So many learning theories... So little time...

Educators often hear of the term “schema” used to reference the ideas stored in the learner’s repertoire and brought to the learning experience.   

Schema can be simple, mental connections

Or complex, mental diagrams

Bartlett (1932, 1958), the theorist credited with the development of schema theory, posits that information is stored in a framework of understanding whereby new meaning is related for interpretation, storage, and retrieval.  

Interestingly, schema does not require accurate and factual recall of details, but rather features thematic patterns whereby old information influences the understanding of new information (Bartlett, 1932, 1958).   

Although a cognitivism theory, schema theory was presented in a time when behaviorist theories held popularity, causing the schema theory to fall from consideration (Markel, 2014).  Remelhart (1980) identified a significant weakness in the theory when he exposed a variance in the definition of schema/schemata.  His work used the term interchangeably to refer to both the representation of knowledge as well as a structure for organizing and storing information in memory (Remelhart, 1980).   

As original schema theory intended to bridge old information with new information (Bartlett, 1932, 1958), using the term to represent knowledge fails to make the appropriate connections specific to a mental framework.  Richard Anderson (1977) worked to iron out these issues and bring schema theory to an educational context by applying the concept to reading.  He suggested that schema theory employs a top-down approach to constructing knowledge from text (Anderson, 1977).  

In a broader sense, schema theory provides educators with an understanding of how learners come to the instructional setting with an existing structure of old knowledge that impacts the acquisition, organization, and understanding of new knowledge (Markel, 2014).

So let's put this into practice... If schema refers to the mental connections made by the learner to connect new learning with old learning (Bartlett, 1932, 1958), take a look at this image.  What is the FIRST thing that you see?

Do you see an elderly couple?  A guitar-playing duet? A curious young lady? A priceless goblet? Something else?  Chances are good that what you see and the order you see the images is directly related your personal schema and, more specifically, the retrieval process your brain has set up.

Let's try something else.  

Now, using personality tests such as the one above does not tend to yield particularly useful information.  Schmidt and Hunter (1998) found that personality tests were one of the least reliable factors with a validity coefficient of .22 when attempting to predict effective job performance.

Instead, within the scope of instructional design, schema theory can be applied in many areas to assist with memory creation and retrieval (Pappas, 2014).  

Schmidt (1975) explored the use of schema theory in relation to the acquisition of motor skills.  He determined that our ability move in set patterns in response to a situation is related to three factors: a consistent program of motor movement, schema to recall and apply the movement needed based on situational awareness, and schema to recognize mistakes made in the process (Schmidt, 1975).

For a more instructional example, consider the role of schema in reading comprehension ability.  Schema theory can not only be used to more deeply understand the text being read through meaningful connections being made, but Pappas (2014) also give the example of learning a new language as a skill that is benefited by schema theory.  When learning a second language, particularly the written form of the new language, a reader will search for themes and known pieces of information, effectively building their schema, in an attempt to create understanding from a language that is previously unknown (Pappas, 2014).  Within a unit of study, an educator can work to use verbal and nonverbal cues to make connections, build schema, and enhance learning.  Considering that math, science, English, Spanish, sports, drama... are each a culture and language of its own, the application of schema theory into a unit of study in any content area is dramatic!

So how does schema theory play out in a world beyond just education?  Marvin Minsky (1975) attempted to apply the constructs of schema theory to his work as a computer scientist.  Realizing that humans behaved according to stored knowledge, Minsky (1975) concluded that machines likewise needed a frame of information from which to carry out specific actions.  From this conclusion he developed frame theory, breaking down a situation into elements of knowledge that can be transmitted and interpreted by humans and machines (Minsky, 1975).

Kind of wild, isn't it?

References:

Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: general discussion of the conference. Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bartlett, F. C. (1958). Thinking. New York: Basic Books. 

Pappas, C. (2014). Instructional design models and theories: schema theory. Elearning Industry. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/schema-theory

Markel, D. (2014). Learning Theory – Schema Theory. Education Encyclopedia.

Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. Patrick H. Winston. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Remelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological review. 82(4), 225-260.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulleting. 124(2), 262-274.

Gifted and Talented Resources

I went to a training on Monday that showed me an amazing set of lessons developed by the state of Texas.  These lessons are project based, aligned with the TEKS, cover the College and Career Readiness standards, and are geared towards Gifted and Talented students.  I am so excited to have found these!!!  I can't wait to use them with all 172 of my GT kids next year!

Check it out!

Texas Performance Standards Project

Winding down the year...  As end of year assemblies showcase student accomplishments and last minute Digital Citizenship lessons encourage students to make safe choices on the internet and leave a positive digital footprint, I am reminded that CHANGE is neither good nor bad.  CHANGE is CHANGE.  Stagnancy is bad, mediocrity is bad, CHANGE is what you make of it.  Technology flows in and out of our classrooms like a wave - what do we do with the technology that has floated in?  Strategies change as student needs change - which strategies do we choose to use and why?  Needs change - let's CHANGE with them.

2014-15: Adventure Awaits!

Looking forward, I am excited about further technology integration.  I can't wait to see how technology continues to become an integral part of teaching and learning.  I'm excited to see how our students become experts and how they begin to teach their teachers.  With students, teachers, administrators, coaches, parents... all moving forward and stretching in their growth, instruction will be IMPACTED while learning will ABOUND and performance will SOAR!

ADVENTURE awaits!

2013-14: A reflection piece

In the past year, we have implemented an awareness and a change in attitude towards technology integration. What started out as a very hesitant approach to technology has become an attitude of collaboration, natural integration, and pervasive usage. I have ʺbrought backʺ many technology apps that have been shared at faculty meetings, grade level meetings, one on one with teachers, and even with parents. PLNs are being used to organize the apps learned. I have created several LiveBinders for various purposes to streamline activities and meet needs on campus. I have also met with teachers and grade levels to take an app I presented in a larger setting (faculty meetings, CLT) and brainstorm with them how to take advantage of the app within their classroom(s) - for example, meeting with 2nd grade to build online journaling accounts for themselves and their students. This in turn has resulted in those same teachers taking their work and their students' products and presenting that information campus-wide at a faculty meeting - administrator leading teachers teaching teachers.

As someone who likes to always continue to grow, I would say our campus is still developing, although I am proud of the progress and development that has already taken place. Teachers are now using netbooks, ipads, and ipods regularly as evidenced by the dramatic increase in check-outs during the spring semester. Conversations, brainstorming, and collaboration occurs more frequently and more naturally so that technology integration has become a more integral piece of instruction versus an ʺadd-onʺ. We have more room for growth in the areas of increasing the level of Digital Blooms within lessons, continuing to seamlessly imbed technology, and making digitally infused lessons the norm versus the four times a year exception. Our technology expectations showed a significant increase in student usage of technology, but I would like to see an increase in student products created through and using technology. This would be the next step in support our teachers - teaching them to turn the reigns over to the students.

As we are still developing a fluid integration of technology across the campus, I don't think that we've seen the full impact in our student success, but I have seen more technology impact student engagement and student expectations. For example, our Kindergarten classes balked at the expectation of having students log themselves in early in the school year. Now, at the end of our school year, our PreK students are logging themselves in and our Kindergarten students have created original writing and illustrated pieces published in PowerPoint.