Sept. 26 Post - Instructional Software

I did not really realize the differences between Drill and Practice software and Tutorial software, so I spent some time focusing on this information from chapter 3.
Here's what I learned. . . .

According to our text, Drill and Practice software is "the most maligned of the software activities." I would have agreed before looking at how to better integrate this kind of software into my teaching. The reason this type of software is so maligned is that it is so misused. The function of drill and practice software is not instruction, but PRACTICE. If used in this way, this type of software has many benefits including opportunity for the effective practice students need to retain new learning, immediate feedback, motivation, and saving teacher time. If teachers use drill and practice software in place of worksheets and/or homework assignments and to help students prepare for tests, they can be of great benefit for students. This type of software doesn't really lend itself toward the constructivist theory of teaching, but it would be helpful in helping teachers meet the student testing standards imposed by No Child Left Behind.

Tutorial Software is a self-contained unit of instruction rather than a supplement to instruction. Students use the software to learn the material without any other help or materials. Most of this type of software is geared toward older students and adults who read well. There are not many good tutorial software programs available because it is so difficult and expensive to design and develop. Criteria for selecting good tutorial software from what is available include programs that
1)require lots of student interaction, 2)allow students to control the rate text appears on the screen and review already viewed material, 3)are able to provide appropriate feedback to short answer responses by students and provide opportunity to try again, and 4)provide good record-keeping and progress reports for the teacher. Tutorial software can be integrated into teaching by providing self-paced reviews of instruction for remediation and independent learning for advanced students.

September 12 post

I agree with the author of our textbook that both constructivist and objectivist approaches to education are necessary to best serve learners and teachers. My tendency would be toward the more cooperative and creative approach that focuses on learning to learn and is more natrally motivating to students. But, in today's world of teacher accountability and student testing, an emphasis must be placed on direct instruction where required skills are systematically taught.
Technology can be helpful in making a merger of constructivist and objectivist teaching happen in the classroom. Students develop specific skills through drill-and-practice, instructional games, and tutorials as a part of objectivist learning activities. Multimedia technology and simulation software are best suited for helping students and teachers work cooperatively and creatively in constructivist learning activities and experiences. Technology can also be supportive of either model by creating motivation to learn, making the most of limited personnel and resources, removing physical/logistical barriers to learning, and developing information literacy and visual literacy skills. The text looks to the work of Tennyson (1990) as a guide to dividing time between objectivist and constructivist teaching. He suggests that about 30% of learning time should be spent in direct instruction of skills and procedures and about 70% be spent on the "employment of knowledge (contextual skills, cognitive strategies, and creative processes)".