2. I think the perception of drill-and-practice as a "drill-and-kill" activity derives from its use for test preparation, particularly for state-mandated standardized testing. They might actually have some real education value but they're not going to provide gains, if their sole purpose is to teach to the test (Greene).
As Mary Brabeck notes, drill-and-practice activities are effective when they are actually acting as practice. When the activities are building up skills and initiating automaticity, they not only benefit students but can increase motivation and interest. But if the tasks are too difficult or too easy or have too much repetition, then students will tune out and not care (Brabeck).
Teaching to the test, particularly with drill-and-practice activities, is an issue because it avoids chunking. It hits a students with all the information at once, rather than building their understanding step-by-step and part-by-part (Brabeck).
Ch. 3 Technology Application Activity:
1. Can Do With Simulation: Read about how to dissect a frog, and test your knowledge of dissection on an image of a frog.
Can't Do With Simulation: Experience what it's like while dissect a frog: the noises as you use a scalpel, the smell of the frog as you start opening up the body, the physical exertion required to successfully to dissect the frog.
2. The Net Frog is a pretty underwhelming simulator. If I were going to simulate dissection, I would want to have an actual scalpel that I could move across the body of the frog (may be a simulation that works with a tablet so that it increases the realism of the act). Just pointing at the location of where some incisions are supposed to take place really doesn't do justice to the experience.
I remember dissecting a frog in Biology in 10th grade. It was a strange experience. When you get to the portion of the dissection of the bone and you hear that crunching sound, it's disgusting and disturbing and weird, and it's all unlike anything you've ever done before. I don't think the simulation gets at this. It is a very direct integration strategy approach, doling out information carefully like a textbook but not fully engaging the student creatively.
The images of the organs begin to get at this. They're a little disgusting to look at. But I'm not sure that they fully get at the experience. However, they might just scare away a few students from ever wanting to dissect a frog for real.
3. My analysis in the previous question suggests that a "hands on" dissection would be far more appropriate for a simulation. I'd barely call what Net Frog is a simulation. There is very little actual simulation of the act of dissecting a frog. There is diagramming and there is explaining, but very little simulating.
May be this would be a nice introduction prior to doing an actual dissection. It does a nice job of breaking down the steps for performing the task and preparing you for a future dissection. But to me, a simulation would be at its best when it became its own form of instruction. Simulations should mirror real world scenarios and connect content and problem solving to the real world. The U.S. Constitution activity described in Roblyer was one that I thought sounded pretty cool; that's the sort of activity I'm interested in (Roblyer, 85, 96).
References:
Brabeck, M., Jeffrey, J., & Fry, S. (2016). Practice for Knowledge Acquisition (Not
Drill and Kill): Designing
activities with the goal of transferring knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/education/k12/practice-acquisition.aspx
(June 29, 2016).
Greene, J. (Dec. 13, 2010). False Claim on Drill and Kill. Retrieved from: http://educationnext.org/false-claim-on-drill-and-kill/
(June 29, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment