The second project originated in Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, LDT 527. The artifact synchronizes serious learning objectives using technology with a constructivist epistemology (Bransford, 2000) and an engaging student-centered approach (Land, S., et.al., (2012). The Constructivist aspect of building new knowledge structured on the foundations of prior knowledge (Bransford, 2000) stems from students’ familiarity with the songs they choose to analyze. My design choice is also student-centered that empowers students to bring their interests into the learning environment to share their expertise and insight into the lyrics. Language learning goals are fulfilled by focusing on the semantics of idioms. My overall approach satisfies the trifecta of melding learning theory, technology integration, and content objectives using state and international standards.
This five-day sequence of lessons is my preferred exemplar of implementing technology to a maximal amount: the applications are explicitly supported and are utilized to facilitate learning without overwhelming my learners. Iteration of this blueprint design and the process applied throughout this course made this artifact possible and demonstrates additional valuable skills acquired. I reaped benefits from adapting the order of main process components through the review of notes, lesson plan editing, and choosing a framework early to ensure all these elements could be synthesized practically. I made salient strides due to the iterative design process combined with the theoretical foundations of this course.
Web version below, APA formatted document can be viewed in One Drive.
Learning Communities, Blueprint Four – Learning, Design, Technology 527
Daniel Justice
Part One Abstract
This Constructionist blueprint focuses on principles of Problem-Based Learning and Collaborative Knowledge Construction. This is the focus because problem-based, “Projects are widely used in … English classes.” (Krajcik, et. Al., 1999) and in part to satiate the present needs for collaborative learning, “we must consider how to reorganize our instruction around social, cooperative principles, including user contributed content and emergent learning goals.” (Slotta, Najafi, 2013). The overarching aim of the teaching context is to improve use of English for speakers of other languages including fluency, vocabulary, pronunciation, reading, writing, speaking, and listening. This blueprint introduces; a week-long collaboration project with a culminating online publication of students’ analysis; their community formed knowledge; and creation of a Web 2.0 artifact infused with students’ ability in English as a non-dominant language.
Topic
Students will analyze, interpret, and discuss lyrics from songs of their choosing which originate from their culture and language. The majority of students enjoy music in their dominant language, this project was created to add English translation of lyrics, including idioms and expressions, to a Web 2.0 platform. One exemplar is Space2Cre8 (http://www.space2cre8.com/), a password-protected site for 7–12th grade students in multiple countries, the students can collaborate with their local peers and international friends to create and exchange ideas and digital artifacts (Greenhow, Li 2013).
Students are tasked with finding a song they like which lacks an English lyric sheet, work with their group and entire class in multiple iterations, then post the lyrics online for the internet audience. In small groups students will share ideas and interpretations, share these ideas with classmates to further discuss and vet any confusing translation, and finally publish online where their artifact serves a functional purpose and additional discussion may continue. The meaning of metaphors, expressions, and idioms don’t translate accurately when using language software and this activity is designed to further students’ independent understanding of vocabulary to a semantic degree.
Educational Context
Role – public high school teacher of English to speakers of other languages, grades 9-12
Student Population – upper intermediate, non-native students of English age 15-18
Learning Environment – in-person daily classroom instruction and communicative teacher-student lesson activities with student collaborative group discussion in and out of the classroom. Flipped classroom activities include synchronous group dialog as homework.
Unit of Study – one textbook chapter in the second semester on improving students’ ability to analyze a text including idioms, metaphors, and verbal expressions.
Technology – personal smartphones, classroom computers, a Web 2.0 video hosting site, classroom display monitor/projection for in-class discussion of idioms and final presentation.
Education Standards – Core ELD Standards 9-12, Pennsylvania Department of Education
Standard 2. English language learners communicate information, ideas, and concepts necessary for academic success in the content area of LANGUAGE ARTS.
Learners will be interlocutors with the teacher and various peers through these activities while using English speech, listening, reading and writing lyrics and analysis.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages provides details of learning:
Interpersonal – Learners interact and negotiate meaning in spoken, signed, or written conversations to share information, reactions, feelings, and opinions. (example: performed during discussion with their own 2-4 student team)
Interpretive – Learners understand, interpret, and analyze what is heard, read, or viewed on a variety of topics. (example: demonstrated by listening to verbal directions regarding technology)
Presentational – Learners present information, concepts, and ideas to inform, explain, persuade, and narrate on a variety of topics using appropriate media and adapting to various audiences of listeners, readers, or viewers. (example: verbally present the final analysis of the lyrics in class)
Figure 4.1 Screenshot of a Web 2.0 video hosting platform
Part Two: Design Components
Learning Objectives
- Students will be able to use appropriate software applications to expand analysis
- Students will be able to translate lyrics into English with appropriate applications
- Students will be able to identify idioms, expressions, and metaphors
- Student groups will discuss lyrics and build consensus of the artists’ intended meaning
- Students will present their consensus to the class and publish an artifact on a Web platform
Community Learning Design
The structure of the learning community is a high school classroom which meets face-to-face daily to improve English as a non-native language skills. Classroom content is presented by the instructor and textbook. Daily activities include practicing English speaking, listening, reading, and writing in the forms of call-and-response group activities, calling on individual students to answer questions verbally, writing activities, workbook activities, workbook, online activities like asynchronous discussion, and homework assignments. The average focal learning community is each class section ranging from 20-25 students. For this sequence of lessons, the learning community will expand to the internet. This design also meets three of the four fundamental dimensions of Inquiry-Oriented Knowledge Communities (Slotta & Najafi, 2010) by: developing a shared knowledge base of English vocabulary in musical context, participation in communities of practice (YouTube has innumerable users contributing to translating lyrics), and advancing community knowledge through discussion and mutual understanding reached.
Greenhow and Li quoted fellow researchers’ writing, “that social media practices can facilitate new forms of collaborative knowledge construction” (Greenhow, Li 2013). Multiple iterations of collaboration are afforded by this design; first in small groups of 2-4, later with the whole class groups of 15-25, alternative iterations could meld sections to expand the community of knowledge to 30-50 students, and ultimately the community can be expanded to the world wide web. This design was built upon and assures a Knowledge Community and Inquiry by relying on various classmates, multiple days of collaborative work, and students externalizing original ideas (Slotta, Najafi 2013).
At the end of the formal in-class presentation, the learning can continue as the artifact exists online and may engage additional students’ interest and comments. Depending on the site chosen to host the artifact will have an effect on the extent of the potential size of the learning community. Possible interaction is likely to take the form of public comments, questions, challenges to word choices, or confirmation of work done well. (see figure 4.2 below). This interaction is supported by Situated Learning Theory, “that learning is located in contexts, relationships, and communities of practice and is mediated by artifacts over time” (Wenger, 1998)
Figure 4.2 Screenshot of comments section from a Web 2.0 video hosting platform
Pedagogy
According to Bielaczyc and Collins, learning communities’ activities support independent learning, collaborative understanding being built, sharing knowledge and skills, making the learning process visible and articulate, and utilizing technology to share. Following are examples which correspond to the sequence of lessons found in the next section of this blueprint.
(a) independent learning, collaborative understanding being built – For example, the homework at the end of day two tasks students with identifying complex lexis and writing notes to bring to the next class discussion. The remaining three days focus on group collaboration where students will be encouraged to continue to present their own idea as a contributor to the discussion and vetting processes.
(b) sharing knowledge and skills – students will share their perspectives and expertise within their groups during days two and three, groups share their collective knowledge with the entire class on day four, and ultimately present the polished ideas with the class and internet on day five.
(c) making the learning process visible and articulate – student learning will be visible through their homework assignments and their final artifact. Instructors will also be able to make notes of groups’ learning during group and class discussion on days two, three, and four.
(d) utilizing technology to share – learners will be using online dictionaries resources during the analysis, research, and vetting phases as well as Web 2.0 technology to upload and publish their artifact at the end of the sequence.
Lesson Sequence: Song Lyrics Analysis
| Day I: English Vocabulary – Web 2.0 Technology Tools
Objective 1. Students will be able to use appropriate software applications to expand analysis |
| Homework
Students complete a lexis reading assignment and introductory music hosting platform navigation quiz assigned to be completed individually prior to class meeting. In-Class Session (60 min.) [Teacher and students, peer interaction] Students apply vocabulary in activity and field questions about introductory navigation exercise (5 min.) Teacher presents concise demonstration for using Web 2.0 technology while students perform demonstration activities on personal classroom computers (5 min.) Teacher asks CCQ’s, identifies comprehension issues, provides additional support (5 min.) Give class feedback, students take notes about further practice and troubleshooting (5 min.) Describe collaborative homework instructions, ask CCQ’s to check understanding (5 min.) Students groups [2-4] formed and noted by the teacher (5 min.) Students work on choosing a song with group consensus (20 min.) Teacher circulates and facilitates song selection process. (10 min.) |
| Collaborative Homework
Student groups discuss and reach agreement about which song to analyze, then submit artist and title link to instructor. |
| Day 2: Using an Online Dictionary
Objective 1. Students will be able to use appropriate software applications to expand analysis Objective 2. Students will be able to translate lyrics into English with appropriate applications |
| In-Class Session: (60 min.) [2-4 student per group]
Teacher presents a demonstration using an online dictionary (Websters, Cambridge) while students perform demonstration activity (5 min.) Teacher presents a demonstration of misusing online applications (Google Translate) to interpret sentences and paragraphs while students perform example activity (5 min.) Teacher asks CCQ’s, identifies comprehension issues, provides additional support (5 min.) Give class feedback, students take notes of best dictionary practices (5 min.) Teacher describe collaborative homework instructions, ask CCQ’s to check understanding (5 min.) Students groups [2-4] begin discussing translation of their chosen song (20 min.) Teacher circulates and facilitates song translation process. (10 min.) Student groups begin to create their group translation of the lyrics with Google Docs which allows the teacher and each group member access to collaborative understanding (10 min.) Homework (60 -90 minutes) Students work independently to identify and decipher complex lexis. |
| Day 3: Idioms, Expressions, and Metaphors
Objective 3. Students will be able to identify idioms, expressions, and metaphors Objective 4. Student groups will discuss lyrics and build consensus of the artists’ intended meaning |
| In-Class Session: (60 min.) [2-4 student per group]
Student groups discuss problematic lexis (10 min.) Teacher instructs groups, coordinates pairing of groups [4-8 student per group], move groups and begin to present the song and first draft translation (10 min.) Student groups present and discuss initial translations in turn (10 min.) Teacher circulates during the presentation, facilitates discussions, creates notes for feedback. Feedback: (10 min.) [Peer to peer, Teacher to class] Students ask and answer questions about presentations, give constructive feedback (5 min.) Teacher shares formative presentation feedback, common errors and strengths. (5 min.) Teacher delivers instructions for improving translations and completing the second draft (5 min.) Students ask questions regarding the second draft and coordinate with team (5 min.) |
| Collaborative Homework: Discuss, Refine, Create: (3 or more hours) [Student groups]
Students work with groups to refine translation and create the second draft translation. Share findings with the team, decide revisions needed. Create a 5 to 7-minute oral presentation of difficult lyrical lexis. |
| Day 4: Analysis Discussion with Class
Objective 4. Student groups will discuss lyrics and build consensus of the artists’ intended meaning |
| Whole class discussions aid vetting process with 15-25 students contributing to group Knowledge Building (Scardamalia, Bereiter, 1996) for each song |
| Day 5: Final Presentation of Artifact
Objective 5. Students will present their consensus to the class and publish an artifact on a public Web platform
|
| Student groups present their final draft translation and final video artifact which pairs the text with audio and or video of the song on an online platform. |
Reflection
Being the final project and expecting myself to synthesize as much theory as possible led to overcomplicating the project which was the biggest challenge. This design is an adaptation of blueprint 3 but the technology use was greatly fortified compared to sparsely planned technology in the Constructivist Blueprint 3. Blueprint 4 relies heavily on technology for using an appropriate dictionary rather than translation software for complete sentences, paragraphs, and texts and sharing the artifact online upon completion of the sequence. The order of headers conforms to requirements listed in the instructions for this assignment. I felt it is best to be conservative with design decisions versus earlier experimental blueprints.
My Blueprint Design Process presented in the previous reflection came in handy this round. I noticed benefits from adapting the order of main process components like utilizing review of notes, lesson plan editing, and choosing a framework early to ensure all could be synthesized practically. After that initial phase was complete, I worked sequentially from the beginning of the outline provided by Dr. Land and worked down the list, reviewed writing and repeated the process from beginning to end conforming all details and goals. A number of aspects of this blueprint went more smoothly than the previous three designs. It is likely that the experience gained in the past few months made this final attempt flow more efficiently.
References
(2019). Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-
learning-languages/standards-summary.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning Communities in Classrooms: Advancing
Knowledge for a Lifetime. NASSP Bulletin, 83(604), 4–10. doi:
10.1177/019263659908360402
Greenhow, C., & Li, J. (2013). Like, comment, share: Collaboration and civic engagement
within social network sites. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for
the classroom: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and
performance technologies (pp.127–141). New York, NY:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_9
Standards for English Language Development, July, 2017 Pennsylvania Department of
Education
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Student communities for the advancement of
knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 36–37. doi: 10.1145/227210.227220
Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Supporting collaborative knowledge construction with Web
2.0 technologies. In C. Mouza & N. Lavigne (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the
classroom: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance
technologies (pp. 93–112). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4614-4696-5_7
YouTube. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coy8Hoa1DNw.
Next: Project 3