Monthly Archives: March 2012

Mobile Devices: Friend or Foe?

Posted on by
Reply

Mobile devices are becoming a valuable part of our students’ everyday lives. Bayaa and Daher’s (2009) research explored the use of mobile phone applications (apps) in order to build mathematical knowledge in algebra and geometry. They focused on mathematics mobile education, students’ perceptions of their learning and authentic learning outcomes. In a small study, they found that students enjoyed learning with mobile technology and were motivated to learn more as they were engaged in real world situations. Students used the apps to take pictures, record video, measure time, transfer information, and communicate with one another. One student reported that the mobile devices made learning math “easier, simpler and collaborative.”

Bayaa and Daher (2009) stated that mobile devices assist in math education through:

  • Breaking the everyday routine
  • Enabling independent learning
  • Creating a humanistic environment
  • Encouraging collaborative learning
  • Enabling math exploration
  • Making math visual and dynamic
  • Using various mathematical actions
  • Making math easy and saving time in learning concepts

All of these outcomes are positive as math is traditionally done with pencil, paper and occasionally, a calculator. They also reported that the relationship between the teacher and student changed to more of a level playing field through using mobile technology. The researchers did recommend caution be used when teaching with mobile apps as some students were merely interested by the novelty of the lesson and the devices could be a distraction for them with all the other apps on their devices.  Overall, students were excited to use the apps and appreciated the activity as well as achieved the learning outcomes.

I view the use of mobile apps as very useful in math and science classrooms as mobile devices are used increasingly in many aspects of our lives. Some of the advantages of mobile devices are:

  • Calculators apps-no need to buy different calculators to computer various function, just change the app (i.e. graphing calculators, unit conversion calculators, etc.)
  • Lesson specific- when studying physics a specific app can be used to explore a concept in depth
  • Cheap or free to use- generally the apps cost little money, although the schools would not want to pay for them out of budget funds (a whole new debate topic)
  • Internet capabilities- can connect to the web for research, accessing shared documents, reporting results and communication
  • Multi-functional- not just a calculator or a phone, an all-in-one device
  • Interesting for students- new and exciting applications can be a source of motivation for some learners
  • Mobility- the technology is not limited to the classroom, or even a power source
  • Teachers become facilitators, not dispensers of knowledge (Zhang et al., 2010)

 

Zhang et al. (2010) note in their study “mobile devices are used as a hub to mediate all the learning inquires and activities.” I don’t know that I would include mobile devices in all my lessons but would want them on-hand as a reference tool when needed. They also suggest, “Educators need to develop curricula that specifically consider the affordances of these mobile technologies.” I do agree that we need to address the issue of using the devices in our classrooms and plan appropriately for them. I also see that there needs to be some consistency among teachers about the use of mobile devices. Some teachers are all for using them in their classrooms but others want them banned from schools. I don’t know that banning their use is the right way to go as they are becoming a part of life and can be a great educational tool if used properly. Under the right circumstances with the lesson planned to include mobile technology and a caution to students to use the technology properly mobile devices can assist learning, as well as fill 21st century learner goals.

 

References:

Bayaa, N. & Daher, W. (2009). Learning mathematics in an authentically mobile environment: The perceptions of students. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 3, 6-14.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Zhang, B., et. al. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education, 55, 1504-1523.

Virtual Field Trips and Exploratorium

Posted on by
Reply

MCL2-Knowledge Diffusion

Virtual Field Trips

I looked at virtual field trips and Exploratorium as I could see my junior high students really enjoying learning through both of these platforms. Sugar and Bonk (1998) explained, “sociocultural researchers are searching for situations wherein inexperienced students actively construct new knowledge in authentic settings under some expert guidance.” They feel that virtual field trips and Web-based science expeditions are one way to accomplish this goal as students often have an egocentric view of the world and can look outward through online global collaboration. Sugar and Bonk quoted Lauzon and Moore (1989) in predicting that, “[U]biquitous online educational communities will shift instructional design concerns from the prevailing human-computer interaction issues to more personalized hum-human agendas.” This view was before the widespread use of the internet, Smartphones, Facebook, Google Plus , Twitter, Skype and FaceTime.  Sugar and Bonk suggest that learning experiences should be teacher lead but also include experts in the area of study who can provide additional information on the topic. They concluded that students who participated in a Virtual Field Trip or Web-Based Science Expedition “assumed higher levels of perspective taking than typical preadolescent and adolescent youth.”

In response to how networked communities can be embedded in the design of authentic learning experiences in math and science I see virtual field trips playing an important role. We cannot afford to take students to all parts of the world to discover the amazing math or science concepts that surround them. We can, however, with the assistance of technology view these places through virtual field trips, cameras and the internet.  As video cameras become smaller, cheaper and built in to Smartphones we have increasingly more access to video from around the world. The internet has established a platform for sharing those videos and schools can benefit greatly from them. Classrooms can go from home to Europe to Asia to the South Pole and back again, all within one class period.

Exploratorium

Exploratorium is dedicated to sharing, explaining and researching scientific and art concepts both online and through their physical museum located in San Francisco. In Exploratorium, I looked at how they explain the difference between days and years on different planets in our solar system. They provide you with the information once you enter your birthday on Earth and then go on to explain why each planet is different. It then leads you to discover your weight on the other planets and other interesting related topics. There are many other science and math topic to look at and learn about. It truly encourages science discovery and exploration.

Reading Falk and Storksdieck (2010) caused me to reflect on why I would visit science centers, zoos, museums and aquariums as leisure activities. As outlined in their research one attends science centers as an explorer, facilitator, professional/hobbyist, experience seeker, or recharger. (Personally, my visits may include all these reasons mentioned.) They note that most adults “engage in a degree of self-reflection and self-interpretation about their experience.” Others use the visit to feed their curiosity or to foster learning in the people they attend with, mostly their children. It is neat to see how Exploratorium uses its physical site to set up its virtual website and how the learning philosophies are intertwined.

References:

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.

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.

Illuminations and Information Visualization

Posted on by
Reply

As a visual and kinesthetic learner, I find great value in using information visualization software for learning and teaching math and science concepts. I appreciate the resources that were shared by the group and have compiled a list of practical resources to share with my colleagues in the math and science departments, as a result. I was pleased to see that I already implement some of the resources into my teaching but was even more excited to add to my list of great teaching tools.

The software that Tom and I examined was designed to help students understand how to draw a line of best fit accurately and provide practice. The application was very basic in structure but simulated the principle quite well. Students were able to plot their data points on a graph and then use the software to come up with an accurate line. They could alter or delete data points to see what the difference on the line would be, as well. I see myself using the Illuminations Line of Best Fit applications in math and science to ensure that students understand the concept as well as help them self-correct their work. Students could also use the application to practice creating line of best fit, given as data set, in either math or science. It is an important concept to master as it affects the data analysis after experimentation as well as mathematical calculations.

As I reflect on the many websites and applications shared over the last few weeks I see that many are designed to practice a specific skill or learn a specific concept. I am apprehensive in adopting all these simulations into my teaching as the question of authenticity arose in our discussions. Are online simulations better or worse than real life experiments?  As Srinivasan et. al. (2006) explained, “They seem to need/want authenticity to be able to make the connections the experts make with the simulations.” However, they also note that a computer and software can be much cheaper than the actual hardware necessary for the real-life experience. I see schools using a mix of the two, using simulations where appropriate and hands-on activities when possible. Teachers need to be aware of the possibilities of computer-based simulations and judge accordingly whether to use them or not. Finkelstein et. al. (2005) agreed as they concluded, “computer simulatisons that are properly designed are useful tools for a variety of contexts that can promote student learning.” They noted that virtual equipment is more productive than real equipment. I will add that the simulations shared were typically cheaper and more reliable, as well.

I plan to add more virtual simulations to my teaching as they help create constructive environment for learning. Once students are pointed in the right direction, I feel that they will want to explore other simulations and “mess about” with scientific play (Finkelstein et. al., 2005) increasing learner engagement. Information visualization is an effective learning tool as it uses multiple senses to teach without the need for all the equipment, cost and time.

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.

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.

Math and Science Resources

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some links to some resources I took a good look at and will use over and over in my teaching of math and science in the future. I have created a Google Document and plan to add to these resources as I come accross them

 

MATH RESOURCES

Math in Movies http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/mathmovies/index.html

Illuminations http://illuminations.nctm.org/

http://www.setgame.com/set/puzzle_frame.htm

http://www.cybertrain.info/quizman/qmcreate.html

http://quizhub.com/quiz/quizhub.cfm

http://www.math-play.com/

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/maths/

http://webtech.kennesaw.edu/jcheek4/genmath.htm

http://www.mathrealm.com/Nav/Simulations.php

SCIENCE RESOURCES

National Geographic Forces of Nature http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/natural-disasters/forces-of-nature/

Build A Body http://www.spongelab.com/interactives/buildabody/en/whole/index.html

Stellarium http://www.stellarium.org/

pollanywhere www.pollanywhere.com

Universe Sandbox http://universesandbox.com/

Rube goldberg Machine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qybUFnY7Y8w

The 4 TELEs -Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted on by
Reply

I believe technology-enhanced learning environments (TELE’s) are the way of the future as technology and learning (and life, for that matter) are becoming one and the same. Constructivist learning uses technology to open doors and brings the world into the classroom. Through studying four different TELE’s our cohort has examined the theories behind the programs and has deconstructed the outcomes.

The Jasper Series

The Jasper Series used problem-based learning to engage students in solving real-world multi-step math problems. Technology was used to introduce background and visuals on the topics, as well as set up the problems and introduce questions. “The theoretical framework is consistent with constructivist theories and emphasizes generative learning anchored in meaningful contexts”, as the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt pointed out. At a time when digital technology was just beginning to make its way into classroom the Jasper Series was  played on laserdisc, an uncommon AV device, which created difficulties for those that did not have access to one, or who had to share. At best there were only a couple of machines in a classroom so individual learning was not possible, using the medium.

I believe the Jasper Series was a step in the right direction towards technology enhanced constructivist learning as it afforded the participants with a better understanding of the problems and engaged them through “generative, rather than passive learning activities”(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt, 1992).

WISE

According to Linn, Clark and Slotta (2003), “Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) is a technology enhanced, research-based, flexibly adaptive learning environment which features modeling tools or hand-held devices.” Driven by a knowledge integration perspective WISE is aligned with scaffolding knowledge to build a solid understanding of science concepts. Students follow the lessons by walking sequentially through carefully designed web pages full of information, videos and simulations. Teachers can add to the WISE library and modify lessons to meet their needs, which is a great feature of the platform. It was discussed that these short lessons are great for helping students who need to revisit specific concepts (or who missed the lesson) as they can go through the lessons on their own. Activities and reflection moments are integrated into the lessons, where students and teachers can check for understanding. Some of the activities do not let the user move on until the task is completed correctly, even though a guess and check method can be used to accomplish the task. Learning does not effectively take place in this manner, as students may not understand why a certain answer was chosen before moving on. I can see using WISE as a reinforcement activity or when helping struggling learners walk through specific concepts.

Learning-for-Use (My World)

Edelson (2001) reported that the Learning-for-Use (LfU) model’s goal is to “overcome the inert knowledge problem by prescribing how learning activities can foster useful conceptual understanding that will be available to the learner when it is relevant.” The LfU framework of motivate, construct and refine “was developed as a way to bring the process of learning from inquiry that scientists engage in to students.” I agree that these activities are engaging and provide a wealth of possibilities, as MyWorld did, but may not be suitable for younger learners. I feel these younger learners need more focused inquiry-based activities, as they may get lost in the process or the data if not structured to fit the age group and their level of scaffolding. The MyWorld user-interface was quite advanced for novice learners. Even though the data produced was phenomenal, it did not have the usability necessary for novice users. I see the LfU mode as an ideal learning cycle that educators should desire to work towards but not suitable for every level of student.

T-GEM and Chemland

T-GEM, or using a pattern of generate-evaluate-modify uses simulation technology to enhance conceptual understanding in chemistry (Khan, 2010). Good teachers have a knowledge base of pedagogical content knowledge (Khan, 2010) as well as know how technology can be an effective tool in delivering content. Khan goes on to report that the use of computer have supported GEM by being able to process large amounts of information and view representations in multiple ways. The Chemland compilation of simulations was an excellent example of T-GEM  at work. It was simple to use and very direct, not confusing the student users. I see it as a great tool for chemistry teachers as they can view multiple simulations with no expense or error. The simulations can also be use to manipulate data or experiments to points not achievable in a common 80 minute high school science class.

Synthesis

Upon reviewing these TELE’s I have a better understanding of what to look for when using technology to engage students and construct learning in a science classroom. The theories and programs used should be designed with the learner in mind, age appropriate, user-friendly, easily navigated, visually appealing and encourage reflection and evidence of learning. As mentioned in a number of the articles and throughout our group discussions, it is important that professional development is aligned with sound pedagogy and integrated with technology, as well. Teachers cannot know every program and every web site available anymore. They need the skills to assist students in the knowledge building process as well a technology use. As Kim, Hannafin and Bryan (2007) explained, “[T]echnology-enhanced, student-centered classes provide students with flexible opportunities to manage their inquiry processes and monitor their progress.” As we shift more towards technology-enhanced learning environments, it is very important that students and teachers understand the role of technology in the class and use it effectively to maximize learning. Time is short and there is so much to learn.

 

References:

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315

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.

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.

Kim, M., Hannafin, M.J., & Bryan, L. (2007) Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 96(6), 1010-1030.

Linn, M.C.,Clark, D., Slotta, J.D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.