Principles of Teaching: Selection and Use of Instructional Materials

     It has been awhile since I posted LET and education-related topics in this blog. Just recently, there were educ students who conducted observations for the Field Study courses so I thought of posting some principles that perhaps can help them in answering their workbooks. If I'm not mistaken, they are in their Field Study 3 which focuses more on educational technology. I also realized that I have already posted principles about learning, classroom management and assessment, but not yet about the use of educational technology or more commonly known as SIMS (Support Instructional Materials).

I listed here some principles in the selection and use of support instructional materials. I hope that teachers can use these principles and apply these in their own classroom practices.

1.The best instructional material is no other than the teacher. This does not mean that teachers need not to prepare SIMS anymore! This implies that teachers must not overly depend on the materials themselves. SIMS themselves cannot fully teach the learners. There should still be the need for the teacher to explain, discuss and facilitate learning using the SIMS. The effectiveness of the SIMS still depends on how the teacher presents, uses and manipulates these materials  in the class discussion. As the word "support" implies, SIMS are just aid for teachers, but they do not replace the teacher.

2. SIMS need not be extravagant or always "high-tech". Teacher still need to consider the instructional objective in a day's lesson.  Though technology will make a lesson presentation interactive, a teacher should first and foremost consider the instructional objective. The lesson objectives determine what SIMS to be used not the other way around. One concrete example would be in the Physical Education subject. In demonstrating steps to a dance, which would be more preferable and effective: a video clip of the steps, or the teacher him/herself demonstrating the dance? Of course the latter would be better. Notice that even without  the use of technology the lesson can still work with the given objective.

3. Don't reason the above mentioned principle to excuse yourself not to use variety of instructional materials. Teaching also involves catering to each learners' needs and preferences in learning. Each of us has different ways in responding and receiving information. Remember VAK? Teachers may have visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners (and a combination of either of the three). Hence, use various media. These may be computers, TV, projector and even just the mere chalkboard.

4. Prepare your SIMS beforehand. Appealing and creative SIMS usually require time and effort to make.I think we are all inspired by stories of teachers who spend the midnight oil just to make SIMS. This is not an exaggeration but a reality.  Most of the times, SIM-making is a tedious task, but we all do this for the sake of making our learners learn best. If you will be using technology like computers or projectors, make sure to manipulate it first to avoid technological glitches. Also check the power source and even the file to be presented if corrupted or not.

5. Think out of the box. Be creative. Use the materials or inspiration that is appealing to the learners. Make use of your learners interests even the latest trends or popular personalities. If the pupils are familiar and most of all interested with your SIMS, learning becomes not only effective but fun and interesting for them as well.

Actually there are lots of principles you can also utilize. Use your experience since it is a very good teacher. Just remember that teaching needs dedication and passion. And part of this vocation is to give your best to prepare and make your SIMS for the main purpose of teaching the pupils the best way possible.

P.S. It was a shame that when the educ studs observed me, I only used chart and chalkboard that time...hehehe..excuse me..the teacher is the best S-I-M..hehehe...)

Physical-Motor Disability

Physical-motor disability is a disability affecting the ability to control muscle movement which often limits mobility and motor tasks (UNESCO, 2009). These individuals primarily have difficulty with gross and fine motor tasks, may experience limitations to their strength, speed, endurance, coordination and dexterity, and usually require the use of wheelchairs and crutches, due to medical/health condition or a loss/dysfunction of arms and/or legs.

The conditions under physical-motor disability generally fall under neuromotor impairments and musculoskeletal or orthopedic conditions (Mastropieri and Scruggs, 2000; Bryant, et al, 2008).

Neuromotor impairments involve damage to the nervous system. These include conditions like cerebral palsy, polio, spina bifida and epilepsy.

Musculoskeletal or orthopedic conditions on the other hand involve damage musculo-skeletal system. Common examples include arthritis, paralysis, limb loss, reduced function of one or more limbs, including skeletal disorders such as dwarfism and scoliosis.

While the degree of the disability varies from every individual, consideration to the nature and severity of the condition, and the type and extent of the accommodations required for the individual are taken into account. In addition, their needs and strengths can be affected both by the environment and a changing physical condition (e.g. access to ramps, provision of specialized furnitures, flexibility of work/classroom environment).

Sometimes, physical-motor disabilities do not lead to difficulties in academic or intellectual functioning, though students having this disability may require some considerations. For the student to be eligible for special education services, the physical-motor disability must affect the student’s educational performance.

image source: http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/wheelchair-basketball.jpg

DepEd Forms: School Forms

      As of the moment, I am our school's ICT (Information Communications Technology) coordinator. It is not actually a position but a coordinatorship. This means that you are in charge of anything related to computers, internet, encoding, multimedia, lay-outing etc. You are also in charge of the e-learning classroom. This may sounds a good position and if you are asking if this makes me a step higher in the ladder then you're wrong. This is just an extra or ancillary work and it does NOT increase my salary..hehehe...However, I find this position quite satisfying since the thrust of education is geared towards Information Technology. It is perhaps an advantage on my part since this contributes to me to become a "21st Century" teacher. This position also gives me the opportunity to attend seminars that increase my exposure to the system and the same time meet new people and develop linkages. As they say, it is not enough what you know, but whom you know. And I can never be sure how would these acquaintances be of good help in the future especially if professional development is to be taken account.
    I would like to share some of the forms currently used in the public school system. And for this maiden post about DepEd forms, let me share to you the current forms which were implemented just this school year. These forms also have a change in their names: These are:

  School Form 1 (SF 1) School Register - This replaces  Form 1, Master List & STS Form 2-Family Background and Profile.
  School Form 2 (SF2) Daily Attendance Report for Learner - This cancel Form 1, Form 2 & STS Form 4 - Absenteeism and Dropout Profile.  
   School Form 3 (SF3) Books Issued and Returned- This replaces Form 1 & Inventory of Text Book.
  School Form 4 (SF4) Monthly Learner's Movement and Attendance- This replaces Form 3 & STS Form 4-Absenteeism and Dropout Profile.
  School Form 5 (SF 5) Report on Promotion & Level of Proficiency- This replaces Forms 18-E1, 18-E2, 18A.

   School Form 6 (SF6) Summarized Report on Promotion and Level of Proficiency- This cancels Form 20
   School Form 7 (SF7) School Personnel Assignment List and Basic Profile- This replace Form 12-Monthly Status Report for Teachers, Form 19-Assignment List, Form 29-Teacher Program and Form 31-Summary Information of Teachers.

    Now, where are the forms? Relax, Just click the link below.

DepEd School Forms

   

   

Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale by Gething (1991)

Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale

This scale was developed by Lindsay Gething, a professor in the Nursing Research Centre in the Faculty of Science at the University of Sydney, and a member of the Australian Psychological Society. Gething developed the IDP for Australian setting to assess discomfort in social interaction which is suggested to reflect reactions associated with non-accepting or negative attitudes towards people with disabilities (Gething, 1994).

Though IDP was developed and primarily tested in Australia, the scale has been translated into four languages and tested in nine different countries. It has also been tested as part of a battery of research scales designed to assess attitudes towards people with disabilities (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005).

Gething (1994) defined Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale as paper-and-pencil report measure stated in the first person. It asks respondents to rate how much of each of a series of twenty statements fit their own reactions when meeting a person with disability. It is an instrument comprising 20 items that are rated on a six point scale (ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with no midpoint or neutral point).   

IDP measures attitudes at a personal level and is based on the assumption that negative attitudes are reflections of the subjects’ lack of association with the object and that this lack of information or strangeness engenders feelings of uncertainty and anxiety (Gething 1993). This was developed to address criticism that the ATDP is written at the societal level and was designed specifically as a unidimensional measure of the overall attitude toward individuals with disabilities. IDP was instead developed to measure attitudes at the individual level of analysis. It describes how a given rater feels about a particular person with disability in a certain situation (Haskell,2010).  

The majority of statements in IDP are constructed in such a way that an agreement response reflects relative discomfort in social interaction. A higher Total Score indicates more discomfort in social interaction toward persons with disabilities, thus reflect negative attitudes toward them.

Moreover, as both the ATDP and IDP scales are intended to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, Gething (1994) predicted that significant associations exist between the their scores. Since the direction of the scoring is reversed for the two scales, significant negative relationships could be revealed.

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale by Yuker, Young and Block (1970)

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Person Scale (ATDP) was developed following the need for an objective and reliable instrument to measure attitudes toward disabled persons as a group (Yuker et al, 1970). This is the most widely used research tool developed by Yuker, Block and Young (1970) in measuring attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Lyons, 1990; Alghazo, 2002; Yuker and Block, 1986, in Kitchen, 2007). The ATDP measures attitudes at the societal level and extent of perceived differences between disabled and nondisabled people, with a positive attitude reflected in perception of few differences (Gething, 1994). On the ATDP form O, the preferred version which includes 20 items in a Likert format, reliability is .83 on a test-retest within 5 weeks, 4 – 16 month test-retest is .68; split-half is .80, and alpha is .76 (White et al., 2006). Validity of the ATDP is acceptably high, using several approaches including content, predictive, concurrent, and construct validity (White et al., 2006). The instrument published by the Human Resources Center can be accessed free through Education Resources Information Center website (http://www.eric.ed.gov).

The ATDP may be administered as either an individual or a group test. The test covers items to which the subject responds by indicating the extent of his agreement or disagreement to each according to the following scale: (+3=I agree very much; +2=I agree pretty much; +1=I agree a little; 1=I disagree a little; -2=I disagree pretty much; and -3=I disagree very much).

ATDP scores may be interpreted as reflecting either the subject's perceiving persons with disabilities as basically the same as or different from persons without disability. A high score indicates the idea that persons with disabilities are similar to persons without disabilities; while a low score indicates the view of difference between persons with disabilities and those without disabilities. The view of differences in characteristics and treatment of persons with disabilities might be interpreted as rejection or prejudice, considering them "inferior" or "disadvantaged”. At the same time, the scale may show the degree of positive and negative stereotypy in the attitudes of persons without disabilities toward those who have disabilities (Yuker et al, 1970).

ATDP, like most attitude scales, is thought to measure the affective and cognitive aspects of attitudes. One of the many strengths of this instrument however, is that it also appears to be capable of measuring behavioral tendencies, since it inquires how people should act toward persons with disabilities (Haskell, 2010).