Jasmeet Virk's ETEC 533 journey

All through my ETEC 533 journey I felt like Alice in Wonderland!  I was excited, curious, awed, puzzled, thoughtful, and reflective as I went through a whirlwind of challenges within the course. Ever since I fell through this rabbit hole (the course), traveled through the enchanted forests of modules full of wonderful ideas and theories, chatted with my peers at the Mad Hatter’s Tea party (forums) about pedagogies and resources- many questions have been answered and formulated, many beliefs assessed and strengthened, some new ideas created, and multitudes of resources accumulated. Now as I face the final trial, I attempt to synthesize this journey to prove that I have matured as a student and a teacher and ask for my right of passage.

A perusal of my entries on the blog and the Vista forum confirm a definite trend in my thinking. From the very beginning my focus seemed to about applying technologies to enhance the learning in the classroom. I seem to focus on the means by which the learning process, content, and products could be woven into suitable technology and based in sound pedagogy so that the students benefit.

The Enchanted Forest

Quite early in the journey I question “Why cannot my entire class reap the benefit of such technology?” ( Auto e-ography) Then as I moved further into the course, I expressed my desire for a multimodal, interdisciplinary approach for meaningful use of technology to “create learning scenarios with inquiry based or problem based learning with technology which will allow students to learn and apply the math and science concepts that they are learning to relevant, real life situations, that will be create an immersive learning environment.” (Unpacking Assumptions) Such visions were enabled from the explorations of learning theories and experimenting with Constructivism during my long MET journey through eight previous courses.

As we moved on to Case studies and watched the interviews, what stood out for me was the collaborative group work and active learning happening in the class behind the teacher. The main theme emerging from my case analysis and interview seems to be how to use technology to set a constructivist learning environment. I asked questions about the role of technology in elementary education and within differentiating instructions. I think I showed little patience with people who kept asking about time for professional development.  “We all complain about how schools /admin do not provide time to explore these technologies but most of us [in this program] have done it on our own time and out of our own interest. As professionals I think we need to go a bit above and beyond and not wait for schools or districts to guide our professional development. Look at the bunch of us here in MET!”[Jan 6] 

When we ventured into the realm of TELE my focus still seem to have remained on the need of the learner.  I deemed technology to be a tool that helps improve learning. On January 8^th I discussed the need to differentiate instructions even with use of technology and not because of technology. “…There will always be some students at every level who may need a lot of guidance with technology.” I followed this on On Jan.10 with “I was thinking that we differentiate instructions according to student need – so can we also differentiate in use of technology? For example some use PowerPoint, some Prezi, and some Kidpix to make a slide show? What we would need to have in place is a generic criteria…. Thoughts?”

I relished and celebrated the addition of the tag “designer” to my job description on my blog! It was like being granted permission to embed technology into pedagogy to make “learning visible”.  I found inspiration for this from Sugata Mitra’s TED talk which celebrated the power of collaboration and technology. I strongly believe that students need to construct their own knowledge through collaborative work and discourse. I envisioned that an ideal TELE space will provide for all learners to examine and explore knowledge, interact with it and others to understand it, and then apply the new knowledge in real environments – in their own style and at their own pace.

For this reason the Jasper Series totally impressed me as a model to follow and set my brain abuzz with ideas but the structured setup of WISE and the missing element of student-student or student- teacher interaction outside of assignments bothered me. However the cognitive implications reflected in the layer building in My World showed me how students could build schemas about science and math concepts step by step. The most significant learning happened for me when I encountered the LfU (Edelson, 2001) and T-GEM models (Khan, 2007) I realized how easy effective teaching can be and how easy it was to transition all these technologies into the classroom and enrich learning! Wasn’t that what I had been looking for in the first place? However, encountering Conrad Wolfram’s video had me think if technologies were robbing us of the computational experience. I am still wondering if we should free the brain from this menial task to focus on higher level thinking or teach them the computations to provide a deeper understanding.

Walking through module C, I felt like a child in a candy store! To realize that the plethora of virtual manipulatives, applets, simulations, haptic, and websites I was accumulating would enhance the learning of my students when embedded in suitable pedagogy. The cognitive theory of embodiment (Winn, 2003) resonated with me and I was able to see it working in T-GEM and LfU models. I was able to apply it immediately into my practice to see results. The feeling is one of euphoria!

Looking back, I realize that the entire trek through this enchanted forest was, perhaps subconsciously, driven by my framing issue. It was as if I wanted to prove to myself and the sceptics that technology in elementary education is effective. I had been told often enough that it was fluff, not as effective, and a bit premature. On the other hand I had seen and been told what a great tool it was! Till now I had not been able to clue into the reason for such discrepant views. The activities and reading of ETEC 533 solved this mystery for me!  Technology is effective when and if embedded in sound pedagogy.

The Tea Party

The discussions in the forums made me realize the effectiveness of Community of Practice. We explored tools and researches, shared our experiences, discussed their effectiveness and learned together. My initial trepidation about relying too much on technology was shared “Technology can be a great teaching tool, when the teacher has the training to use it.  However, teachers cannot forget the impact of real world activities.” (Darren Jan 10), and so were my concerns about its correct use. “However the effective integration of technology can be very challenging in real classrooms. Many factors come into play making technology integration a challenge.” (Valerie, Jan 7) The discussions lead me to examine my teaching practices when Janet said, “The more I learn about using technology in class, the more I think that it isn’t adding technology that is important, but rather, it is changing the way I teach that is important.”(Jan, 8).
I notice that when the conversation moved on to our experiences of experimenting with different technologies and their application, I keyed onto peer comments about teacher role and learning processes. I totally agreed with Denise when she said,” Educators will always be the most critical variable in student learning “(Feb 26), and Dr. Khan explained the need for teacher facilitation, ” The conclusion of this body of research on group work is that the teacher remains vital-in arranging for and monitoring collaboration, even if part of it occurs on-line or off. (March 3^rd). These discussions re-emphasized for me – my responsibility and my belief in the Vygotskian theory about the Zone of Proximal Development.

Conclusion:

As I reflect on my learning and my beliefs I realize that I am trying to find the confirmation and sanction for what I am practicing and plan to practice in my teaching. For these I am looking at learning theories. In all the course readings I seem to gravitate towards the one that promulgate teaching methodologies and explain how students learn. LfU, T-GEM, mental models, embodied learning – seem to have become the essence of my learning and lately my practice. They have shown me how technology can fosters learning through good teaching practices.  I had said on Feb 16, “I don’t think technology is at fault. It is a tool and we need to use it appropriately.” These theories and methodologies showed me what “appropriate” is! 

Now the next step for me is to find suitable technologies. As Sarah said on Feb 28^th,”online software is so rich with information and interaction there that one should be creative and use multiple outlets and points of view. I believe the web offers this and can be very useful for the learner”. I need to dive into this plethora of technology tools and find those valuable nuggets and polish them with good teaching practices to enrich the learning of the learners I facilitate.

A question I am still dealing with is about synthesis. As I reflect back on my own learning and connect the dots, I wonder if my students are able to connect the dots at the end of their learning. In their study Sugar& Bonk (1998) found that students had difficulty combining elements of the information learned in a new pattern so as to apply that knowledge to solve similar problems.  I bring up this question on my blog as my last inquiry and look for possible explanations and solutions At this stage my hypotheses is that I might be able to aide this by providing opportunities for metacognition, but I am not sure.

As I shut the door on this course, I seem to find other doors I need to go through – to explore some other mysteries- to solve some other problems – to clarify some other confusion! This quest for knowledge is never ending. However I am sure I can use what I have learned here to unravel any questions, inquiries, and explorations in the future.

References:

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2736%28200103%2938:3%3C355::AID-TEA1010%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract 

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Sugar, W. A., & Bonk, C.J. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse (pp. 131-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76898-4_14

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2004, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

Like other mobile technology, Apps also found acceptance amongst many. Marc (March, 26) asked some thought provoking questions about whether the effectiveness of apps results from it single use, its ability to allow touch and mobility. I agree that I found students more raptly involved in apps than computer activities. It could be the novelty factor and the way you can hold an Ipad closer – like a book. It is definitely more intimate.

The wow factor of such technologies is an added bonus. David, Steph, and I agreed that while it is the initial hook, it also allows for play –which can be very productive and promote higher level thinking.

I think Apps are making huge inroads into education as we see more Ipads at schools.  There are many educational apps available for a variety of topics and different age groups of learners. The bottom line though is still the same – for the tool to be effective it needs to be a part of a meaningful learning process.

A question I  have is – does this learning style work for all? 

How would you customize any of the mobile technologies discussed in this lesson to facilitate embodied learning or mobile learning for math or science? Explain your choices.

I am fascinated by the prospects of using Apps in the classroom to teach science and math. Apps like other simulations, applets and sites provide learners with experiences that they would otherwise have to imagine. Apps can provide multisensory experiences about how the natural world operates by mirroring it.

My school has acquired three Ipads in the last little while and I have seen positive results of embodied learning when we have used Apps to teach in small groups or with individual students. My Learning Assistant teacher, the parents of the students involved, and I have noticed and discussed that the level of student involvement and motivation is very high. It is much different and intense compared to use of applets /sites on the computer or doing interactive activities on the Smart board.

Embodied learning theorists /scientists believe that all our experiences are grounded in our body (Winn, 2003). Hence cognition gets enhanced when learning involves multimodality, kinesthetic, and collaboration. So when we create a learning environment with activities that involve the above and interact with that environment, cognition happens [Winn, 2003]. I can see this happen with the use of Apps in the classroom. Using Apps involves touching and maneuvering. Apps are also multimodal as they involve visuals, sound, touch, and spatial interactions. For example, if we use the App shared by Valerie [Solids Elementary HD] in the math class where students can examine shapes by touching them, moving them, and opening them in their nets [which could not happen with a solid, real manipulative] their understanding of geometric shapes will be enhanced.

Winn also says that we have different perceptions and views depend on our different experiences of the environment (2003). There are often misconceptions that can be formed due to many reasons. Also students may get distracted by the other affordances of the Apps. For example I do mention that the wow factor in the app I recommended [Solar Walk] can be very distracting.

Since students will perceive the app contents in their own individual way, collaboration and discussions will allow students to check their mental models and modify them if needed. I found discussions helpful even when using the very structured and directive Apps like Mitosis. As my daughter and I went through it – discussing and rehashing what we had just seen and done- it helped making sense of the next stage.

This clearly suggestion the need to embed the use of Apps in the constructivist learning processes like T-GEM (Khan, 2007) and the LfU (Edelson, 2001). We know that no technology is effective till embedded in proper pedagogy. By creating a learning environment where the students can interact with content in multisensory and multimodal fashion to create mental models and then collaborate with others to assess, evaluate, and modify their mental models will complete the embodied learning experience. The role of the teacher becomes that of a guide or an expert who can help students through their ZPD’s by providing some guiding information. I so believe that Apps are pervasive technology whose use can shift the class towards a more student centred and self-directed learning (Zhang et.al, 2011).

Resources:

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2736%28200103%2938:3%3C355::AID-TEA1010%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2004, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

Zhang, B., Looi, C-K, Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L-H, Chen, W, So, H-J, Soloway, E. & Norris, C. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education, 55,

I shake my head in amazement at the educational content present on the Web. I look back at my barren education – limited to text books, libraries, and the “word” of the teacher. I wonder if I would have better understanding of science and math concepts if these multimodal online resources and networked communities were available then.

 However there is a strong consensus among education pundits that affordance to support meaningful learning is not inherent in content but the pedagogical processes applied. Therefore the challenge is, as Siemens (2003) puts it, to select the media type [sites] that most effectively presents the learning material in order to achieve intended learning outcomes.”

 This emphasizes the need to customize online activities and embed networked communities in sound pedagogical processes to facilitate construction and diffusion of knowledge.  So as I examine the Exploratorium and the VFT, two of the suggested online resources with awe and excitement, I realize that the fabulous resources present there needs to be implanted in sound pedagogical practice, or the learning will be lost.

 The Exploratorium successfully attempts to provide real experiences to its online audiences. Falk (2010) establishes in his study that learning and entertainment are complimentary and not conflicting goals. Online museums like Exploratorium present content in a visually appealing and entertaining manner.  It broadcasts live video and audio from the museum or from locations. It provides multimodal presentations of special events and museum resources. Its digital library provides for hundreds of webcasts, video clips, podcasts, and slideshows. Hsi states that such digital libraries provide multiple views of the structure of a domain, an approach that has been found to be important for learning (2008).

Virtual field trips is a powerful source for education. Bitner et al. (1999, as cited by Spicer & Stratford, 2001) found that use of VFT increased the ability of students to solve ‘real world problems’. In the same study it was established that VFT strengthened the learning that happens at a real field trip. Students also stated that VFTs were more effective when a discussion with classmates and experts was involved. This definitely suggests that the VFT is an effective tool when embedded within a community of learning which include novices and experts.

 Examining the affordances of both tools, I believe both can be effectively embedded in an inquiry based learning model in which students are actively involved in their learning through questioning, discussing, and investigating to build new knowledge. Content from Exploratorium can be used to allow students to examine authentic science issues if examined collaboratively with not just teacher facilitation but modeling as well. Sugar & Bonk (1998) found that students had difficulty transferring skills and synthesizes even after a collaborative learning process, probably, in the absence of teacher modeling. Exploratorium itself promotes inquiry based learning on its site.

 I believe activities and content of Exploratorium and VTF can be embedded easily within constructivist learning models like the LfU and T-GEM. In T-GEM ,activities could be used in the evaluation stage to help students examine their generated ideas and modify them.  In the LfU model they could be used for refinement of knowledge constructed. T-GEM where the activities could be used in the evaluation stage to help students examine their generated ideas and modify them. Mindful engagement with electronic collaboration – might lead students into cognitive processes of writing & communicating that they would not have done independently and also challenge them to new levels of growth and understanding (Sugar & Bonk, 1998).

Reference:

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20319/abstract

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, 20(9), 891-899.http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/l7991616266n77jq/

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.

Sugar, W. A., & Bonk, C.J. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse (pp. 131-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

As a class we have built a very comprehensive collection of virtual simulations for science and virtual math manipulatives. Now does having a good collection make me a better math /science teacher? I have a large library in my class filled with multitudes of fiction and non-fiction books. Does that make me a good Language Arts teacher?

I digress. The point is – we teachers hoard resources /tools but often are unable to help that child get the concept. Often teachers use the virtual tools as a glorified show and tell on the class smart board where students see the tools function but do not get to work with them.  Since students barely interact with these tools, how are they going to find them beneficial?

There needs to be a realization amongst teachers that the affordance to support meaningful learning is not inherent in digital manipulatives. These manipulatives needs to be supported by good pedagogy to be effective. It is critical for teachers to choose technology based resources that can be employed in a constructivist learning process – that facilitate learning beyond drill and practice – that heightens critical thinking and is student centered. The tools need to be used in a process which will allow students to “get their hands dirty” in a multimodal ways.

 
The second issue regarding using virtual manipulatives is that are these tools effective or just a glamorous activity with no pedagogical value.
Srinivasan, Palmer, Brooks, and Fowler (2006) suggest that for novices anything other than the real system is perceived as fake. I can see their rational when I think of the stages of development suggested by Piaget. Can young learners make the connection between the math concept and the manipulative they are using or does it make the concept more confusing for them?  I have on many occasions put away manipulatives when I see the students getting more confused.

One wonders, then about the applicability and effectiveness of virtual math manipulatives. Are they of pedagogical value, should they be used sparingly, only in the absence of the real thing, or in combination with them?  

Research shows increased engagement, motivation, and conceptual understanding can be achieved through the use of virtual math manipulatives (Crawford and Brown, (2003), Reimer and Moyer, (2005)).  Most importantly, using such manipulatives reduces the cognitive load for the learner and allows them to focus on the process (Suh and Moyer-Packenham, 2007).

Denise and I examined WisWeb and Illuminations because we found it more applicable to elementary math concepts but went ahead and used the Virtual Manipulative Web site as we wanted to share the wide scope of this tool with our class and experiment with it ourselves.  We used grade 3 math and science outcomes to plan a lesson using the T-GEM model. In all honesty, it was not a hard feat –probably because we believe in the constructivist learning. To examine and interact with virtual manipulatives, to be able to discuss these processes to build knowledge is what makes using these manipulatives most effective. I guess all discussions always come down to the needs and effect of having a strong foundation!

Lesson attached below the references

References:

Crawford, C. & Brown, E. (2003). Integrating Internet-based Mathematical Manipulatives Within a Learning Environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 22(2), 169-180.

Reimer, K., & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-Graders Learn About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 24(1), 5-25.

Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006).  Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 1-5.   

Suh, J.,& Moyer-Packenham, P. (2007) The application of dual coding theory in multi-representational virtual mathematics enviroments. Retrieved March 9th, 2012 from http://www.emis.de/proceedings/PME31/4/208.pdf

Teacher Preparation:

Lesson Structure & Development:

Science Extension

Teacher Preparation:

 Lesson Structure & Development:

Lesson Element	Focus	Time (min)	Instructional Strategies & Learning Activities
Orientation	Activation  of Prior knowledge that 3D objects are used in structures	5	Students will identify the type of 3D objects [prisms, pyramids, spheres, cylinders, cones, domes] and identify them within structures. In pairs they will examine the school building, pictures provided on the website and identify them.[ Students may use school Ipads  and camera to take pictures of these shapes and identify them]
Generating idea	Students will work with a partner to identify where certain 3D objects get used in structures	10	“Where in the structures on the website, pictures, and school building do you find different 3D objects being used?”http://speckyboy.com/2009/10/11/around-the-world-with-35-famous-lego-monuments-and-buildings/                   “Do you see a pattern emerging? Are certain objects used only in specific parts of a structure?” Why do you think so?  “Make entries on your worksheet and also write why you think the shapes are being used in that position.”
Evaluating idea	Students will check their idea	15	Students will get together with another group and discuss and compare their finding.They will also share their reasoning.Students will repeat the same activity with another group.
Modifying idea	Students apply their new knowledge to modify their original idea	10	Students will go back and re-examine the object shapes on the given resources and reevaluate their reasoning.They will modify their original idea if needed and provide an explanation as to why they are changing their idea.
Class Discussion		5	Teacher will show the same images on the smart board and invite groups to share their observation about where certain 3D objects are used in structures and why. Conclusion: Certain shapes get used in certain parts of structure depending on how strong they are.

 I was excited to know that a method I use for teaching many of my science lessons has a name! GEM!

For me, the enquiry model I use has evolved out of my constructivism class (Etec 530) where I got totally sold on the instructional model created by Driver and Oldham (1986).

 When I examined GEM, I found many similarities. GEM stands for generating relationships, evaluating relationships and modifying relationships.  Both models are based in the inquiry model which wants students to create their own learning while teachers facilitate and scaffold.

• GEM demands that there needs to be relevant prior knowledge present before the process starts.
• The Elicitation is very much like generating ideas and evaluating them.
• The reconstruction phase is similar to modifying ideas based on new information.
• Applying ideas is similar to extending the relationships learned to newer ideas!

 The underlying idea of allowing students to use processes that are similar to the ones employed by scientists to identify a problem and gathering information has a lot of merit. It established active learning as student create and recreate their mental models of concepts as they examine new evidence and arguments. Instead of giving students the facts, it is more meaningful for them to connect the dots themselves to figure out the relationships and facts.

 Adding technology to this mix enhances the students learning. As a teacher it is a challenge to create a lesson which applies technology, pedagogy, and content in an effective manner. In another study I had examine when looking at use of virtual manipulative (Suh, 2007)  it was stated that use of such tools reduces the cognitive load and allows the learner to focus on higher level thinking and problem solving issues. I think the same principle applies when using simulation. Simulation not only makes ideas and relationships visible and tactile, but also allows students to try out their predictions and hypothesis.

 However it has to be the amalgamation of suitable technology within the constructivist learning method which will make such learning effective. Here my only concern is whether the pedagogical beliefs and practices of the teacher will sustain this constructivist model.

 Reference:

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

 Suh, J. & Moyer-Packenham, P. (2007). The application of dual coding theory in multi-representational virtual mathematics environment.

http://www.emis.de/proceedings/PME31/4/208.pdf

 Sample Lesson

Challenging Concepts: How oceans affect weather

 In teaching grade 4 science in the last 5 years, I have found students struggling with this concept. Despite understanding that cold air moves hot air and that air over water is warmer than air over land in winter and vice versa, the transfer of knowledge can be hard.

 The technology I will be using here is the Internet Website: Weather Channel:

Exploring My World was a very different experience compared to the Jasper Series and WISE.

As an elementary school teacher I like technology tools that allow for a blended learning setup. After the prescriptive nature of WISE the open-ended nature of One World was very welcoming.

Theory:

The aim for One World is to integrate content and process together in the design of learning activities to offers experience with authentic activities to allow for deeper understanding.

The LfU design seems most practical and realistic. We are motivated, so we construct knowledge, and as we understand it more through application, we refine our knowledge. It is therefore goal driven learning which is constructed within a relevant context and gets refined. This refining of knowledge hints at Metacognition, as the learner understands what he knows and what else he needs to know.

Application:

While the tool is hard to navigate without instructions, the basic principle of layering information atop the other and then making connections was very effective as it emulated the learning strategy of attaching new information on to existing information to make it relevant. The acquired knowledge gets refined as more layers of information are added. Such connections were made easier to understand as they were presented in multiple modes [maps, graphs, charts].

The tool is very hard to use with my younger students but I have been thinking about ways I could implement it in my class, on the Smart board, to prompt discussions and learning. It can be applied in studying Canadian geography- cities, population patterns, its connection to weather and landscape. I still have to figure out science applications for my grade level. Math will become an integral part of learning as My World uses numbers to create information. This will allow students to see math in context!

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.

Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002, April). Learning-for-Use in Earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Download this paper as a Word document from Northwestern University’s site: http://www.worldwatcher.northwestern.edu/userdownloads/pdf/LFU_PF_NARST02.v3.doc

WISE is based on Inquiry based learning and its two main principles of making thinking visible and to learn in a social environment. My understanding is that the main motivational force behind the creation of Wise is to promote Epistemic understanding of the ideas about nature of science.

So the WISE uses the social constructivism model of learning which allows students to diagnose, analyse, critique science knowledge in a collaborative online environment. The WISE uses the Web as a teaching medium in which the content is presented mainly through hypertext.

Examination of the lessons show that the information is presented in small slices: first everyday facts were presented to allow learners to make association (contextualize) and then gradually complex information was presented that could be scaffolded by this previous information. Scaffolding is also afforded through multimodal means of written material, visual and auditory representation, and real life documentaries.

As a teacher, I was not allowed to assign the project to my class without previewing the lesson. Students also had to go through the lesson sequentially and could not skip ahead. This affordance allowed meaningful interaction of the learner with the knowledge. There was assessment for understanding and if the students struggled, they were linked back to the page they needed to examine again. Students also did note taking at different stages and were told how they will be utilizing the notes at a later level.Students collaborated with their peers about their learning.

Some Concerns:
I believe that there wasn’t enough collaboration in the process. It was mainly near the end of the process and not much during the knowledge building process. I believe the collaborative part of learning should begin right as the students start to examine their prior knowledge.

There was no facilitation for student-student or student- teacher interaction outside of assignments.

Also there was not much flexibility for externalizing the learning to allow students to represent the learning in different ways.

I missed the open-endedness and the real life connections of the Jasper Series!

Introduction:

As an elementary school teacher I have always found myself at the tail end of applying educational technologies.  Whether it is an acquisition of a computer lab, Wi-Fi, or need of software, the elementary schools seem to be the last ones to get them.  Currently the emphasis has been to explore and use those affordances of technology which encourage collaboration and interactivity so as to encourage critical thinking skills and metacognition in a socially constructive environment (New London Group, 1996).  Many theoretical papers are being scribed and researches being conducted to show what such learning looks like and how technology and pedagogy need to coexist to provide an optimal learning environment. A closer examination of the literature shows that it is focused on the higher levels of education. Many of my colleagues have also not given it much thought, and with no guidance, I feel secluded again. However, I am very impressed by what the theory and research has to say about these current pedagogical trends and being extremely curious about its applicability in elementary education, I have set out on a quest of my own to figure out if the use of Web 2.0 tools can encourage collaborative learning in elementary education.

Background:

In the last few years I have been experimenting with the use of technology in my teaching. I find it to be a great multimodal tool and have tried to apply it in all phases of the learning process. In math students have been able to interact with virtual manipulative and practice math concepts by playing games on websites or simply doing drill and practice. You tube videos and web cameras have enabled them to see science as it really happens. Lately, I have also started to apply the current pedagogical trends of social constructivism in my classroom. In my exploration of learning theories I was very convinced by Vygotsky’s (1978) belief that students need to explore relevant content to create their own understanding in a socially interactive environment and that teachers need to facilitate such learning by providing the support through their Zone of Proximal Development. Now in math and science classes, my students work in groups and with partners to create knowledge and solve problems. Though such pedagogy also highly recommends the use of technology to allow students not only to interact with content, but also to interact with peers and teachers within a community of learners to create knowledge (Anderson, 2008),  I have until now mainly functioned in a traditional classroom and used technology only to examine content. Timidly, I have just started to experiment a little with a class blog and am unsure of its implications and my implementation, and am looking for some guidance.

In any profession, the best guides can be your colleagues in the same occupation. Therefore I had looked forward to the analysis of the video cases and talking to my colleagues for the field-based interview. It was exciting to find teachers who were using technology in elementary education and discovering it multimodal affordances. As my own interviewee said, “The nice thing about technology – not only does it engage multiple pathways to learning, it is scalable to level of learning.” However, it became apparent that technology is not deemed by some as an essential part of the learning process but rather often viewed as an extra aid whose presence is not omnipotent to the learning process. As one of the interviewee said, “Students can learn both with and without technology”.  There was consensus amongst many teachers that “technology brings limitless access to learning and observing science ” and that virtual manipulative can engage students”,  but many also did not see it as a tool that will help students develop the ability to think critically, problem solve, and work cooperatively alongside their peers. In fact it was feared that technology use “has caused student’s mathematic skills to not develop or atrophy.” The affordances of web 2.0 tools that encourage student interaction and collaboration barely showed up in these discussions and when they did, it was not considered valuable. My own interviewee stated that he did not think that there was any potential for web 2.0 tools in an elementary setup.  Some colleagues even asked for definitive research to prove that technology is effective.  It was hard to find a common ground between what the current literature was proclaiming and what my colleagues were telling me.

My Exploration:

It is hard for me to accept that such affordances of technology can only benefit older students.  I know there needs to be more face to face teaching with younger students (Bates and Poole, 2006) but that does not imply that collaboration and interactivity using web 2.0 tools does not benefit young learners at all. To confirm my conviction, I dug deep into the field to educational research within the annals of UBC library, EBSCO, CITEULIKE, and even Google to find some samples of Web 2.0 technology use with younger children.  Keywords like “blended learning” and “elementary education” proved futile.  Finally terms like “blog” and “online learning” with elementary education, helped me find some studies that could shed light on the viability of Web 2.0 tools in elementary education.

 [Pane, P. (2010). How does the use of blogs impact student motivation for literature discussions?]

In this action research from the Buffalo State University, it was found that student’s preferred the F2F discussions to blog use. Pane refers to those affordances of technology as the theoretical base for her study which encourage higher level thinking through discussion and collaboration and for that reason I had wanted to examine this study. The study was conducted in a grade four class in which the students were divided into three reading groups and each group was assigned a different book. The students had to read 10 pages every day, write a journal response, and then discuss it either in their group or on the blog. Initially the students had the choice between the tools and then for four weeks they had to choose one. Students had a pre-survey, interviews in the 5^th week, and a post-survey.

The results were based on the opinion of the students. Even though the students liked using the blog, the slowness of getting online and low keyboarding skills made the use of blog tedious. The students did not see their blog discussion as “talking “to their friends. I agree with the low keyboarding skills of students this age, but believe that a longer study might have made the students overcome this drawback. The students might have enjoyed it more if they did not have a related writing activity and the blog may have been considered a part of their writing assignment. This might have made them consider the blog activity as vital part of the learning process. I also believe that a summative test based on the books may have provided more insight about the overall effect of blog discussions on learning. 

[Hayes, A. (2004).  Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension and motivation in the content areas]

This study which was conducted in a science classroom did not show encouraging results either. Even though this study focused only on content and student interaction on the Web, and not the student to student or student to teacher interaction, I was curious about how young learners handle any aspect of online learning and benefit from that. Hayes (2004) conducted an action research in her own class of eighteen grade 1 students. She compared their achievement with 56 other grade 1 students from the same school. Hayes used internet activities in her class in conjunction with the traditional teacher –led activities like use of textbooks, lecture, discussion, and worksheet to study vocabulary for the science unit on weather. The other classes just used the traditional methods. Predetermined, age appropriate web sites were used to answer questions about weather, write informational stories, and find new information to share with the class on an individual basis. The students were highly engaged and spent more time on the computers.

Observation and interviews showed that students really enjoyed the unit. At the end of the unit when all first grade students took the same chapter test, the class showed lower mastery level compared to the other classes. Hayes concluded that Internet may have a negative impact on student achievement with younger students as more time was wasted in setting up technology and trouble shooting, and away from the content. I believe that often teacher inexperience can lead to ineffective use of technology. Also factors like teacher’s individual style and student’s familiarity with teacher style in the traditional setup may interfere with their online learning. Another issue that stood out for me from this study was that conventional paper and pen testing do not measure other skills like fact checking and critical thinking that developed during the learning process. Evidently assessment models need to evolve with changing teaching and learning models. I believe that the results of this study imply that technology use in itself is ineffective. It needs proper pedagogical scaffolding to be impactful.                     

[Yee (2010). Web-based Tools for Science Teaching in Lower Primary School. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.]

This recent exploratory study about using Moodle to teach science in a primary classroom shows that collaboration and interactivity are very effective tools in elementary learning. While the study is not conducted in a North American setup, I examined this study as it was testing the use of a Learning Management Systems like Moodle which provide for all affordance of the Web 2.0 tools in a safe and organized environment. Grade 3 students of mixed ability were provided with the opportunity to discuss and to work cooperatively through an LMS for their science unit.  The students used the forum on Moodle to discuss science concepts about plants and animals. They also worked on Tagul, a word cloud software with hyperlinks to Google, to contribute to class knowledge about plants and animals. The pupils worked on both activities into groups of 5. Even though they used the forum to have asynchronous discussions to answer simple questions, there was evidence of knowledge being built as students learned from each other. The word cloud activity encouraged them to find new information to post and expand their learning. The qualitative and quantitative data, both showed improvement in student learning. 

The researchers were able to establish many crucial assumptions from this study. They state that for younger children the LMS needs to be used at school as students are not very independent. This is in accordance with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal development which focuses on the need to adult guidance for students. The successful findings of this study confirm for me that interactivity and collaboration provided by the web 2.0 tools can be effective in educating young learner. The one essential issue the study does not discuss is the level of teacher involvement and support provided, which would have been more insightful. 

[Li, Qing. (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational Research. Vol. 52, No. 4]

This very thought-provoking study from the University of Calgary showcased how use of internet tools and face to face collaboration among younger children increased their understanding of the subject matter in question and enhanced their general problem-solving abilities through the process.  Li studied 21 elementary students (19 boys and two girls) between the ages of seven and eleven, during a summer camp where they were involved in the “learning –by-game-building” approach. The students created educational games to teach other students, and during their learning process their emotional and learning experiences were measured qualitatively and quantitatively. Students discussed and collaborated traditionally as they explored the online applications to help them create games.

The researchers found that as students worked together they expanded their knowledge regarding the science and math involved. They showed great problem solving skills as they worked through the software and created their final product. While the study did not extensively use the collaborative online tools for discussion, their blended use of technology and face to face collaboration clearly showed how their appropriate use is conducive to higher level thinking. Since it was a voluntary summer camp and not conducted in a structured educational setup, it might be hard to apply the positive results to the general elementary student population. However, it still highlights the extensive pedagogical benefits of blended learning systems in science education for elementary students.

Conclusion:

While it was hard to find studies solely on the topic of Web 2.0 tools and its implementation in elementary education, all studies have been able to shed some light on my query about benefits of collaborative learning using technology.  The studies do not provide a precise answer but raise some significant concerns about the applicability of web tools in elementary education.  Web 2.0 tools need to be intricately woven with pedagogy, like any other technology, for them to be effective. Research and my own experience has shown how effective collaborative learning has been in understanding science phenomenon and applying math concepts to real life situations even in a traditional classroom. In such a successful pedagogical setup when technology is introduced, it should be done in a way so as to enhance the effect of what is already being achieved. This refers to keeping in mind many issues like student’s cognitive and social abilities, teacher ability and planning, the content under consideration, and the affordances of the technology being used. From my investigations I can pragmatically conclude that Web 2.0 technologies can be effective in the elementary education if used appropriately. 

References:

Anderson, T. (2008).Towards a Theory of Online Learning.  In: T. Anderson & F. Elloumi

             (Eds.), Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University.

Bates A. W. & Poole, G. (2003).A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In A.W.

              Bates & G. Poole, Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education (pp. 75-

             108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4.

Hayes, A. (2004).  Internet in the elementary classroom: effects on vocabulary comprehension

            and motivation in the content areas. Retrieved January 14, 2012 from  

            http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/vol3no1/pdf/ahayes-article.pdf

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.        Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Pane, P. (2010). How does the use of blogs impact student motivation for literature discussions?

Retrieved January 16, 2012 http://www.buffalostate.edu/elementaryeducation/documents/ActionResearch_2010Pane.pdf

S. L. Wong et al. (Eds.) (2010). Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computers

in Education. Putrajaya, Malaysia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education. Retrieved January 22, 2012 from http://www.apsce.net/ICCE2010/papers/c6/short%20paper/C6SP23.pdf

Li, Qing . (2010). Digital game building: learning in a participatory culture. Educational

 Research. Vol. 52, No. 4, December 2010, 427–443

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.

            Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Now when planning learning environments following the Jasper Series model, do they have to be as grandiose?

I think if the smallest of relevant-realistic activity can provide for the essential underlying assumptions, they are applicable. So the activity needs to be based in reality, a problem needs to be solved, and it should be relevant to the students. They should have the know-how of the basics needed for this problem or there should be provision for mini lessons long with the activity where these building blocks of knowledge could be provided. They will need to work in small groups. Technology support can provide content, scaffolding, discourse, and manipulative software to create and compute.

My little brain is abuzz with ideas! Here is my ambitious plan- next year I am definitely going to use the anchored learning approach with a multidisciplinary slant for one semester for sure. Some ideas floating in my head currently are:

1. For grade 4 science and writing outcomes, my students could design the school playground as we are going to get a new one soon. They will be dealing with math concepts of addition, area, perimeter as they will look at the cost of equipment and labour and designing of the playground with safety and capacity in mind. They will need to visit some playgrounds, interview the school district personnel in charge of playgroup. This could be a F2F or a Skype interview. Students will have to communicate formally with the principal and PAC regarding budget issues.

2. Another grade 3 scenario I am thinking is about including the science unit of structures with the socials unit of pioneers. As the pioneers came, they build structures. In each scenario the students could be provided materials and they have to plan structures like houses, bridges, barns, igloos. They have to rationalize the structure style according to the material provides and from the environmental aspect.

These are very simple scenarios but they appear quite doable to me. With MET done by July, I can go ahead and plan full steam!