My journey through ETEC 533 can be compared to a mountain biking season. At the beginning of the season I always start riding on easy trails. This is not due to lack of experience, but to questioning my physical endurance and riding abilities. Through the season I ride with friends who show me new trails, products, or techniques that help me become a better rider. Subsequently, every time I go out I am challenged to become faster and better. Throughout the season I question my abilities, techniques, and new products and decide how I will use this new knowledge to become a better rider.

Like the beginning of mountain biking season, and is the theme in my e-folio, my quest is to become a better educator. This theme can be subcategorized into evaluating/questioning the following:

• Current mainstream education technology practices
• Other educators’ practices
• New (to me) educational technologies
• Practice of what I have learned

The first e-folio assignment, the e-ography, was like my first few days out biking. It made me question what led me down the trail of education technology. As evidenced in my e-ography blog post “currently I post notes on the web for all of my classes” (e-ography post). The time and effort required to develop these learning resources is astronomical, further evidencing my faith in education technology. I also noted the future evolution of my web based notes to support students who bring tablet pc’s into class.

I put a great deal of effort into tablet technologies this term, like I would a new biking product I had learned about the previous season. Now I wanted to spread the knowledge to other “riders”. The sense of the first few days of “riding” with the tablet (and questioning my skills) was further evident within my “Classroom Technology Use” e-folio submission, wherein I discussed the good use of educational technology, what it represented, and its implementation in the learning environment. I recap with my thoughts from my Classroom technology use blog post that good use of technology represents:

• technologies that enhance classroom learning
• incorporate audio/video/images media
• allow visual learners to understand those difficult concepts that are verbally illustrated by the teachers
• helping students learn how to learn and critically think

I referred to the above points throughout the course in analyzing the practices of other teachers, as well as my own, and the new-to-me technologies I encountered – the first few “riding days”. The remainder e-folio submissions were primarily the equivalent of going out and riding with my friends.

During the remainder of the course we were either asked to analyze other teachers’ use of technology (learning new riding skills from friends), or analyse new-to-us technologies (new biking products). The learning new riding skills from friends made me to start questioning my own educational technology practices. The “Video Case Analyses” activities had us look at and question other teachers’ uses of educational technology (January 25^th case analysis entries). The videos made it evident that technology was used to enhance student learning of course content. I began to see value in using technology within labs. Teacher A (a senior physics teacher) noted that technology provided more class time to reinforce concepts, better prepared students for  technologically enhanced environments, improved students’ time management skills, and enhanced students’ critical thinking skills. However, seeing so much reliance on technology made me start to wonder whether its excessive use could not only hinder students’ abilities to critically think and develop time management skills, but also adversely affect their abilities to deal with scientific data. They could become so used to “just plugging in the numbers”, or having a technological “data auto-collection device” gather and process information and “spit out a report” that they could fail to understand what the data actually means. I witnessed the good use of technology, but also question if too much technology in a class is detrimental.

The next course activity, the interview, made me question my own technology practices (Interview Questions and Interview Reflection blog posts). I noted in my January 31^st reflection blog post that what “was unique about my interviewee’s opinions over others was his curiosity to determine if his time learning to use technology was worth it” (Interview reflection post). His curiosity piqued mine and led me to question my own technology use in my own classroom, like questioning my riding technique. I wanted to explore “if my current methodology of teaching with a tablet is beneficial to student learning” as well as “if student use of tablets may also be beneficial to their learning” (Interview Reflection blog post). Hence my first major paper on the single tablet use within an educational environment. The research for the paper reassured me that my current use of the tablet, in conjunction with posting skeleton web notes for students to access, is indeed beneficial to their learning. Well, so ended the learning of skills from friends component of my riding season, Module A. Now on to investigating the new bike products.

Module B’s lessons introduced us to virtual learning environments. They consisted of virtual labs/simulations, virtual field trips, virtual museums, virtual reality, and virtual touch simulations. Lesson one was about the use of visuals within the class. I found an article by Yaron et al (2010) that discussed the benefits of virtual labs hosted on the website www.chemcollective.com. I learned that virtual labs can provide students with visual feedback that will help authenticate their chemistry theory understanding, and in fact can help them visually accept their mathematical calculations. Chemcollective resources became the centre piece of our TELE project. Moreover, the lessons’ corresponding discussions illustrated how virtual environments can help students (especially those geographically removed from the material of study, such as oceans, animals, ecosystems, etc) obtain better understanding of course concepts. For instance, as Science Worlds time lapse Vancouver images can help a fellow METTERS students observe tidal cycles.

Module B’s lesson two had us look at “Networked Communities”. This activity led me to question the over-use of virtual environments. The Winn et al (2006) study of a virtual Puget Sound field trip made me wonder if we are starting to replace real learning activities with virtual ones just for the sake of it. Or is it because the virtual ones are more convenient and cheaper? I also started to wonder as to what are the affects of too much reliance on technology on students’ social skills? This questioning was evident within my “Networked Communities” discussion posts. What happens to students’ social skills if they learn everything in front of and from a computer rather than going to a physical school, participating in real activities and interacting with real classmates? Within this discussion thread Leo mentioned that he sees “education/life moving to a virtual reality” and that there are people “in some developed countries who stay in their houses/apartments for more than a month without going out” (Network communities discussion reflection post). Laurie stated that “it sounds like the precursor to Wall-E” (Networked Communities discussion reflection post). I started to wonder if I really needed these new products to become a better educator (rider) or would they hinder my students’ abilities to learn. However, comments made by Kathleen helped calm my concerns. In a discussion post to me she described her son’s experiences and opinions about digital natives’ current social skills. Her son indicated that many kids are socially inept and hide behind technology. However, “he strongly prefers to be engaged in real life” (Networked Communities discussion reflection post). His perspective reassured me that no matter how much technology is used within society, there will always be people who would rather live in the real world. This gave me hope that we, as educators, can use technology to enhance learning without the side effect of helping to produce socially inept citizens. With responsible technology use, digital natives will find a balance between living in virtual and real worlds. Now that I had some new “riding” techniques and products, it was time to add them to my riding experience.

Incorporation of my new skills and products into my riding occurred in the creation of our TELE project. It was designed to enhance students’ understanding of the stochiometry chemistry concept (Mini-assignment 2 post). It was a mixture of old and new “riding” skills/products. Inasmuch as I am concerned with society going the way of virtual living this design was a face-to-face environment. However, seeing value in virtual lab visualizations and how students are aided in understanding of course concepts, it was important to create an environment that incorporated these visualizations. Thus, students will perform virtual labs from www.chemcollective.com. They will be required to create and test procedures, follow prescribed procedures, and use virtual labs to visually authenticate stoichiometric calculations. Ideas form past MET courses and my e-ography were also taken into consideration when designing the TELE.

In past MET courses I have noted the importance of communities of learning and how they help students understand concepts. I also learned how to create screencasted supported notes and within my e-ography noted the desire to create a tablet enhanced learning environment. These aspects led to the use of blogs and discussion forums, scaffolding notes, and screencast videos (to help perform calculations), and (as mentioned in my e-ography) students tablet pc’s in the design. My “riding” technique was getting better with the incorporation of new skills and products; however, other riders were now starting to question some of my techniques as indicated within my April 8^th “Why use a Tablet within the TELE” project blog entry.

Our instructor and group members collectively questioned student tablet use when students could simply perform their work on paper. My April 8^th blog entry illustrated that my argument for student tablet use was not that strong, and based on personal opinion. My own learning experience within the MET program has been enhanced with use of a tablet. In our groups TELE students will have to use a computer in class to do virtual labs, do mathematical calculations, and submit work online. In my opinion, why wouldn’t the students use tablets? It only makes sense to use a single interface (a tablet) than multiple interfaces (laptop in conjunction with pen and paper). As mentioned in a few blog entries I currently teach science to students who have laptops in front of them. I have noticed these students’ marks are lower than my non-laptop based classes. I wonder if these students would benefit from the use of a computer interface that was similar to pen and paper. I am quite curious about this and hope to spend time in the future researching the pros and cons of student learning with a tablet.

The central theme of my e-folio was questioning the use of educational technology. It was central to me as I am an educator who wants to ensure I am helping students learn course concepts while helping them become model citizens. I have determined that my current use of a tablet to deliver course content does enhance the learning experience, and virtual learning environments (field trips, etc) can be a great addition to a class. I can add these virtual environments without fearing that students will be lost in a virtual world, rather than living in the real one. Through the TELE project I learned how virtual labs/simulations can be incorporated into a face-to-face learning environment. I want to determine whether student tablet use would be more beneficial than laptops.

And so, as the course comes to an end, so does my metaphoric riding season. It is always nice to look back and reflect, to look at the skills and products you want to incorporate into next year’s season. Hopefully next season I will be introduced to new opportunities to learn how, or if, student tablet use will enhance their abilities to learn course concepts.

References:

chemcollective. (2010, March 29). Retrieved March 31, 2010, from chemcollective: chemcollective.org

Winn, W., Stahr, F.  Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y-L.  (2006).  Learning    oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea.

Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Evans, K., Davenport, J., Cuardros, J., & Greeno, J. (2010). Learning chemistry: what, when, and how? In Instructional Explanationsin the disciplines (pp. 41-50). Springer US.

The ultimate goal of our technology enhanced learning environment (TELE) team is to create a deep meaningful face-to-face learning environment to support students learning/understanding of the chemistry topic stoichiometry. In order to create such an environment, the pedagogies of constructivist learning, scaffolding, and community of practice were all taken into consideration. The resulting design creates a TELE that will help students become successful practitioners in stoichiometry. Attached to the mini assignment will be our groups BC Chemistry 11 Unit map and its corresponding unit lesson plan. The actual learning environment will be hosted within a Moodle course shell and can be observed by clicking here. Click on “Dale Addis – Chemistry 11”, sign in as a guest and scroll down to unit 7 – stoichiometry.

TELE Design Plan

The beginning of the unit starts with an introductory page. A few written examples to introduce stoichiometry to the students are provided. A video showing students the process of stoichiometry follows. This allows students to see what they will be able to do upon completing the unit and provides them context as to why they are performing the unit (Merrill, 2007). The introductory page continues to outline to students how to access the virtual labs followed by blog/discussion post instructions, unit timeline, and pointers to be successful within the unit. Students are instructed to post at least two reflective blog posts per week, unless a specific blog activity is indicated within one of the learning sections. In this case the specific blog activity will act as one of the weekly mandatory blog posts. Since Moodle’s blog does not support comments, discussion forums will be used to support asynchronous communication activities. Assigned blog and discussion activities will be indicated at the end of the specific learning sections. Unit due dates will be posted within the embedded Google calendar. Student work will be conducted on Tablet PC’s. Tablets will allow students to perform mathematical work easier than a laptop with an equation editor (Oviatt, Arthur & Cohen, 2006). Tablets will allow students to maintain a single source of documents and to submit labs and other materials online. Paper will only be exchanged between students and teachers in times of marked tests and quizzes.

Five learning sections and a final assignments information page follow the introduction page. Learning sections range from mole coefficients to percent yield. At the beginning of each learning section students will be required to write a Moodle supported formative practice quiz of the last day’s lesson or a marked paper based quiz. Within learning sections one through four a constructivist approach is used. Virtual labs from Chemcollective.org (2010) act as authentic learning objectives. Students will use virtual labs to solve problems or authenticate rigor based mathematical problems. Students will participate in a community of learning in groups of two or three and will be required to hand in a single virtual lab assignment. Text based notes, with screencast mathematical solutions, will be used to scaffold students stoichiometric understanding and help them complete the virtual lab assignments. Students will be encouraged to print the notes to MS OneNote and digitally ink in the example solutions while watching the worked screencast solutions. Instead of using a virtual lab for section 7.5, students will go through the guided notes and use the extra in-class time to create a flow chart for the unit’s hands on lab. Homework style section questions will be assigned upon completion of the virtual lab assignments (or reading/watching of the notes in the case of section 7.5). In-class discussions will be used to complete the in-class portion of the lesson. At the end of various sections, blog and discussion post writings will be assigned. Students will be required to comment on at least two other students’ discussion posts. The final lesson page (assignments information page) outlines expectations for a hands-on lab, unit review assignment, and the final unit blog activity where students will be required to write a unit reflection and post a screencast explaining how they solved one of the virtual lab assignment problems.

TELE Design Rational

A constructivist style of learning is incorporated within our design model. As stated by Jonassen (1999), students within constructivist environments learn concepts through the solving of problems. Virtual lab assignments will consist of challenging problems which students will be expected to solve using problem-solving skills. Worked examples will be used to scaffold student’s stoichiometric understanding, which in turn help students to develop strategies and tools to solve these problems (Jonassen, 1999). The use of virtual labs will enhance student understanding of chemistry concepts. They allow students to manipulate variables in a similar manner as to real world labs (Ash, 2009); thus, will act as authentic learning artefacts’ within our TELE. Authentic activities help students transfer knowledge and allow them to take more responsibility for their learning (Francom et al, 2009).

In-class discussions and online discussion forums are incorporated into the design to help create a community of learning. In constructivist learning environments, Jonassen (1999) recommends students collaborate to generate and expand knowledge. In-class discussions/collaboration on assignments will help students construct knowledge. However, these in-class discussions may be controlled by a few individuals, which does not allow shy students to participate nor provide students with enough time to reflect on an answer (Wang & Hsua, 2008). On-line discussion forums provide shy students with a venue to speak and all students with time to respond with reflective answers. However, they are a collection of opinions and feedback is specific. Blogs will be used to allow students to write reflective responses not led by the class. This will allow them to take ownership of their authored space (Wang & Woo, 2008). Blogs in conjunction with virtual/real labs, Moodle, tablets, screencast videos, text notes, homework problems, and discussions will allow students to meet our TELE goal.  Altogether they will create a learning environment that will help students become proficient in stoichiometric knowledge.

References

Ash, K. (2009). High-tech simulations linked to learning. Education Week, 28(28), 20-23.

chemcollective. (2010, March 29). Retrieved March 31, 2010, from chemcollective:            chemcollective.org

Francom, G., Bybee, D., Wolfersberger, M., Mendenhall, A., & Merrill, M. (2009). A Task-          Centered Approach to Freshman-Level General Biology. Bioscene: Journal of College          Biology Teaching, 35(1), 66-73.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),      Instructional-design theories and models: Volume II (pp 215-239). Mahwah, NJ:             Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Merrill, M. D. (2007). A task-centred instructional strategy. Journal of research on technlogy in    education , 5-22.

Oviatt, S., Arthur, A., & Cohen, J. (2006). Quiet interfaces that help students think.          Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM sumposium on user interface software and        technology, (pp. 191 – 200). Montreux.

Wang, S., & Hsua, H. (2008). Reflections on Using Blogs to Expand In-Class Discussion.            TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(3), 81-85.

Wang, Q., & Woo, H. (2008, September 1). The affordances of weblogs and discussion forums    for learning: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology Magazine: The Magazine     for Managers of Change in Education, 48(5), 34-38.

The network communities discussion forum was very interesting. Within the discussion I started to question the use of virtual learning environments over the use of real learning situations. Hands on learning, that students could sink their teeth into. If students learn behind a computer instead of going to schools, will they learn social skills required to interact with others? Leo mentioned that he sees “education/life moving to a virtual reality” and that there are people “in some developed countries who stay in their houses/apartments for more than a month without going out”. He even has a friend who is a computer programmer, who works at home, makes “purchases through ebay, and comes out once a week for groceries and badminton.” I was and am concerned that society will go towards the way of “Wall-E” as Laurie commented “Sounds like the precursor to Wall-E J Hopefully playtime will not become secluded, behind-a-computer event. Children need more then isolation, they need activity and exercise. Technology is great, but it is not that great.”

However, there is hope. Leo pointed out that “for most of us we still want to interact and socialize everyday. Who would want to lie in a confinement?” Kathleen’s comments about her son and from her son were a great help. She mentioned that her son felt that many of his “peers around him are shy and uncomfortable socially. They prefer to be in SL.” However, unlike his peers “he does not like the world outside of the real. He strongly prefers to be engaged in RL. He believes online is not the way to go for learning. His vision is that real life is the best teacher and all of this simulation is bs.” I appreciated Kathleen’s comments as they helped to ground me. They gave me the sense that yes students are hiding behind technology more, yet there are many digital natives who decide to live in the real world.

I believe that society will reach a point when they use technology as a tool to exist, rather than coming to a point where they rely on it to survive. Education will use technology to enhance learning of the youth, rather than expect it to be the Holley grail of modern education, the saviour of education. I am starting to see that technology has its benefits within education, but there needs to be a healthy balance between it and non technology based learning. School is more than about learning course content. It is a place where we send our youth to help them learn to become good citizens. This is a responsibility mainly taken on by their parents. Us as educators just help this process by providing a safe environment for them to interact f2f. After all is said and done I am starting to believe that we will not turn into a Wall-E society.

Cheers,

D

As our TELE will require students to use laptops, than the natural question is why not a tablet. Assignments will be handed in online, they will be required to create worked screencasts of mathematical work to post on blogs, they can share onenote notebooks, and they can keep all of their resources in one place rather than wondering if the material is located within their notebook or their computer.

Hmm, but I wonder if I am bias.

Cheers,

D

References:

Oviatt, S., Arthur, A., & Cohen, J. (2006). Quiet interfaces that help students think. Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM sumposium on user interface software and technology, (pp. 191 – 200). Montreux.

Kim, K., & Turner, S. A. (2009). Requirements for electronic note taking systems: A field study of note taking in university classrooms. Education info technology , 255-283.

2. Describe the nature of the activities that may have been central, in your opinion, to the learning experiences described in the papers you have read.

Haptic interfaces provide users the sense of touch and force (Williams, Chen, & Seaton, 2003). Research is being conducted to create virtual environments that include the sense of touch to reinforce learning. Clark and Jorde (2004) found that providing students with the illusion of touch helped students understand thermodynamic equilibrium better. Where, Williams, Chen, and Seaton (2003) noted that the actual sense of touch and force through a joy stick enhanced student understanding of work/force in simple machines. In both situations (thermodynamics and simple machines) the researchers where trying to increase students understanding through the sense of touch.

Clark and Jorde (2004) created two simulations. One simulation used visuals to indicate the temperature of an object and to indicate that amount of heat being emitted or absorbed by the object. The other simulation had the visual characteristics as the first. However, it also included a moveable hand that could be brought near the objects under investigation. Once the hand was near a word cloud would pop up stating “this is cold” (pg. 7) or “this feels painfully hot” (pg. 14). Audio files stating the same thing as what was said in the word cloud were also played. They found that students who participated within the sense of touch environment obtained a better understanding of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Williams, Chen, and Seaton (2003) created five different virtual simple machines. Each machine allowed the user to alter a set of machine specifications. For example the number of pulleys in a pulley system or the type of lever in a simple lever machine could be altered within the created virtual world. These changes would either cause the user to have to apply more/less force via the joy stick or decrease/increase the time required to move the joy stick in order to use the simple machine. Like Clark and Jorde (2004) Williams, Chen, and Seaton (2003) noted that students felt they learnt more about simple machines through Haptic interaction.

I agree with the researchers findings that tactile or the sense of tactile learning will help students understand concepts. Student learning is enhanced with increased forms of environmental stimulus. However, these environments should be used in conjunction with hands on learning. Students need to learn how to do things with their hands. These virtual environments will afford instructors with the ability to reinforce concepts. Moreover, more time for hands on labs may be created as the instructor will most likely have to spend less time teaching the concepts.

Cheers,

Dale

References:

Clark, D. & Jorde, D.  (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experientially supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41(1), pp. 1-23.

Williams II, R.L., Chen, M., & Seaton, J.M.  (2003).  Haptics-augmented simple-machine educational tools.  Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), pp. 1-12.

Discussion Comments:

The idea of using virtual reality with the sense of touch is very interesting. Prior and during the writing process of the above discussion post I asked myself, why virtual when you can do real labs if you are looking to emulate the real world. Through out this course we have looked at methods of creating real world experiences in the virtual world. Why not live in the real world. However, from participating within our class discussion, reading others responses, I now see value in virtual learning environments. Take haptics for example. Kathleen mentioned that haptics are a great way to train medical professionals, rather than testing on real people. That way when they are ready to practice on real people they will have a better sense of what they are doing. She agrees that the real world situations should never be lost, but indicates that virtual situations help people have an easier transition into the real environment.

Cheers,

D

Cheers,

D

Cheers,

The two networked communities I have chosen to study from the supplied list were Exploratorium and Virtual Field Trips. Due to this selection I decide to read articles from Winn et al (2006), Spicer and Stratford (2001), and Fouts (2003) and talk about how knowledge is created within these learning environments.

Exploratorium is a hands-on museum located in California that has created a virtual world of learning for people of all ages. Visitors to the Exploratorium website can participate in many different learning activities. Activities range from learning about/how to dissect a cow’s eye to learning about microscopic objects, such as stem cells, blood cells, and cancer. Virtual Field Trips (VFT) are websites or software based learning environments that allow students to participate in activities or learn about geographical areas that they would not be able to travel to.

Knowledge is constructed in both Exploratorium and VFT environments. Exploratorium provides students and teachers guided learning activities and opportunities. Videos, text, activities, and lessons are provided to the learner. These resources are provided to the leaner within a community based environment. Experts have and are creating science resources based on communication with the user (Fouts, 2003). This creates a community of learning where the students have the opportunity to learn from experts and experts create resources based on learners needs. Learners actively engaged in content, construct knowledge. Thus, active participation within the Exploratorium created environments, either by reading, watching videos, or participating in a school/home based activity allows students to constructs knowledge.

Like Exploratorium, VFT environments provide learners with resources created by experts. The Virtual Field Trip environments can be of past/current field work expeditions where students can observe field research data and had or have the opportunity to communicate with specialists in the field. This provides students who, due to geographical distance, would not be able to experience such environments the ability to virtually experience them. Moreover, communication with an expert affords students with the same opportunities to learn from an expert as if they were in the real environment. The ability to communicate, read experts text, analyze data, look at images and/or watch videos provides students with the opportunity to construct knowledge about these environments as they are actively engaged with the VFT content.

Unlike the VFT’s mentioned above, Spicer and Stratford (2001) and Winn et al (2006) field trips about a tidal pool and Washington’s Puget Sound were activity based and can be considered virtual labs or virtual simulations. Both papers set out to determine if VFT simulations could replace real field research activities. Spicer and Stratford (2001) found that students appreciated the VFT as a prelude to the actual field trip. Students felt that more knowledge was constructed by participating in the actual field trip. However, the same students found the VFT simulation provided them with pre knowledge of the field that intern helped them grasp a deeper understanding of content learnt in the field. Moreover, the authors noted that VFT’s were not coast affective to produce, when compared to actual field trip costs, as large sums of money are required to produce these resources. Unlike Spicer and Stratford (2001), Winn et al (2006) found that field work help contextualize learning for students who did not have experience with the ocean, but the simulation VFT helped students obtain a better connection with the course material.

Learners participating in the Exploratorium and VFT’s construct knowledge as they become actively engaged within the learning experience. Students are actively engaged with content by communicating with experts, performing activities (real or virtual), analyzing researcher’s data, and/or working on provided worksheets.

References:

Fouts, J. (2003). Beyond the brochure: Issues with supporting a broader audience via online communities. Association of Science-Technology Centers Annual Conference, St. Paul,     MN. pp. 1-8.

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field   trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.

Winn, W., Stahr, F.  Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y-L.  (2006).  Learning    oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea.

The website provides learners with authentic representation of chemistry problems via active participation within virtual labs. Yaron et al (2010) noted that virtual labs can engage students in active authentic learning of chemistry concepts. Students can do the labs quicker than actual labs, see immediate feedback, and the virtual lab can be made easier to reduce student cognitive load. Students are engaged in explanation, analysis, and synthesis of the problem being illustrated within the virtual environment. One drawback of the virtual lab, illustrated by Yaron et al (2010), was that virtual labs do not give students hands on experience with chemistry. However, repetitive visual representation of concepts (if more than one virtual lab is performed per unit) is beneficial to student learning as they can visually reinforce learnt concepts, followed or preceded by a hands on lab. Visual representation is important in learning chemistry concepts. Mathematical based chemistry problems become real when they can see what their calculations represent. The concept of visually seeing what is/has occurred to support student learning was evident within fellow ETEC 533 student’s discussion posts.

Within the ETEC 533 module B’ lesson one discussion post other MET students made it evident that visual representation of concepts help students obtain a deeper understanding. One of the MET students commented that Science Worlds time lapse images of Vancouver would help his Albertan students understand the concept of tides as many of the students have never seen an ocean.  GeoGebra software was discussed by another METTER and it allows for the construction of lines, points, and other geometric shapes. The MET student indicated that visual aids, such as GeoGebra, help students become engaged and motivated with the learning. I agree with the comments these students made about the resources they were discussing. Both of the resources they commented on provide students with situations that will deepen their understanding of the concepts being introduced to them. The science world resource allows students to see real world situations that would otherwise be impossible for them to see due to geographical distances. GeoGebra allow teachers or the students to manipulate geometric objects.

The virtual labs represented within the chemcollective website afford students with the same visual opportunities as the Science World and GeoGebra resources. They allow students to visually see what their performed calculations actually represent. Abstract concepts and calculations are authenticated through visualization. These virtual environments further reinforce course concepts by engaging them in problems. Motivations to perform problems increase as students know they will obtain immediate feedback.

From the module B’s lesson one activity I have learnt that virtual labs, in conjunction with hands on labs, can afford students with increased visual opportunities to learn course concepts.

Cheers,

D

References:

Yaron, D., Karabinos, M., Evans, K., Davenport, J., Cuardros, J., & Greeno, J. (2010). Learning chemistry: what, when, and how? In Instructional Explanationsin the disciplines (pp. 41-50). Springer US.

Cheers,

D

single tablet use