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

203
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
203
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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).