Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mcs technology presentation slide show
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Mcs technology presentation slide show


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Using Web 2.0 Tools to Enhance Student Creativity in the Reading/Language Arts Block Memphis City Schools Technology Conference Memphis, TN Dr. Megan Salemi & Lori Carter December 8-9, 2011
  • 2. Introduction
    • Achievement gaps among different groups of students have haunted reformers searching for equal educational opportunities for all students (Kozol, 1991; Hilliard, 2000; Lomax, West, Harmon, Viator, & Madaus, 1995).
      • Intelligence and achievement (Hilliard, 2003; Lomax, et al., 1994).
      • The No Child Left Behind Act
  • 3. Introduction (cont.)
    • Teachers are often faced with a conflict between learners ’ needs and state mandated requirements (Brimijoin, 2005).
      • “ High-stakes” standardized testing hinders teachers’ ability to use the best instructional strategies (Hurren, Rutledge, & Garvin, 2006; Caughy & O’Campo, 2006; Hilliard, 2003).
      • Brain-based learning (Chavez-Eakle, Graff- Guerroro, Vaugier, & Cruz-Fuentes, 2007; Douville, 2004; Jitendra, Sczesniak, & Deatline-Buchman, 2005).
  • 4. Traditional versus Nontraditional Instructional Practices
    • Educators desiring more for their students than a proficiency score are viewed as nontraditional thinkers in the current direction of educational policy (Doherty & Hilberg, 2007).
      • The repercussions associated with not meeting NCLB requirements reinforce instructional practices that increase students ’ scores on the yearly summative assessment (Liston, Whitcomb, & Borko, 2007; McMillian, 2003).
    • Language and discussion reflect a significant portion of student achievement (Vygotsky, 1978; Graves, 2007).
  • 5. The Need for Creativity and Vocabulary Instruction
    • Complexity aids students ’ comprehension (Williamson, Bondy, Langly, & Mayne, 2005; Hurren, et al., 2006).
      • Creative production involves fluency, originality, and elaboration of ideas (Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Wu & Chiou, 2008).
      • Fluency, originality, and elaboration are necessary for vocabulary development (Graves, 2007).
    • Variety of contexts aids students ’ comprehension (National Research Council [NRC], 2000, p. 51-78).
  • 6. Creativity
    • Creativity provides a framework that could serve as a way to impact student achievement on a summative assessment while also attending to the learner ’s educational needs regardless of race or socioeconomic background (Ford, Moore, & Milner, 2005; Tieso, 2005; Respress & Lutfi, 2006).
    • The combination of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration have become widely accepted as one way of defining and measuring creativity (Wang & Horng, 2002; Russo, 2004; Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005; Matud, Rodriguez, & Grande, 2007).
  • 7. Vocabulary
    • Vocabulary plays a central role in high achievement on standardized assessments (Manzo, Manzo, & Thomas, 2006; Barry, Heubsch, & Burhop, 2008; Parcel & Geschwender, 1995).
    • Learning reorganizes neural networks and structure (NRC, 2000).
  • 8. Creative Thinking Instruction
    • Creativity provides complexity (Mashal, Faust, Hendler, Jung-Beeman, 2007; Grabner, Fink, Neubauer, 2007; Abraham & Windmann, 2007).
      • The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974; Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, & Bandalos, 2005).
      • Martindale ’s (1978) findings that creativity is multi-faceted brain activity and not a fixed individual trait (Albrecht, 2002; El-Murad & West, 2004).
    • Instruction through a creative brain-based approach (Treffinger, et al., 2003a; Treffinger, et al., 2003b; Treffinger, et al., 2003c; Tate, 2003).
  • 9. Creative Thinking Instruction (cont.)
    • It has been difficult for educators to widely, effectively implement creativity instruction in educational settings (Plucker & Runco, 1998).
      • Narrowly focused studies (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
      • Individual differences in creative productions (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
      • Can creativity be taught?
    • Creative Problem Solving (Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005).
  • 10. Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration
    • Divergent thinking can be described through fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration.
      • Fluency = total number of responses given
      • Flexibility = ability to switch quickly between different ideas
      • Originality = total number of responses that are statistically different from a group
      • Elaboration = the number of problems found given a context (Osborn, 1963; Treffinger, et al., 2006).
      • IQ scores accounted for only 9% of the variance in creative achievement (Cramond, et al., 2005).
  • 11. Vocabulary Development with Creativity
    • Language learning utilizes different parts of the brain (Jincho, et al., 2008; Mills, et al., 2004).
    • Vocabulary has been termed as the “middle ground in learning to read” (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, p. 1).
      • This is especially true for struggling readers (Braze, et al., 2007).
    • Poor readers in third through fifth grade increased word recognition skills significantly through higher order language learning (Gaskins, et al., 1988).