Gradual Release of Responsibility- Learning or Not learning at school.

 

The Gradual Release of Responsibility Instructional Framework

 

The following text reproduced from website here

The gradual release of responsibility instructional framework purposefully shifts the cognitive load from teacher-as-model, to joint responsibility of teacher and learner, to independent practice and application by the learner (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). It stipulates that the teacher moves from assuming “all the responsibility for performing a task … to a situation in which the students assume all of the responsibility” (Duke & Pearson, 2002, p. 211). This gradual release may occur over a day, a week, a month, or a year. Graves and Fitzgerald (2003) note that “effective instruction often follows a progression in which teachers gradually do less of the work and students gradually assume increased responsibility for their learning. It is through this process of gradually assuming more and more responsibility for their learning that students become competent, independent learners” (p. 98).

The gradual release of responsibility framework, originally developed for reading instruction, reflects the intersection of several theories, including

  • Piaget’s (1952) work on cognitive structures and schemata
  • Vygotsky’s (1962, 1978) work on zones of proximal development
  • Bandura’s (1965) work on attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation
  • Wood, Bruner, and Ross’s (1976) work on scaffolded instruction

Taken together, these theories suggest that learning occurs through interactions with others; when these interactions are intentional, specific learning occurs.

Unfortunately, most current efforts to implement the gradual release of responsibility framework limit these interactions to adult and child exchanges: I do it; we do it together; you do it. But this three-phase model omits a truly vital component: students learning through collaboration with their peers—the you do it together phase. Although the effectiveness of peer learning has been demonstrated with English language learners (Zhang & Dougherty Stahl, 2011), students with disabilities (Grenier, Dyson, & Yeaton, 2005), and learners identified as gifted (Patrick, Bangel, & Jeon, 2005), it has typically been examined as a singular practice, isolated from the overall instructional design of the lesson. A more complete implementation model for the gradual release of responsibility recognizes the recursive nature of learning and has teachers cycle purposefully through purpose setting and guided instruction, collaborative learning, and independent experiences. In Figure 1.1, we map out these phases of learning, indicating the share of responsibility that students and teachers have in each.

Figure 1.1. A Structure for Instruction That Works

We are not suggesting that every lesson must always start with focused instruction (goal setting and modeling) before progressing to guided instruction, then to collaborative learning, and finally to independent tasks (Grant, Lapp, Fisher, Johnson, & Frey, 2012). Teachers often reorder the phases—for example, begin a lesson with an independent task, such as bellwork or a quick-write, or engage students in collaborative peer inquiry prior to providing teacher modeling.

 

 

Further references here

https://macmillanmh.com/connectED/mkt/HTMLFiles/pdf/douglas_fisher.pdf

https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/gradual-release-of-responsibility#

 

 

Look Busy and get ready for the Fourth Industrial Revolution

From https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/what-is-the-fourth-industrial-revolution

Written by

Nicholas Davis Head of Society and Innovation, World Economic Forum
Published
Tuesday 19 January 2016

fourth

Are the technologies that surround us tools that we can identify, grasp and consciously use to improve our lives? Or are they more than that: powerful objects and enablers that influence our perception of the world, change our behaviour and affect what it means to be human?

Technologies are emerging and affecting our lives in ways that indicate we are at the beginning of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, a new era that builds and extends the impact of digitization in new and unanticipated ways. It is therefore worthwhile taking some time to consider exactly what kind of shifts we are experiencing and how we might, collectively and individually, ensure that it creates benefits for the many, rather than the few.

 

When were the other industrial revolutions?

The First Industrial Revolution is widely taken to be the shift from our reliance on animals, human effort and biomass as primary sources of energy to the use of fossil fuels and the mechanical power this enabled. The Second Industrial Revolution occurred between the end of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century, and brought major breakthroughs in the form of electricity distribution, both wireless and wired communication, the synthesis of ammonia and new forms of power generation. The Third Industrial Revolution began in the 1950s with the development of digital systems, communication and rapid advances in computing power, which have enabled new ways of generating, processing and sharing information.

navigating

 

read the remainder here

Sex, Beer and Violence: The New Basics?

From the New Philosopher, Summer 2016 http://www.newphilosopher.com

philosophy

How important is formal education for a child’s development? Apparently a lot, if you consider the amount spent on sending children to private schools.

In Britain, private schoolingfor 14 years costs parents up to (USD$400,000) per child, according to the Centre for Economics and Business Research. Educating a child in an Australian private school costs much the same (USD$411,OOO); in the US or Canada tuition fees for one child will add up to around USD$300,000.

It’s clear that private schooling today is a hefty outlay, even for the rich.

But the type of instruction children receive during the day is playing a less significant role in their overall education, according to statistics from Nielsen.

The research firm reports that while children in the US spend 900 hours a year immersed in the school curriculum, a total of 2,500 hours each year are spent studying the media curriculum — including 1,500 hours examining the television. In other words, the media is by far the leading educator of children today.

The media’s standardised content does not discriminate between rich and poor, giving all children an equal start in life. For instance, by the time the average child finishes primary school they will have watched over 8,000 murders on television. By age 18, thanks to media school, a young adult will have witnessed 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence.

In addition to murders, another compulsory subject for children is sex. Two out of three television shows include sexual content, and over 58 per cent of youths aged 14 to 17 report having seen a pornographic website. “Between the ages of three and eighteen, the average American youngster will see about 500,000 television commercials, which means that the television commercial is the single most substantial source of values to which the young are exposed,” writes Neil Postman in The End of Education. Washington University notes that 100,000 of these advertisements watched by US teens are likely to be advertisements for beer.

So it seems that alcohol, sex, and murder are the subject majors for children studying the media curriculum.

Before the advent of television and the Internet, violence, drug abuse, murder, and random sex acts were witnessed only by children of the unfortunate few.

Today, all children major in these topics — regardless of how their parents bring them up or how much of the family fortune is invested in school fees.

O

 

Standards for Online Professional Development

professional-development
Guidelines for Planning and Evaluating Online Professional Development Courses and Programs
Teachers need high-quality professional development to help their students meet states’ new academic standards and to meet the goal of having a high-quality teacher in every classroom. Online instruction provides teachers with quality professional development through “anytime, anywhere” access to courses and workshops.
While there is a wealth of information in the literature about what is required to provide quality professional development, the use of new technologies to provide teachers with access to quality online professional development is new. Building on the research regarding traditional, face-to-face professional development, online professional development affords teachers, schools and states opportunities never before available. These Standards for Online Professional Development have been developed to help schools and states as they begin to use the Internet to provide teachers with much needed professional development.
The Standards for Staff Development document by the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) provides widely accepted and highly regarded standards for professional development. While these standards were developed with face-to-face professional development in mind, they also reflect important aspects of quality professional development, regardless of how it is provided. This document expands NSDC standards to include important issues and topics unique to online learning.

Full article here

The SREB Multi-State Online Professional Development (MOPD) initiative wishes to acknowledge and thank the National Staff Development Council for its support and assistance in the development of these standards. The standards were developed with the assistance of the SREB states’ departments of education, Educational Development Center Inc., National Staff Development Council and SouthEast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SEIR*TEC).

 

 

 

http://publications.sreb.org/2004/04T04-Standards_Online_Prof_Dev.pdf

Looking back to move forward: A process for whole-school transformation

By Mark Sparvell for the Microsoft in Education BLOG

Today’s schools are faced with extraordinary challenges and opportunities. Chief among these opportunities is the chance to rethink and reinvent education to support our most valuable asset: our youth.

Navigating the ever-changing world of school transformation, with the goal of improvement, requires understanding what must change and perhaps even more critically, how to best implement change.

As part of Microsoft’s mission to empower every educator and every student to achieve more, we have outlined both a framework and process to effectively help school leaders create whole school transformation. The Microsoft Education Transformation Process is a proven, comprehensive process that can help fast track system-wide transformation by summarizing decades of quality research.

The Microsoft Education Transformation Framework

The Microsoft Education Transformation Framework identifies ten critical components of transformation to plan and implement change, and is supported by a comprehensive reference library of research findings, case studies and best practice examples.

Microsoft has worked with leading academics to developed a series of whitepapers which show examples of successful transformation and how technology can enable progress under two broad areas: Leadership and policy and 21st century pedagogy. You can use these white papers to define your scope and open a discussion with stakeholder.

Microsoft Education Transformation Framework poster iconView the Education Transformation Framework poster

Read the full article here

What Leadership and Frogger have in common

frogger

Friends- this is a first draft – feel free to leave comments and help me shape something better

Little did I realize that when I first played Frogger as a 15 year old, I was being imprinted with valuable lessons about leadership.

Frogger (フロッガー) is a 1981 arcade game developed by Konami and licensed for North American distribution by Sega-Gremlin.

As a rookie, you focus on the goal directly in-front of you, wait for the first obvious gap and then dash wildly ahead towards that goal…we all know how that goes. Remember, a mistake is only an error if you keep doing it.

Many folk then play the ‘lining up the ducks’ or in this case moving traffic, they scoot up and down the roadside watching patterns, looking for predictable behaviors and trying to force rules of logic on elements which are randomly generated. Those floating and sinking crocks don’t float and sink at the same time or rate…they’re random.

I love it when someone has made the wrong call, moved in front of a truck but refuses to accept this and continues to run, one step in front of the truck until they are inevitably squashed. Sometimes stepping back is ok providing its to allow you to move forward….there’s a timer running in the game for those special people who like to play safe.

Then there are those who love there nerve right at the end after they have navigating the logs, the crocs and the cars. All they have to do is close the deal but they hesitate, they doubt their ability, their timing, their progress and they hit the wall.

The winners, well, they read the conditions. They know the predictable and accept the unpredictable making adjustments (sometimes strategically withdrawing, sometimes pushing ahead earlier) to minimize the harm. The champs know when to rest a moment and take a ride using the momentum, when to restore and they do not lose their nerve when success is inevitable.

The winner see’s a screen of opportunities with multiple moving pathways to the insect cave, the others see a pathway filled with obstacles to overcome.

The loser sees life as avoiding Game Over

The winner sees life as finding Game On.

. Oh you can play an online unauthorized version at www.frogger.net just incase you need something to distract you.

 

Why Well Intentioned Online Communities of Practice Fail

banner_online_community

 

Well intentioned Online Communities of Practice often fail because;

  1. They are created with good intentions but vague intent.
  2. They are created without any idea of learning theory or how people learn in a socialized context
  3. Participants are not provided with induction to this online worksite
  4. Roles are vague, variable or simply not visible
  5. Technical friction results in critical masses not engaged