ETEC 533 E-folio

Information Visualization

Information visualization helps students understand processes and the meaning of data through animations, simulations and modeling. There are many existing and easily accessible science and math based visualization tools available including: Model-It, NetLogo, Geometer’s Sketchpad, WiseWeb, Illuminations applets and PHET.

Running a simulation is akin to messing about as described by researchers in education such as Finkelstein et al (2005). These authors describe messing about as “This idea of scientific play is the methodical investigation of the constraints and opportunities of a system” p5. They also state that messing about can help students organize their knowledge and align it with scientific models through this play.

Teachers and instructors could use one of the instructional frameworks discussed in this course (Anchored Instruction (AI), Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI), Learning for Use (LFU) or Technology – Generation, Evaluation, Modification (T-GEM)) in combination with an information visualization tool to develop powerful lesson plans to help students conquer a challenging concept or deal with misconceptions. Even a basic tool such as Lemonade Stand teaches students that a simple business has many inputs to consider and apply to be successful.

Course Analysis

The pace of the course was fast; the instructor put the “pedal to the metal” on January 2, 2013 and did not let up throughout the course. Now it is early April and time to reflect on what I have learned and how I can apply it to my current role as the Curriculum Coordinator for the School of Business at SAIT Polytechnic.

Overall this was a tough course for me as it had me outside of my comfort zone many times, primarily as I am not a science or mathematics teacher or instructor. “Outside of my comfort zone” is a way of saying that I spent a lot of time in my “Zone of Proximal Development”; this in turn resulted in a lot of hard work and some great learning for me.

Here are some of the themes that I take away from the course

• Deal with misconceptions
• Encourage engagement with technology
• Refer to theoretical frameworks for guidance when using technology
• Embrace emerging genres of teaching, learning and technologies
• Use technology where appropriate

My complete course analysis is posted in the Analysis section of this blog.

Course and Program Sign Off

This concludes my participation in this course; all postings and assignments are complete. This e-folio captures my learning throughout the course as the final Legacy in Learning assignment for this course.

It also marks my completion of the MET program; course 10 of 10 completed over the last 43 months. I can now return my life to normal, whatever normal is now. I feel that I have achieved the broad objectives that I set out to accomplish that I established over four years ago:

• There is now a need for me to crystallize my experience in curriculum development and my role as a Curriculum Coordinator with a formal education in learning technologies to enhance my role and to provide learning and technology leadership to faculty and staff in my school and across SAIT.
• The proposed Master’s degree will provide me with knowledge and skills, based on current best practices, and emerging trends in learning and technology that will give me the confidence to provide guidance to faculty and Academic Chairs and leadership to the School of Business in the development of proposed new programs and the redevelopment of existing programs.

My program epilogue “To here, and from here” describing my overall MET learning is posted at the end of my learning analysis component for this course.

References:

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.  Retrieved April 02, 2012, from:http://phet.colorado.edu/web-pages/research.html

One may ask what these two diverse topics: embodied learning and knowledge diffusion, have in common. Through the lens of this course on Technology in the Math and Science Classroom, the commonality is they are two emerging (or re-emerging) genres of teaching, learning and digital technologies.

Embodied Learning

Embodied learning is all about learning through movement and touch. Winn (2002) believes that cognition is embodied, thus people learn through movement and touch. Further, Winn believes that our external behaviour can be used to externalize our thinking and to extend cognition beyond our brain. A couple of examples are using our fingers to count or using hand and arm gestures to help describe something. When I was growing up we called this “talking with our hands”, so perhaps embodied learning is re-emerging.

For me, physical movement gets my brain going. I find that I can explain something better when I am moving around and I find I am most creative and do the best problem solving when I am off on a long hike, cycle or cross country ski. When I think back of my time in this MET program over the last 43 months and the 10 courses (including this one), I was better able to process and digest the heavy duty academic readings if I was active after completing the readings. I was also the most creative in designing and carrying out the projects, papers and posts that I wrote while in this program after thinking about them while I was active. There is nothing better than a 5 hour road ride or cross country ski covering anywhere from 30 to 100 kilometres to develop an idea from concept to a draft in my mind.

Dr. Susan Gerofsky  (2010) describes how the use of gesture, vocal sound and movement can be used to help teach mathematical concepts related to polynomial graphing functions. She concludes with “Embodied work with gesture, movement and sound shows great promise in terms of promoting mathematical engagement and understanding in young secondary school students”  (p. 337). We were fortunate to have Dr. Gerofsky as a guest speaker in this class as she answered questions posted by different student groups. One of the questions asked was, what are some specific areas in STEM where you have seen embodied learning/gestures used as a successful teaching tool. Her examples were related to graphing included using the old standby, the Etch-A-Sketch to show x and y relationships and using a rolling chair where one student pushes in the x direction and a second pushes in the y direction with different amounts of force to demonstrate graph slope.

Knowledge Diffusion

Knowledge diffusion is where concepts and practices are shared, appropriated and changed by others (Roth 1996). The Internet has thus created a structure and opportunity for educators, students and scientists to collaborate to generate and share information, data, concepts and practices. This can be done through networked environments and applications such as virtual field trips, web-based expeditions, virtual worlds, Exploratorium and GLOBE. Below is a very brief description of GLOBE and virtual field trips describing how they contribute to knowledge diffusion.

The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program is a fine example of a networked community where students can be part of scientific teams gathering, sharing, using and analyzing data. Students also have opportunities to communicate with scientists while involved with a science project which in turn gives them “a new perspective on what it is to do science and to be part of a scientific investigation” Butler and MacGregor (2003), p 17.

Virtual field trips can be used to augment actual field trips by providing a resource before and after the actual field trip. They can also be used in situations where it is not practical to go on an actual field trip because of limited resources such as logistics, time, financial or admin support (Adedokun et al; 2012). However, Adedokun et al (2012) reports that virtual field trips are not substitutions for actual filed trips and Spicer and Stratford (2001) report survey results from undergraduate students who made it very clear that virtual field trips should never be used to replace actual field trips.

Learn more about knowledge generation in networked communities on the Emerging Page.

References

Adedokun, O. A., Hetzel, K., Parker, L. C., Loizzo, J., Burgess, W. D., & Paul Robinson, J. (2012). Using Virtual Field Trips to Connect Students with University Scientists: Core Elements and Evaluation of zipTrips™. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 1-12.

Butler, D.M., & MacGregor, I.D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20. OR can access via this link: http://www.nagt.org/nagt/jge/abstracts/jan03.html#v51p5

Gerofsky,S. (2010). Mathematical learning and gesture. Gesture, 2-3, Gerofsky Gesture article 2011 CVPT OVPT point of view-1.pdf

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

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

A week spent bringing the learning from Module B together in a synthesis posting on the design page.

The final two examples in the design of technology-enhanced learning experiences (TELE) section of this course are My World and Chemland.

My World is an education based geographic information system (GIS) developed by Northwestern University in Illinois. It is based on the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) Arc/Info GIS. The initiative has been described by Edelson (2001) and Stylinski and Smith (2006). My World uses scientific visualization incorporated into inquiry-based learning to enable students to develop understandings of complex phenomena in earth and environmental sciences. It accomplishes this by constructing interactive maps and uses analysis tools to make database and geospatial inquiries.

My World incorporates learning-for use (LfU) framework (Edelson, 2001); below are the four principles:

• Learning occurs through construction and modification of knowledge structures
• Knowledge construction is goal oriented both conscious and unconscious
• The circumstances around how the knowledge is constructed determines how it is accessed in the future
• Knowledge must be constructed in a useful manor before it can be applied

My World, like the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), is based on constructivist pedagogy where students can with the aid of the GIS, combine different provided data sets and their own data sets to discover spatial relationships. My World is geo-spatial so any science or social science concepts can be applied with this system including bringing in data sets from outside of which is provided. There are several disadvantages to MY World as it is complex and not an easy system to learn. It is probably the ultimate constructivist environment as students create new data and information by simply combining and displaying two or more datasets. The danger with this type of open environment is it is difficult to validate if what the students have created is useful or just meaningless artifacts. Without this validation and interpretation from the teacher, then it could create new unchecked misconceptions.

Chemland is a suite of chemistry simulations available for free. Khan (2007, 2010) describes how Chemland can be used with the Technology – Generate-Evaluate-Modify (T-GEM) method of scientific inquiry. There are three components of the T-GEM model:

• Generate – students are provided with information and asked to generate relationships
• Evaluate – students are given new information that is in conflict with their initial information – thus they must evaluate the relationships they previously generated
• Modify – students must modify the relationships they generated based on the new information

This method encourages students to generate their own rules or relationships given initial information. Then they are then challenged with new, often conflicting information and asked to evaluate the rules and then modify them based on the new information. T-GEM provides the framework to support and scaffold students to make connections among various abstractions. In addition, it fosters learner conceptual understandings and the development of inquiry skills.

Chemland and T-GEM is chemistry based and allows students to explore the wonders of chemistry through many different information sources. The environment is designed to create conflict that encourages students to re-evaluate and problem-solve new solutions. Chemland consists of s series of simulations with fixed inputs and ranges so the constructivist approach is somewhat controlled.

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. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2736%28200103%2938:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M/abstract

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.

Stylinski, C. & Smith, D. (2006, August). Connecting classrooms to real-world GIS-based watershed investigations. Paper presented at the ESRI Education User Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved Nov 15, 2012, from: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/educ06/abstracts/a2275.html

Learn more about My World and Chemland on the Design Page.

The first two examples in the design of technology-enhanced learning experiences (TELE) section of this course are the Jasper series and the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE).

Jasper came first after years of research on anchored instruction from the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV), Nashville, Tennessee. Anchored instruction as defined by CTGV uses problem rich environments with engaging instruction to allow sustained exploration by students and teachers (CTGV, 1992). They built the Jasper series in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to incorporate the four dimensions of effective learning environments often referred to as the How People Learn Framework. The dimensions of effective learning environments are; knowledge centred, learner centred, assessment centred and community centred. (Pellegrino and Brophy, 2008). The Jasper series also incorporates generative activities and cooperative learning situations.

Jasper is a static based delivery via videodisc. This would have been innovative at the time with all of the information provided electronically on one disc. The story based approach is engaging for the students as they need to gather the information needed to solve the problems. They may need to go over the story several times to filter out what is needed and to find missing pieces. The problem with Jasper is it is based on the current technology of the time, video on a fixed disc that was not intended to be updated easily. Today with the rapid updates and interactivity of the Web 2.0 Internet, Jasper is destined to be left on the disc rack as an important historical artifact in the development of technology enhanced learning experiences.

WISE was developed in the late 1990’ and early 2000’s as a web based inquiry system that provides a flexible and adaptive learning environment. In addition, WISE is research based and technology enhanced that can be customized to changes in school contexts and curriculum standards. This system embraces many inquiry based practices including engagement of students with diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, planning investigations, searching for information and debating with peers.(Linn, Clark and Slotta, 2003).

WISE was developed 10 years after Jasper and was developed as the Internet came of age. WISE is based on an Learning Management System like platform. Thus it is Internet based and can be constantly updated and customized as needed. Although Jasper is rarely used today, WISE has the potential to live on as long as the developers continue to support it.

I enjoyed working through the examples from both Jasper and WISE and compared to how I was exposed to my science education in high school, college and university, these two are much more engaging and interesting. Hopefully they have and will continue to foster scientific inquiry in students in middle and high school that will encourage them to continue these interests into STEM education at the post-secondary level.

Learn more about Jasper and WISE on the Design Page.

References:

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

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

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

Part of framing an issue is reflecting and writing about ones own definitions of technology and pedagogical design. This is included early in the Design section posted on January 26, 2013.

I struggled several times trying to determine a topic for the framing issues paper. Initially with a proposal submitted to the instructor related the effect of technology on student engagement; this topic was too broad and was non-domain specific. After searching the UBC library with the following search terms: student engagement, technology, clicker technology, STEM education and end engagement I gradually narrowed the search. This was the second struggle as narrowing the search took longer than I had expected.

Eventually after skimming some articles I noticed something was being said that I suspected and in addition, it was quantified about first year STEM courses at college and university. These courses are quite often killer courses meant to weed out students in the first year. Non-STEM first year courses are not as brutal. The second component which tied into my interest area of technology and student engagement surfaced as a solution to softening the killer courses. I selected the simple clicker as a technology used by some Instructors and Professors to encourage engagement. Several papers indicated this had a positive effect on student engagement in first and second year students.

So with this arose my framing issues paper which is an annotated bibliography of four papers titled “STEM in post-secondary education can be engaging or boring; it is the instructor’s choice”. The conclusion to the paper is as follows.

Clickers are a classroom technology that when integrated with an engagement pedagogy, can be used to effectively break up the intensive lecture and provide feedback and engagement for the students. If used with a modified instruction method, then students can discuss difficult concepts and then respond back to the instructor through clickers to validate that they are developing deep conceptual understandings of simple or complex STEM problems. This paper has allowed me to validate my thoughts on clicker usage in the classroom in general. In my postings on clickers I suggested that their usage encouraged engagement by both the students and the instructors, gave the instructor a reading on how well he is doing at getting the message across, let students know how well they are doing individually and amongst their peers and provided a safe anonymous environment for students to try answering questions asked in class.

The research provided evidence to a perspective that I had suspected; killer gatekeeper first year STEM courses do not need to be set up this way. It is the instructor’s choice to keep them boring and inactive for the students. With new technologies such as clickers, instructors can make them engaging and interesting for the students and can create an environment for them to stay in STEM majors longer. This will allow them to make better informed decisions about STEM careers based on their interest level after first or second courses rather than bailing out early because of a bad and boring experience with an unengaged instructor, perhaps in their first semester.

I am quite interested in knowing why research has shown an increase in student engagement and interest in subject matter using more engaging pedagogies does not translate into statistically higher grades for students. Perhaps the assessment tools are not appropriate to capture the benefits of deeper approaches to learning that engagement nurtures. If the assessment tools are designed to test the lower level memorization thinking skills expected from traditional lecture formats then they may not capture the deeper learning associated with higher order, integrative and reflective learning and thus not show the true benefits of the engaging classroom.

The paper is posted in the Framing section – February 2, 2103.

Week three of the course: January 14-20, focused on colleague interviews to help me build a case to identify an issue in Math and Science education that requires further investigation through a review of current literature. An analysis of issues and questions identified in the interview in combination with a reflection of my auto e-ography, conceptional challenges, video case analysis and unpacking assumptions narratives are the building blocks needed to decide which issue is relevant for me to create an annotated bibliography for. This will be decided next week and the resulting paper will be submitted as assignment one during week six of the course (February 4).

I conducted two 30 minute interviews, one with an Academic Chair and the other with an Instructor who is a user of technology in the classroom. Both people work at the post-secondary level. Interview questions were developed and sent out to the interviewees ahead of the interview. The questions were posted here in this blog on January 12 under the Framing page. Going into the interviews, I was interested to see if any issues relating to the readiness of students coming into post-secondary from high school to use technology would surface. Both people interviewed felt these students were better prepared compared to those coming back to school from the workforce. So I need to relax that assumption for now and examine the responses and my reflections to find a re-occurring theme to explore.

The abstract of the responses and my analysis for each question were posted here on January 19, again in the Framing page. Several issues are starting to emerge; the next step is to identify one and go with it. This will be the main task next week and to start doing the research.

The first 10 days of the course moved very quickly from introductions to our early experiences with digital technology, conceptional challenges, unpacking assumptions and finally examining video cases to help flesh out our perspectives of what and how educational technology can be used in math and science classrooms, and any classroom.  I posted my thoughts on each of these topics to the course discussion board and I further benefited by reading my colleagues postings, their comments to my postings and my comments to their postings. More details on my postings for these subjects are presented in the “Framing” page of this blog.

Introductions:

In the introductions, I discovered that I may be the lone post-secondary administrator voice in the course (hopefully not a lone voice in the wilderness!) as the majority of my colleagues are K-12 teachers. This is familiar territory for me in the MET program, and I will present a totally different perspective to my colleagues throughout the course. I trust they will listen and understand this view as I always look at a students’ journey from K through 12 to post-secondary to graduation and employment.

Auto e-ography:

My early experiences with digital technology go back to the early 1970’s when I was given an electronic calculator; a real game changer compared to my older brother who made it through high school with a slide rule. I experimented with many different technologies over the years as they appeared and they have all been integrated into our everyday lives to the point that we don’t think of them as technology, but as tools and widgets. This was a great exercise to spend some time thinking about these early experiences and to present them as an auto e-ography

Conceptional Challenges:

Conceptional challenges are something that I had never thought of previously as being important. But as I went through the course resources, read the postings from my colleagues and started to reflect on my own situation, I realized that yes there are a lot of challenges out there that people have related to math and science that are important to identify and to talk about.  For me as a Geographer, I soon realized the conceptional challenges around maps and how they are used to portray the round earth were important to identify.

Unpacking Assumptions:

In the unpacking assumptions exercise, I was able to quickly identify a few examples based on my post-secondary experience to illustrate what I think are good uses of technology in the math and science classroom. My initial thoughts are to not get caught up in the WOW factor and use it just because we can and feel that we need to use technology just because we are teaching in a math, science or technology course or program. I like to recommend to instructors to consider using technology in situations where they struggle to get difficult concepts across to students. Also from a practical post-secondary perspective, to consider using technologies that are applicable and relevant that the jobs graduates will be moving into.

Video Case Analysis:

Clickers and calculators are a couple of basic technologies that I looked at in two of the cases. Both teachers/instructors were very confident in their use of these technologies and to the benefits to the students. Both of these technologies helped tremendously with the engagement of the students and the teacher/instructor in the classroom. I felt these tools helped challenge conceptions that math is not relevant and lecture format is boring and not engaging.

Onto week three and at home interviews.

Welcome to my University of British Columbia E-Folio for ETEC 533: Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom.