Unshackling learning from the classroom via mobile technology

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Dave Horn

Customizing mobile technologies to facilitate embodied learning or mobile learning for math or science

Back when I had just finish my undergraduate, I spent a bit of time slumming it in an outdoors store in Victoria. One day an older lady came in wanting to buy some bear-spray to protect her while she was walking in the forest with her dogs. Not necessarily unreasonable (you essentially have to be petting distance from the bear for it to be effective), except that she intended to use it against cougars. I informed her that this wasn’t going to be successful and that most likely her dogs would keep the cougar away. It turns out they were Corgis, to which I indicated that the cougar would likely just take one of the dogs and she’d be fine. Suffice to say, she left a titch unhappy with her new knowledge and my manager, while laughing, gave me hell for not being a bit nicer.

This illustrates a prime example of people having certain expectations and conceptions based on limited experiences and that exposure to new environments and scenarios often demonstrate such conceptions are incorrect, and even occasionally unpleasant. The classroom does represent one environment for students to garner knowledge in, however, it lacks many of the realistic opportunities for them to experience challenges to their thinking.

Thus with the use of smart mobile platforms such as the iPhone or iPad (personal bias) students can be unshackled from the classroom. To customize such platforms to support mobile learning on top of the basics (built in camera, notes, timer, face-time) I would add: a Unit converter, Dragon dictation, Garage-band, iMovie, and Pages or tools of similar capacity, as well as, a SIM card so students could take the tools into the “field” and still access the web. Then students are able to construct research questions, find initial information online, collect data (images, videos, digital notes), represent their findings through multiple modalities, and share this information (Zhang, Looi, Seow, Chia, Wong, Chen, So, Soloway, and Norris, 2010).

With access to the web from anywhere, mobile learning can be organized via Google-docs, providing students with guidelines, directions, and a forum for communication, both with the teacher and fellow learners. Mobile learning ties into Winn’s (2003) observations that:

  • to create a coupling (interaction between student and environment), students need to actively engage in reshaping their old conceptions into new ones via new challenges within the environment
  • by increasing a student’s sense of presence with an environment then their coupling with the said environment can be increased

as it, provides the opportunities for students to move into a multitude of different environments and experiences outside of the classroom.

Considerations from Discussions

As we are building a 1:1 student and technology model at the school where I work, I believe that mobile technologies provide the best tools in collaboration with the resources already contained both by the school and the students themselves. In discussions with my fellow MET learners several key points have been brought up about mobile technology:

  • a need for a critical mass of technology savvy teachers
  • the diversity of mobile devices
  • wireless access to the net
  • economic factors affecting the purchase of mobile devices

Since the simple presence of technology does not automatically mean increased learning or a better sense of development, there is indeed a need for a critical mass of technology savvy teachers. It doesn’t have to mean that they are masters of every technology, but rather that have an understanding of how it can be used in the learning process and are willing to put in the effort to design learning activities, which effectively incorporate technology. This technological adaptability also helps to accommodate for the variable capabilities of mobile devices, which students possess. Assignments and learning tasks need to have flexibility in them to accord for the differences in the technology, as well as, the differences in the student’s proficiency levels; group collaboration can be one way to overcome some of these issues. Our school is a small private one and the majority of families can afford most technologies, but options are in place for lower economic status families. As well, the costs associated with designing for mobile technology are taking into consideration the need for students to complete assignments within the school, in case not all options are available at home (extra available computers and appropriate supporting software). Increased use of mobile devices also requires increased bandwidth at schools so information can actually be accessed. While I envision students having 3G/4G access, this would be for those times when they are out in the field and would otherwise be drawing upon the wifi network of the school. As a colleague pointed out, “if students can have wifi at McDonalds they sure as hell should have it at school where it counts.” One further extension to open networks and mobile learning is the need to talk to students about ethics, appropriate use, and also the times to not rely on the mobile tools.

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

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, 1504-1523.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Authentic Scientific Inquiry via GLOBE and Virtual Worlds

Posted on March 19, 2012 by Dave Horn

Ecological factors and relations are both explicit and implicit components of many high school science courses, but are often explored in manner disconnected from the authentic experiences and tangible data. In response to this problem, GLOBE represents a resource around which teachers can create inquiry based learning opportunities. Wherein the students are required to create conceptual knowledge that is relevant and available for later use and the design follows a Learning-for-Use approach (Edelson, 2001). As the LfU model provides an approach to the overall design of an exploration with GLOBE. The collection, evaluation, and interpretation of the data can be supported using GEM so that scaffolding can be provided during the exploration (Khan, 2007).

The tools and guidelines for collecting data are outlined by GLOBE, providing consistent data collection guidelines, and freeing the educator to facilitate the GEM process. Initial discussions about data analysis and collection can be carried out with the previous acquired data stored on GLOBE, thereby providing some experience for novice learners. More importantly GLOBE actively encourages students to collect new local data, which students can then add to the database and compare to others. As well as being interpreted by the learners, the data is also analyzed by the larger scientific community providing a authentic and meaningful reasons to collect the data (Means & Coleman, 2000). Therefore the physical collection of data provides students with both the practice of scientific processes, as well as, meaningful real world connection to data, which may be lost in pure simulations (Srinivasan, Perez, Palmer, Brooks, Wilson, & Fowler, 2006) or the abstract analysis of the correct data supplied by the teacher.

The missing component of authentic scientific processes then remains to be communication. Since all learning essentially boils done to interactions between various factions:

  • Environment
  • People
  • Information
  • Combinations of the above

Then the logical progression of the information age is a shift to the interaction age (Milne, 2007). While GLOBE does include tools and resources for communication and interaction with other learners, issues were noted with appropriate pairings of class capabilities and inconsistent communication (Means & Coleman, 2000). This is where virtual worlds like Whyville (aimed for a teen audience) or Second Life can provide opportunities for peer-to-peer discussions of the data and the generation, evaluation, and modification of hypothesis based upon the data in real-time.

Made possible by capitalizing on the virtually inseparable tendencies of students from their phones and the increased ability of these tools to act as stand alone platforms capable of accessing any number of web tools. By having students in the field collecting data and drawing upon their mobile platforms to communicate within Whyville, learning can be moved out of the classroom (Milne, 2007) further creating authentic learning experiences. The educator can also monitor student progress via Whyville; questioning the students’ assumptions, interpretations, and hypotheses.

Lomas (2007) notes that the design of virtual worlds are often influenced by the laws of the real world though they need not actually be confounded by these physical laws. Thus assessment could occur by having students examine the virtual world for various ecological relations related to their particular study, and or explain what limitations their particularly virtual world might have on such ecological relations. Means and Coleman (2000) also noted that students tended to critique the results of students from other schools, but not necessarily their own data. Thus, in order to help students analyze their own data, and develop their communication skills students would be required to create, track, and reflect on both their own data and that of other global learners. Followed up then by the generation and revision of hypotheses and the explanation of phenomena in relation to the hypothesized mechanisms.

 
Reference:

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.

Lomas, C. (2007). Second Life for Learning: From virtual worlds to augmented classrooms, laboratories and field trips. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 606-607). Chesapeake, VA.

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

Means, B. & Coleman, E. (2000). Technology supports for student participation in science investigations. In M.J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 287-320). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Milne, A. (2007). Entering the Interaction Age Today. Educause January/February 2007. Vol. 42, 1, 12-31.

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The digitalization of Le Chatelier’s Principles

Posted on March 14, 2012 by Dave Horn

Why is visualization a necessary component?

Prior to the introduction of Le Chatelier’s principles students have for the most part be taught that reactions proceed in forward direction (towards products). So this represents a large change in the perceptions of chemical reactions. Observable chemical laboratories are also difficult to carry out, and that static nature of writing equations on a board are at odds with the dynamic nature of Equilibria.

Use and Implications for teaching practices

Use of the virtual chemistry lab can provide opportunities for discovery learning.
Since the lab contains, instructions for how to explore the concept, students can work in small groups to collect data, evaluate the data to create a hypothesis, and modify the hypothesis through further discourse and experimentation. The teacher then provides guides for collecting data and prompts for analysis and hypothesis creation, which scaffolds the learners construction of the model (Khan, 2007). This scaffolding addresses one of the concerns identified by Srinivasan et al.(2006) that if the learning goals are too high then learning can be impeded.

What are the affordances?

These include opportunities for students to work in a collaborative, learner-centered approach where they can identify misconceptions and actively formulate new mental models. The first steps are provided so that all students have one set of unified data with which to create initial hypothesis and opportunities (prompted by the instructor as a facilitator) exist for further smaller group explorations. Since it is a web-based tool, students can use the tool asynchronously to further develop their understanding. As Finkelstein et al. (2005) point out, the use of virtual manipulatives is also helping to prevent students attaching incorrect meaning to such things as the physical properties of the chemicals, or making subjective assessments about color change. The virtual labs include interactivity with numerous possible outcomes. In order to create authentic assessments and help with knowledge integration the educator could ask students to predict the outcomes for several scenarios before they actually completed the test.

In schools with adequate resources, the hands on experiments could facilitate discourse about why the results did not necessarily match the expected outcome of the simulation (over simplification of model, impure reactants, etc.). The use of a blended approach would also address students possible perceptions of the simulation as being fake (Srinivasan, 2006) since they could then physically interact with the resources. While difficult to overcome without a blended approach, the use of the simulation can help those students whose only other exposure is via bookwork and sample questions which tell them Equilibria is established to at least formulate an image of molecules shifting. The use of virtual labs must be done with intent and adequate forethought in order for it to be effective in the learning process and then in can promote learning (Finklestein et al. 2005).

Pondering and Questioning

Learners in the MET-program represent a select group of educators with a predisposition to incorporate technology, but aren’t necessarily representative of all teachers. Knowing that simulations, and digital modeling tools can help students to visualize abstract or difficult to observe phenomena, I wonder how to effectively help the “average” teacher incorporate such tools. I also question the actual level of student engagement and critical thinking with such tools, especially for those students who have had very little exposure initially. I see some of these difficulties with my students, who do have some experience and yet still struggled this week to make the “correct” inferences while using simulations from PhET to predict molecular polarity. A final observation and question that really standout from the various tools and discussions is that many of the assessments and evaluations still follow into the lower level of Bloom’s taxonomy. So, how can these information visualization tools be used by the students to demonstrate concept mastery and create authentic assessments?

References

Anderson, L. W. and David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group)

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.

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

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Developing an Understanding of Electronegativity via T-GEM

Posted on February 23, 2012 by Dave Horn

Thoughts on T-GEM:

Khan (2007) identified model-based inquiry as a "dyanmic, recursive process of learning by changing one’s mental models while inquiring about phenomena." GEM was a pattern of teacher-student interactions noticed during a study of model-based inquiry in the classroom. This pattern consisted of helping students to construct a hypothesis/model from collected data(generation), creation and application of a hypothesis from the data (evaluation), and then with prompts and guidance the revision of the model (modification). Since today’s learners expect to use media during their learning (Beyers, 2009) the natural progression of model-based-inquiry is to facilitate it with technology. Affordances associated with technology include, accurate record keeping, visualization and testing of processes, which are either unobservable (too small, fast, or far) or too dangerous (Edelson, 2001) and the capacity for dynamic presentation. Technology can also allow for asynchronous inquiry, such that the learners are able to continue the process outside of the classroom, enable a more flexible learning pattern to develop. In the follow section I attempted to create a T-GEM model to assist learners with building an understanding of the mechanisms behind chemical bond formation.




Issue:
An inaccurate understanding of how and why elements form different types of compounds (ionic & molecular) due to electro-negativity and electron configuration.


Background:
Students are provided with the knowledge that atoms consist of electrons, which exist in different set energy levels and that only a certain number of electrons can exist in particular shells. Electrons are responsible for creating bonds.


T-GEM:

Technology:

Generation-I:

  • Use Atomic electron configuration to identify the number of electrons and the patterns in the first 20 elements.
  • Students are then asked to predict the electron configuration for randomly selected elements and explain their rationale.

Evaluation-I:

  • Propose explanation of how electrons configuration lead to the formation of compounds.
  • At this stage questions regarding where electrons are “moving to” and type of compound being formed would be relevant.
  • As a teacher I would encourage for discussions and consensus among peers for explanation.

Modification-I:

  • Based on the different possible combination students achieved, have them account for why metals don’t form compounds with one another and to account for ionic versus molecular compounds.

Generation-II:

  • Students would use “Real Molecules” from PhET to collect data on electron density and electro-negativity and identify patterns and trends.
  • Prompts and questions about location of electron density could be used to help them identify patterns.

Evaluation-II:

  • Students create a hypothesis as to why electron density and electro-negativity are tied to electron configuration.
  • Predict the characteristics of randomly selected compounds and discuss findings and explanations with peers.

Modification-II:

  • Students revision explanation from Modification-I to include observations and conclusion from electro-negativity
    Use metalloid compounds to support and justify explanations

Reference:
Beyers, R.N. (2009) A five dimensional model for educating the net generation. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 218-227.

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Inquiry and engagement with My World

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Dave Horn

As an individual with a tendency to incorporate the concepts and ideas from different, but relevant places and theories, I can appreciate the LfU-model and its’ technological avatar My World. Especially since they draw upon constructivism, cognitive theories, and assimilation theory, which I see as leading to a more learning-centered approach. It can be a struggle to cover content and processes when actually in the classroom and under the constraints of the ministries PLO’s and impending final assessments, however, one cannot actually exist without the other in real science.

After a few technical snags at the beginning of the exploration of My World, which may act as an inhibitor for technology hesitant/resistant teachers, I started to play around with the different fields and layers. As a photographer I was used to the layers component as a similar feature is used in Photoshop, though I wished for some more of the customization options in terms of layout which exist in Photoshop.

Beneficial features include the ability to slowly add content in the form of layers, to hide layers in order to prevent learners & educators from being overwhelmed, and the portfolio component to record notes and reflections on the learning process. There is also a high degree of interactivity and diverse levels of complexity, which are added attributes in regards to the technological component. Teachers would see increased student engagement, though adequate scaffolding would be needed and it does provide authentic content for inquiry. To add depth to this approach and more meaningful content I would like to see this approach be designed to include real-world visual and audio data. In create-a-world the teacher used a blended approach, which I would recommend, but this type of would also benefit from have a test/interactive component, which could be completed asynchronously to foster further student independence, and exploration. A component of asynchronous communication would also increase peer-to-peer dialogue and decrease the ownership on the teacher to provide immediate feedback on conceptual development.

My World has the potential to create engaging inquiry resulting increased learner motivation and understanding, but it is more suited to teachers with a strong technical background (can troubleshoot for students) and experience with science curricula such that they could create authentic assignments and supporting lessons for the learners.

Reference

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

My World GIS; A Learning-for-Use (LfU) model in action

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Dave Horn

My World GIS is the technological side of the LfU-model, which seeks to support the design of learning activities that develop both content and inquiry learning. This model draws upon ideas from constructivism, situated cognition, and meaningful learning theory. Edelson (2001) favours the use of technology-mediated science inquiry, as the execution of modern science routinely uses technology to collect, organize, analyze, model, and communicate scientific discoveries and results. Thus, authentic practices and learning environments for science must also include these tools. This approach is also in line with Beyers (2009) observations that today’s youth expect to actively participate and engage through media. The fact that computers provide opportunities to store and present information through a number of modalities, and that they are now common place with in schools, but with little thought to how they are being used also provide further reasoning for technology-mediate science inquiry.

The LfU-model embodies three steps in designing technology-mediated inquiry

  • motivation-a need for new knowledge
  • Knowledge construction – the develop of new knowledge
  • Knowledge refinement – connection and re-organization

Through the explicit identification of misconceptions, holes, or weakness in ones understanding of particular concepts, a need or motivation to learn new conceptual information can be developed intrinsically. Technology mediated models, demonstrations, and activities can allow students to "see" phenomena which might otherwise be too difficult or dangerous to observe such as car-crashes, explosions, or massive distances (still a bit tricky to fly to the sun). In the "Create-a-World"” project students were able to make use of topographic map functions of My World to see the effects of geological features on temperature. This was only after they had created there own temperature distributions and provided explanations for their reasoning; recorded in learning portfolio component. Authentic practice occurred as students used real world maps, with real topographic data to see the impacts on temperatures and distributions. Discussions with peers aided discovery learning and re-organization of learned concepts. Constructivist principles were seen in the hands on learning aspects of labs examining temperature as a function of light direction and intensity. Knowledge construction and refinement occurs as slowly as more layers and expectations are added to the "Create-a-World". Students initially drew land masses, then added other features as they were discussed with the teacher. As students progress they can keep track of different ideas and conceptual revisions in the portfolio, which one could say acts as a form of advanced organizer and allows students to supplant older knowledge with newer knowledge as they undergo the process of discovery learning.

Conceptual Science and inquiry is further developed as students apply their knowledge about the factors affecting temperature and climate on Earth to their own unique world which they had initially created in My World.

References

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Potentially WISEr

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Dave Horn

WISE was created in response to a lack of inquiry and discovery in the learning and teaching of sciences. It is intended to facilitate a learner-centered approach to science using a constructivist approach with PBL-scenarios. After a week of exploration and discussion, there are divided opinions on how well WISE meets these goals and if actual discovery learning is founded in WISE. There are many instances where answers and solutions were generated with little effort, thought or variance (simple multiple choice answers, or one or two sentences). However, progress independently, reflect on learned content, create and test models, and discuss with peers in forums do provide opportunity for integration of knowledge and facilitate a learner-centered approach. In terms of design and construction consideration, projects are comprised of subunits, expandable menus, interactive components, and easily managed pages.

Figure 1. Screen capture of a WISE project preview

Since WISE is intended to be constructivist and learner centered, designers must first decide on a particular content area and then develop an authentic scenario. Modules are constructed in a way to slowly provide students with the conceptual tools needed to generate solutions to the problem. Drawing upon interactive lessons, summaries, reflections, simulations, and models. The projects, which have been created by the well rounded WISE team are also customizable to allow educators to create content relative to their students, locations, and goals. Tasks and features can be selected from drop down menus and be dragged-into place. This makes it significantly easier for less technologically savvy teachers to make the most of WISE projects.

Figure 2. Screen capture of a WISE project authoring page

Possible draw-backs to using WISE in the classroom include:

  • The consumption of teacher time in terms of developing a familiarity with the projects and customizing them to meet the needs of the particular outcomes being taught
  • Providing technical support and guidance to students as they move through the various WISE projects
  • Time and effort is needed to teach students how to self-monitoring, reflect on their learning, and to create quality responses to the various questions and prompts along the way
  • Teachers may be resistant with the change in role to a facilitator.
  • Appropriate feedback must be created so that students can progress independently
  • Several WISE projects need to be completed to build pattern recognition and understanding of the process and application of science principles

While there are some possible limitations to the use of WISE, with a well thought out plan several projects could effectively be used to develop students understanding of science process skill, ability to critically analyze, and synthesize new ideas. I could envision creating WISE projects to replace my final evaluations in both my senior biology and chemistry courses, since the removal of mandatory provincial exams has allowed for a broader approach to assessment. Several projects throughout the year would act as developers for knowledge, processes, and familiarity with WISE so that in the final project students could focus on applying those skills and the concepts that have learned to resolving the final scenarios. I would expect to see students submitting demonstrations of concept mastery in a number of media, and a collection of their reflections and self-analysis through out the final project.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE)

Posted on February 14, 2012 by Dave Horn

I initially encountered WISE a year ago when I was working to develop a gifted learner program at our school. Similar to the ideas encased in the Jasper series, this program aims to address the issues of decontextualization and a lack of authenticity in the learning of science and mathematics. Granted, it probably is a good thing that we aren’t losing students to self-inflicted poisonings as they attempt to discern the nature of some new chemical or that labs aren’t being set ablaze (actually happened to an undergraduate professor of mine when he was a lad). However, a transmissive and inauthentic learning experience often means students lack an understanding of the actual processes, connections, science/mathematic skills, and mental awareness.


WISE uses a technology enhanced, problem based learning model to provide opportunities for students to develop mental acuity, conceptual understanding, collaboration, reflective skills, and peer-review skills. While the scenarios have different options they philosophies behind them are based on sound pedagogy, incorporate and number of teaching styles, and are developed by a team of individuals with relevant skills: teachers, content experts, researchers, curriculum designers, and technologists. Scenarios, models, and problems also include options for flexibility and localization. For example, in the model " What’s on your plate?" different topographic and geological features can be assessed. In Gobert, Snyder and Houghtons’ 2002 paper, students from opposite coasts examined localized geological features (mountains vs. volcanoes and earthquakes), and then to facilitate learning and revision the students had to swap models and explanations with students on the opposing coasts. Each student was then responsible for providing a critique, with guidelines and supports, of their peers model and explanation. Even more importantly students were expected then to revise and justify why they had done so. Addressing another goal of WISE, which is to make thinking visible (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003).


Rather than just leaving it at the initial model development, critique and revision, WISE projects then build in further inquiry with resources and prompts for students to follow as well as opportunities to test and retest options with advanced software. Once again students are expected to keep track of their thoughts, allowing both themselves and teachers to examine how they are learning and how understanding is changing. While "What’s on your plate?" is only one example and has a few parameters, WISE scenarios focus on using similar approaches and designs in the inquiry process. This helps students to develop a set of patterns that help them with explorations of further units and also build an understanding of fundamental process skills to be applied later. As an undergraduate working in as an assistant in a research laboratory, I had plenty of opportunity with similar real-world situations as we revised PCR-protocols for gene isolation (not nearly as cool as it looks on CSI).


While not a substitute for hands on laboratory experiments, WISE does provide more authentic opportunities for learners and from their research Gobert el al. have identified that it does build a deeper understanding of scientific models and processes.

References

Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Jasper series – Revisited

Posted on February 14, 2012 by Dave Horn

After a week of readings and discussions it was generally agreed that the ideas and principles behind the Jasper Series were in line with where many of us would like to take education. The series, while outdated visually, was working to re-connect learners with the concepts of mathematics and science in authentic environments and situations. The philosophy was constructivist and had connections to discovery learning, and Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (particularly when coupled with additional learning programs like Adventure Player and Adventure Maker). With the use of authentic problems the learning became learner centered and there opportunities for collaboration, deeper reasoning, higher thinking, and perhaps most importantly student reflection on what was learned and how they were learning.

While the Jasper Series has essentially been collecting dust for a number of years (1992 was the last update), many of us could see ways to immediately update the ideas and apply them in our own classrooms. Moving a series to a digital web-based model, would mean significantly increased access and would be in line with what today’s learners are familiar with. A great idea was to have videos of students solving some of the problems and explaining their thought processes as they moved through different problems in order to model for other, newer learners; providing peer development/learning opportunities.

A question did arise about whether it was the video series that had promoted the change in learning attitudes and perspectives of the students or more importantly if it was the idea and philosophy behind them. I’d agree that the philosophy and design behind the series is the most important aspect and that actual field trips would facilitate ideal learning situations. However, these require that teachers have the time and resources to design, organize, and fund the lessons and trips. As a compromise between the two, I’d suggest using a digital video model, especially for building initially skills and familiarity, in conjunction with actual trips so that learners had the most well rounded exposure.

References:

Biswas, G. Schwartz, D. Bransford, J. & The Teachable Agent Group at Vanderbilt (TAG-V) (2001). Technology Support for Complex Problem Solving: From SAD Environments to AI. In K.D. Forbus and P.J. Feltovich (Eds.)Smart Machines in Education: The Coming Revolution in Education Technology. AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo, Park, CA.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Jasper Series: Building student engagement

Posted on February 9, 2012 by Dave Horn

The Jasper series is a collection of authentic problems presented in a video format. It is under-pinned with a constructivist philosophy, which emphasizes student exploration and development of questions and data. Problems are intended to be solved collaboratively with only some information being explicitly provided. Students must then decide which subsets of questions are needed in order to obtain the data, and methods of obtaining the data necessary to solve the initial problem. As well as having several teachable approaches for the series, this TELE also provides opportunities for the educator to take on a “learner” role. Thereby the teacher can model problem solving strategies or scaffold for the other learners.


While the videos look somewhat antiquated today, the principle and concept hold a great deal of potential to foster learning and student engagement. As an educator and designer, several questions stand out:

  • What types of scenarios would appeal to today’s learners?
  • How much scaffolding is necessary to promote engagement and learning for the students and teachers who have never been exposed to this type of model?
  • As a follow up, at what rate do the scaffolds need to be removed?
  • How much time does it take to create authentic problems, scenarios, and accompanying videos?
  • What achievement indicators should be created to assess the actual impact of a similar TELE on learning, achievement, and engagement?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment