Month: February 2012

This week’s activity and reading concentrated on T-GEM a learning design in which technology (T) is integrated in a student process of Generate – Evaluate – Modify (GEM). To date there are 240+ posts in our Chemland Forum. Of all the posts that I read (the majority), not one post provided a negative perspective. This week’s contributions were both enjoyable and enlightening. During the previous weeks we explored technology learning designs/environments that were multi aged in design (WISE – MyWorld – Chemland) but were far from having the flexibility offered by T-GEM.

We read about a chemistry teacher applying T-GEM using computer simulations. The cohort explored the computer simulations of Chemland took their experience and learnings and began to create T-GEM lessons differentiated to fit the needs of their students real and imagined. The variety of developed lessons was startling. For myself, it was best for me to peruse the lessons within my own conceptual grasp – a good reminder for any teacher that new learning needs to be in the zone of proximal development for the student young or old.

T-GEM was used to develop learning opportunities ranging from counting to quadratic equations and from states of matter to photosynthesis. GEM can be applied to any learning in a the math and science classroom and can be applied for any developmental/grade/age level. A teacher can take the intent of GEM and create his or her own lessons (as was evidenced in the shared lesson plans). As I read more and more of the posts (choosing those that applied to my area of interest and need), I began to realize that GEM was a design that I had, at times, inadvertently incorporated into lesson design and/or was present in some of the lessons and activities that over the years have been among my most favourite.

Now myself and other cohort members can purposefully employ GEM rather than accidentally stumble upon it. When I work with teacher learning groups, I talk about the importance of having students bump up against new learning and the need to provide students with opportunities for their beliefs and understandings to be conflicted. It’s GEM!

On Tuesday afternoon I lead twelve math teachers through the third of six inquiry sessions. I am excited to take to the next numeracy learning session this week’s 533 learning and the contributions, sharing, and reflections of my 533 colleagues.

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.

I was intrigued when reading Edelson’s work, Learning for Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology -Supported Inquiry Activities. The parallels between the current push for reform in the teaching of mathematics and the apparent push for reform in the teaching of science were startling.  Edelson (2005), impressed upon the reader that “integrating content and process together in the design of learning activities offers the opportunity to increase students’ experience with authentic activities while also achieving deeper content understanding”. ( p. 355). I would have preferred  the phrase  integrating concept and process. Certainly in math, procedural knowledge without conceptual knowledge to enable application puts a student at future risk in numeracy. Edelson indicates the same is true for science. This belief, the marriage of procedure and concept/content, has encouraged the research resulting in Edelson’s paper.

My World was engaging and time consuming. As teachers we are overwhelmed by the plethora of learning outcomes to be covered and the limited amount of instructional time with which to do so. Yet, we must facilitate learning opportunities in which our students may well learn less but learn deeply. Shifter and Fosnot state (1993), (“No matter how clearly and patiently teachers explain, they cannot understand for their students.”

Interestingly, Edelson proposes that perhaps “technology supported  inquiry curricula will contribute to reform (p. 381). I have heard this theory/idea promoted before. Will it be technology that will finally be the catalyst to push educators to reform their practice? The Points of Inquiry,  Critical Inquiry,  . . .our teaching lives are abuzz with these terms. Yet these concepts are deep and hold promise for learning rigour.

For an educator to purposefully include the learning opportunities of My World, they must themselves be learners with the program. Teachers as learners with technology are better able to then incorporate technology into their classrooms? This question returns me to the learning and reflection that I engaged in as I framed an issue in Module A that led to the research and demonstration of my new learning and understandings in the Framing Issues Assignment.

“Likewise, if students do not construct knowledge in a manner that supports subsequent re-use of that knowledge, it remains inert (Whitehead, 1929).” 1929! My gosh. And we are still debating the need for authentic learning.

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.

The Jasper Series certainly provided for lively and varied discussion this past week.

C.A. themed his discussion thread around improving the Jasper Series and D.B. suggested in her thread that the series was in need of modernization. The improvements that are required of the Jasper Series are superficial. The Jasper Series was, is, will be of importance because it provides an example of concept building through authentic problem solving. It has been twenty plus years now that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics have been calling for learning opportunities such as those  provided by the Jasper Series. Yet . . . . still the Jasper Series with its 1980’s fashions and hair styles is ahead of its time. Many teachers in today’s classrooms continue to teach using pedagogically outdated methods. They may be using “current” resources but they are using the new resources in old ways.

Without thought to and provision for teacher learning, unlearning, and relearning, resources such as the Jasper Series will only be used with good purpose by a few. Technology used to recreate ineffective and outdated teaching methods is of little use. Math resources used with outdated teaching methods and teaching methods are of little use.

Frequently the conversation this week, because it was as much about math as it was about the Jasper Series, contained the typical relational understanding versus instrumental understanding discussions. Tiring.

I am not trying to earn extra marks here. It’s just that I believe instructors/teachers should be given feedback when learning activities and products designed for demonstration of learning are particularly good or particularly  . . . not so good?  The recent Framing Issues Assignment was wonderfully crafted. The journey through Module A created a strong foundation from which the paper could be supported. The cohort was led through a process that helped us define our questions by combining personal, colleague, research investigation. The Framing Issues assignment was not a pie in the sky – find some research  – write a paper – watch the APA – won’t remember what I wrote about next year assignment . . . . it was an assignment that will have lasting affect. Myself, nor do I believe any of my cohort, found definitive answers to our questions. We began a journey of inquiry, information gathering, and reflection. The inquiry, the research, and the reflection, will cycle again. As it should.

The quality of learning can be judged by the quality of the product created. My paper is okay. The product created from this assignment was not really the paper, it is the learning that I will apply to my work and that will help me better serve the teachers, teacher candidates, and students that I serve.

Thanks. And thank you for having this assignment due mid course. Brilliant!

The instructions for this post included the warning that we try to suspend judgement in regards to the Jasper series. At first glance any hands on, project based, problem solving, math teacher is enthralled and feels his or her pulse quicken. Ah Jasper. Wouldst I have known of you when my daily interactions with eleven and twelve year olds occurred in the math classroom.

The Jasper series is comprised of a number of adventures. Each adventure is anchored in a story and problem. It is hoped that through investigation of a problem, students will work cooperatively and constructively to apply mathematical concepts to create possible solutions to the problems. Appealing to students is the media used to present the problems. Video storytelling sets the scene and the conditions. No text based contrived problems here. Also encouraging to educators is the inclusion of African American, Indigenous Peoples, and people with special needs. Students can see their faces reflected in the characters of whom the scenarios revolve.

As an instructor I wonder:

•Which of these videos can I employ to meet curricular outcomes?

•What key understandings and background knowledge must students have to be successful?

•Do these activities differentiate allow for differentiation so that I can meet the needs of all learners?

•Do these activities have both opportunities for individual and social process?

•Given all the learning outcomes that I must cover in a year, do I have the time to do so using this series?

As a potential TELE designer I wonder:

•Do I have the reliable technology to present the videos?

•What technology might my students employ in their investigations?

•What demonstrations of understanding might I expect and what technologies might that employ?

•How might I be supported in my understanding of the concepts investigated in this series?

•Is there a professional community in which I can collaborate that is using this series?

•Will my students be able to apply their understandings to creating and/or successfully investigating other problems?

•How/can my students take this learning outside of the classroom?

How might I design a technology learning space?

When pondering this question on my drive home tonight, I was simultaneously thinking about questions posed to me by twelve teachers that I had brought together as a numeracy learning group. During the first of six sessions, several teachers asked, “How do I use manipulatives to help my students learn?”  Others wanted to know, “What do I do with the students who still don’t get IT ?” These questions helped me to realize that the most important element of design in any learning space is the teacher.

Allow me to consider the math classroom. Teachers need tools yes but more importantly teachers need deep conceptual knowledge and understanding of how children learn mathematics. Without understanding of concept and without knowledge of the mathematical key understandings and the mathematical phases that students progress through, all the tools in the world, (digital or otherwise), make for little benefit.

Math manipulatives are tools that can be invaluable for students as they work to make sense of and construct meaning in math. Our learning environment needs to have these tools available at all times. A variety of math manipulatives must be available for the  teacher who will frequently make spontaneous decisions as to which tool is needed to further learning. The tools need to be available for teacher demonstration and for student use. One student may choose to use multilinks to construct understanding of  multiplication while another student may make use of a personal number line.

The same is true for technology tools. In our learning space we need to have the tools that will enable the teacher to be a continued learner. The learning space must have technology that enables the teacher to connect to colleagues and information when needed. A teacher needs to have a variety of tools available so that he or she can access content at a moments notice as class interest and need dictates. Students need to have a variety of tools available so that they can best choose the technology that will enable them to demonstrate their understanding.

All the classrooms in our school district have computers, LCD projectors, wireless internet access, and document cameras. Many of our classrooms have Smart Boards. Our classrooms are richly equipped  21st Century classrooms but without teacher knowledge of purposeful pedagogy, differentiation, assessment for learning . . . the value of those tools as mindtools for learning (Jonassen, 2000) is limited.

– Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference what is the research evidence. Informally published manuscript, University of Auckland, Auckland Australia, Australia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.acer.edu.au/documents/RC2003_Hattie_TeachersMakeADifference.pdf

Jonassen, D. H.  (2000).  Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search