February 2013 – ETEC 533 E-folio

Weeks Six and Seven: TELE 1 – Jasper and WISE

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

Weeks Four and Five: Framing Issues Paper

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.