Emerging
Introduction to the design page – January 12, 2013
Module C. Emerging Genres of Teaching, Learning and Digital Technologies
- Knowledge Representation and Information Visualization for Learning Math and Science
- Knowledge Diffusion and the Social Construction of Knowledge in Networked Communities
- Embodied Learning, Mobile Technologies, Probes, and Virtual Reality
The objectives for this module are:
- To analyze visual representations of mathematical and scientific knowledge and assess their cognitive and social affordances for learning math and science.
- To investigate the social construction and diffusion of knowledge with digital technologies that enhance communication.
- To explore the implications of learning of math and science just in time and how learning can be enhanced with access to digital resources and specialized tools.
- To theorize how embodied learning may be facilitated by mobile or virtual reality technologies.
- To continue to develop a critical awareness of the implications technology has for students, and for teaching practice, curriculum development, and educational contexts, through analyses and discussions of technology-enhanced learning experiences.
- To contribute resources of your choice to our Resource Share Forum.
A Science Experiment that you can eat – March 27, 2013
How about making ice cream with liquid nitrogen – check it out:
Originally posted on the UBC 2012W2 course-ETEC533-65A-Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom, Forum: MC Resource Share – March 27, 2013
Information Visualization – Lemonade Stand: March 27, 2013
The goal of this simulation is to make as much money as you can in 30 days; who does not want to make money? There is a real connection to the real world as I remember when I was a kid trying a lemonade stand, and I occasionally see kids today with lemonade stands.
http://www.dwmbeancounter.com/BCTutorSite/Simulations/Lemonade/lemonade.html
This information visualization simulation is perhaps on the fringes of this course although I would connect it through Math as it is a business application. Modeling income, expenses, pricing, weather, lemonade recipe and customer satisfaction related to a small business could be done using a spreadsheet; however it would not be as interesting or as exciting as running a visual simulation. I believe the visualization is necessary as it provides information from each run that the user can use to fine tune the operation for the next day. For example customer comments such as “Yum”, Yuck” “too pricy” or “too hot” are great inputs to adjust the price and the recipe: the ratio of lemons, sugar, ice. Then there is the weather forecast which changes daily and this does affect sales and the inputs. The simulation also indicates when you have sold out of product when the inputs were underestimated; for example, you could run out cups or ice. No cups or ice and you need to shut down for the day and watch all the customers go by. Also it indicates when your inventory is too high such as your lemons are rotting or you get ants in your sugar.
From this, users can see that a simple operation of a lemonade stand is influenced by many factors so it is not that simple to make money without learning from each run. For example daily adjustments based on the weather must be made as well as keeping an eye on inventory control. At the beginning of each day, check the weather, top up your inventory, adjust your lemon, sugar ice formula and let it run. Key question, do you make the most money by maximizing customer satisfaction (high input costs) or by minimizing inputs (low customer satisfaction)?
Running this 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.
Srinivasan and Perez (2006) compare the advantages of simulation verses reality including lower costs for simulation. This is especially true in the lemonade example where running an actual lemonade stand for 30 days would be expensive and not really practical.
This basic simulation of a lemonade stand involves many of the principles used in starting and running a small business and could be used as an iintroductory exercise at the post-secondary level in courses related to small business and entrepreneurship. The instructor would assign the students to run the model once for 30 days, then facilitate an in-class discussion around the student experiences and learnings from running the model.
I wish I had this simulation to test out my lemonade stand when I was 12; I may have done more than break even. I had fun with this simulation and made $34.11 over 30 days; I think I will keep my day job!
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
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), 137-141.
Comments from my classmates on this post:
“I had to smile when I saw you post this great Math game as I play this with my students often. We will have a competition to see who can make the most money over their 30 day period. It really is a good lesson in cost, supply, demand, profit, etc…. The version I play is from coolmath-games.com. There is also a coffee stand version available from that website – just as fun!!” – Jamie Peters
Originally posted on the UBC 2012W2 course-ETEC533-65A-Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom, Forum: MC Resource Share – March 27, 2013
Virtual Filed Trips – March 19, 2013
Here are some virtual fields trips:
Canadian Museum of Civilization
Comments from my classmates on this post:
“Wow, thank-you Doug!! I look forward to browsing these when I get more time :)” – Alicia Wernicke
Originally posted on the UBC 2012W2 course-ETEC533-65A-Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom, Forum: MC Resource Share – March 19, 2013
Knowledge generation with networked environments – March 19, 2013
For this posting, I address the following question: “How is knowledge relevant to math and science possibly generated in these networked environments”.
Introduction
I explored the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program and Virtual Field trips/Web-Based Expeditions. Some examples of virtual field trips are: Field Trip Earth, WhaleNet and Panda Cam. This involved an overview of hands-on exploration of the networked communities available through the course material. To augment this, I reviewed and draw from the following readings:
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
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.
Butler and MacGregor(2003) give a fairly concise description of the GOLBE program. Adedokun et al (2012) present the teacher and researcher perspective of virtual field trips, while Spicer and Stanford (2001) present the student perspective.
GLOBE
Networked environments have a wealth of knowledge and information relevant to math and science that can augment the curriculum or are the curriculum. GLOBE for example, uses environmental research to support basic science, math and geography. Students can access and contribute meaningful data to the environmental databases in this program, thus collaborating with actual scientists in many disciplines. Therefore GLOBE provides a hands-on, scientific inquiry based pedagogy.
Butler and MacGregor ( 2003) report that “An annual review over the past six years indicates that GLOBE has had a positive impact on students’ ability to use scientific data in decision-making and on students’ scientifically informed awareness of the environment”. To be successful, teachers must be knowledgeable in the GLOBE process and be actively involved with the students by helping them take measurements, maintain equipment and oversee the students’ reporting of their work.
Responses from teachers indicate that GLOBE generates a greater student interest in the world around them, improved student science inquiry skills, and better group collaboration and analytical skills. In addition, Butler and MacGregor (2003) report “….. teachers conclude that GLOBE is giving students a new perspective on what it is to do science and to be part of a scientific investigation”.From the student perspective, GLOBE activities are popular with students and they show a special interest in working with computers, taking measurements and working with satellite images. Student performance on assessments improved; for example students exposed to GLOBE scored better on SRI tests compared to those students in non-GLOBE classes. “Their knowledge of sampling and measurement principles, and their ability to interpret data and apply science concepts was also superior” Butler and MacGregor (2003).
Virtual Field Trips
Field trips are another way to connect students with scientists as a way to transfer and generate knowledge. “Physical field trips to scientists’ work places have been shown to enhance student perceptions of science, scientists and science careers” (Adedokun et al; 2012). Field trips also introduce students to science careers and what it is like to be a scientist. “Nazier (1993) reported field trip experiences as one of the top factors leading to career choices in science and engineering” (Ad Adedokun et al; 2012). However actual physical field trips are not always feasible, virtual field trips can be used to replace or augment actual field trips.
The rationale to use virtual field trips is they are require fewer resources: financial, time and administrative support. In a literature review of virtual field trips, Adedokun et al (2012) found that virtual field trips are not true substitutions for actual field trips. However “ … they are viable alternatives for providing students with learning opportunities and experiences that would have otherwise been unavailable to them” . Like actual field trips, many virtual field trips allow students to interact with scientists through e-mail or with Purdue zipTrips, through videoconferencing technology.
Spicer and Stratford (2001) set up a survey to query undergraduate students about their perceptions of using virtual field trips to replace real field trips “…. nearly all of the students were insistent that it could not, and should not, replace field trips”. In addition, Spicer and Stratford, did an assessment of the learning using the Tidepools virtual field trip and found that “ …. Students who used Tidepools did just as well when formally examined on the material (using multiple choice and multiple completion questions) than a similar group of students attending a more traditional lecture-based course” They did not indicate if the lecture-based course had a field trip component.
In conclusion, Spicer and Stratford (2001) indicate that students agree that the virtual field trip adds good value to augmenting a real field trip, both pre and post field trip.
Conclusion
A review of these three papers indicates that there is great value in using different networked environments to allow students to generate knowledge relevant to math and science in both K-12 and post-secondary education.
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
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.
Comments from my classmates and instructor on this post:
“Globe is an excellent tool of assessment because now teachers have the ability to keep better track of their students and the learning outcomes that each student achieves. Moreover, the technology has the ability to use an email type program in order to keep in touch with the accomplishments of students. In this way there can be a community wide recognition of students, their accomplishments and even act as a motivator for students to achieve the same level of standards as their peers. In addition to what you said, virtual field trips (VFT) are a great idea if they are used in addition to real ones or instead of them when it is “not possible or safe to take students” (Spicer & Stratford, 2001 p.353). Both programs are great and I can see how knowledge can be generated from these networked communities.” – Shawn Harris
“A concise post that drew its conclusions based upon the research. The social construction of knowledge has long been of interest to researchers (how it happens, can we say learning is social, etc), and both within and beyond the virtual field trips, and Globe, we can see evidence of and possibilities for enhancing the social construction of knowledge through discussion, translation, contribution, and inquiry of participants. For example, children can not only view the graphs of others’ but contribute an extensive amount of data from their own school that is then used by scientists to ascertain global weather trends. Some VFTs include “ask a scientist” features, virtual rangers (see Africam), teachers at sea, or blogs with comments and replies to comments enabled (panda cam). Earlier today, I was watching an elephant drink water at Lake Tembe and a panda sleeping at the San Diego Zoo and when interaction with others occurs along these lines, we diffuse our knowledge in multiple directions.” – Samia Khan, instructor
“I agree that programs that have students collecting meaningful data can only improve scientific skills.” – Deanna Stefanyshyn
Mobile Maps – Greenland as it should be! – March 14, 2013
For Lesson One I choose to find and review a mobile app. The app that I found is Google Earth for Android. The best part is, as far as I can tell is it is not based on a Mercator projection so Greenland appears to be the correct size and proportion to the rest of the world. Now I can stop ranting about the misconceptions of the mapping world!
This app allows you to rotate and twist the globe any way you like, plus it has all the detail you need by zooming in. I can go from seeing the earth as a globe floating in space (with stars) to the detail of seeing my house and my car parked outside and everything between. So it seems to do everything that the regular Google Earth does and it has more functionality than Google Maps without the distortions, I am tickled pink!
The app is available free from Google Mobile:
http://www.google.com/mobile/maps/
Originally posted on the UBC 2012W2 course-ETEC533-65A-Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom, Forum: MC Resource Share – March 14, 2013
Greenland again, how big is it? – March 12, 2013
The misconception to challenge is the erroneous perception that people have (children and adults) about the relative sizes of land masses on earth because of the use of maps based on the Mercator projection. In a previous posting, I suggested using the T-GEM framework (Khan 2007) applied to the My World software. The T-GEM framework uses technology (T) and students must generate (G) an understanding of a concept based on some initial information. Then they are given some new, often conflicting information that forces them to evaluate (E) and modify (M) their previous understanding based on the initial and new information.
The My World GIS software package is a sophisticated scientific package that is not easy to use. There is an easier technology that can be used to accomplish the same goal of addressing the mapping misconception using the T-GEM framework. Google Maps is an easy to use web-based package that presents a scalable image map in a cylindrical Mercator type projection that has gross exaggerations in the polar regions. This standard PC-based application coupled with a standard classroom globe or Google Maps for Android (seems to use an accurate projection) and either a piece of paper or a software application to create a data chart is all that is required for this activity. The technologies (T) are a mobile device, Google Maps and depending on one’s definition of technology a standard globe
Students would first create a chart with four columns and enter a list of names of given continents, countries, states, provinces and islands in the first column. The students would then enter their own observation data in column two based on their visual comparison of the size of Greenland to the objects on the list in column one. For example for Mexico, the observation might state: Greenland appears many times larger, perhaps 10 times larger than Mexico. This would be done based on the PC Google Maps image. From this they would generate (G) their understandings of the size relationships between their features and rank them from largest to smallest.
In the next phase, students would populate column three with data that they gather from the Internet giving the actual size or area of each of the features on the list. They would then rank them from largest to smallest and compare these data rankings with their visual rankings and note the differences. This is the evaluate (E) phase and they would need to rationalize why there are differences and propose some explanations and modify their understandings of the size relationships. To help them do this they would be encouraged to do some research on the Internet about map projections. In addition they would populate column four on the chart much the way they did column two, but with the globe or with the Google Maps for Android by comparing the size of Greenland to the other features on the list. Finally they would be asked to hold the Google Maps for Android image on their mobile device or the globe next to th PC Google Maps to do some direct comparisons.
A more detailed plan of the steps for this proposed activity is attached: Greenland is not as large as it appears on the map
This activity would not only embrace the learning goals of T-GEM: scaffold student learning and the development of inquiry skills, but it would also incorporate the following learning goals: taking observations, critical thinking, problem solving, media literacy, research and global awareness.
References
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.