provide for all students, but especially those who may not understand how everything fits together. Alper’s chapter two was a consistent and reinforcing partner to Erickson’s chapter seven. Having at least a foundational understanding of how our minds work will undoubtedly help us, as teachers, better understand our students thinking processes and thus be better teachers—I agree with Caitlin. Sequential and hierarchical thinking processes align with Erickson’s synergy between the factual and conceptual. How our brains file information is an integral part of learning. Because our brains are always seeking out connections and relationships it seems only natural that we would visually organize the information the way our minds organize it. I am also particularly fascinated with the concept of transfer. Throughout my entire educational career as a student, a counselor, and a teacher—I don’t see enough of this. As Caitlin pointed out, information without the ability to use it is worthless. Meaningful opportunities to practice new knowledge are vital to real learning, especially in school. If a student had to make a concept map of all the new information he/she learned that day, all of the subjects should connect to all of the other subjects and the subjects should connect to real life experiences. If not, what is the point of school? And that question, in high school most noticeably, is profound, frequent and relevant. **​--Holly L. Tucker**