A Reflective Analysis of Teaching with Technology: The Intersection of Theory and Practice

Posted on April 7, 2023 by bhalland

My reflections on this course begin with recollecting my original motivations and professional context. I took this course to learn more about integrating technology into my math courses and better support student learning. I like learning new ideas and techniques that can improve my practice. My posts represent me, an experienced math teacher, and my work with adults in an essential skills program as they strive to further their work opportunities and build a better future. My learners and I are practical, and my posts reflect my realist perspective accompanied by a healthy dash of skepticism. My ideas blend professional experiences, literature, and my desire to build on my current best practices and those new to me.

I have organized my e-folio analysis according to three recurring themes in my posts:

  • Theme 1: The Professional Teacher’s Knowledge, Skills, and Attributes

  • Theme 2: Technological Tools and Their Affordances

  • Theme 3: Opportunities and Challenges

These themes are interwoven throughout my posts and are sometimes hard to isolate from each other. Rather than each standing discreetly, it becomes more of a shift between lenses and what emerges in the foreground and what shifts to the background.

I have been a teacher for 36 years and never felt like I had it all mastered! The truth is that teaching is a continual process of learning, applying, and adapting to deliver a learning experience that is effective, lasting, and enjoyable for learners while empowering them to lead fulfilling lives. My posts reside in the world of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) and reinforce the importance of teachers developing this area to build a broad set of skills. The following excerpt is my response to a query about how I would characterize my teaching strategies:

I have been a teacher for 36 years and never felt like I had it all mastered! The truth is that teaching is a continual process of learning, applying, and adapting to deliver a learning experience that is effective, lasting, and enjoyable for learners while empowering them to lead fulfilling lives.

My posts reside in the world of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) and reinforce the importance of teachers developing this area to build a broad set of skills. The following excerpt is my response to a query about how I would characterize my teaching strategies:

I believe all good teaching designs reflect a combination of different strategies based on different learning theories, and that selecting what approach to use when, depending on the objectives, context, and constraints, is what the TPACK framework encapsulates. In lay terms, we can’t always hammer square pegs into round holes. Ertmer & Newby (2013) describe the instructional design challenge more eloquently as a quest to find “the optimal means for achieving desired outcomes” and identify a critical factor as being the degree of cognitive processing the task requires. Snelbecker (1983, as cited in Ertmer and Newby, 2013) encourages designers to use different tools, emphasizing that they cannot adopt the “luxury of restricting themselves to only one theoretical position… [They] are urged to examine each of the basic science theories which have been developed by psychologists in the study of learning and to select those principles and conceptions which seem to be of value for one’s particular educational situation” (p. 8).

(Thomas, 2023a, TPACK Discussion)

I am always looking for alternate strategies to consider and apply if they serve the purpose better. My posts reflect my continued investigation and exploration of how technology integrates into my practice and context. Figure 1 effectively summarizes the complexity of factors involved and my position that “as teachers we need to be critical about why we adopt new technology, and not [readily] succumb to the ‘new is better’ philosophy that the developers promote as part of their market capture” (Thomas, 2023a, Viewing the Cases Discussion).

Figure 1.

The emerging four factors affecting primary teachers’ technology integration (Spiteri & Rundgren, 2020)

The TPACK framework to structure my thinking has also emphasized my belief and position that a significant amount of teaching is in designing activities. Technology integration shifts the role of the teacher to the sidelines, but it does not diminish the role of the teacher. Learning in the classroom still demands teacher presence to direct, support, and extend student learning. The teacher continues to build a student-to-teacher connection that is vital to effective learning. Although this comment is contextualized in Khan’s (2012) discussion of the T-GEM approach, I suggest it applies to technology tools in general,

[T]he web applications, on their own, may not be effective at supporting learning since they may lack guided steps, probing questions, or support problem solving. Thus, with T-GEM the teacher role is clearly tasked with supporting the learning at each phase of the T-GEM cycle.

(Thomas, 2023a, T-GEM Discussion)

Even when tools might not align with my teaching objectives and strategies, such as the ARCGIS toolkit, I identify the TPACK elements that do, such as its blend of cognitive and constructivist practices and “the 3 design steps that the LfU model uses (Edelson, 2001) in [similarity to] my own practice, specifically, establishing motivation, scaffolding new knowledge through guided exploration, and establishing a relevant and meaningful context” (Thomas, 2023a, LfU Discussion).

My posts frequently reference learning environments’ social, emotional, and cognitive components. Awareness of these components allows for a balanced approach to learning. Although the different features do not receive equal attention, various parts are identified and considered for different objectives and contexts. These learning components are also interrelated, and development in one area can impact development in others. As I examine my journey, it is interesting to note that my first and last posts expounded on emotional elements. I describe my recollection of the logarithmic ruler, “I was curious and mystified about how the manual contraption could be solving their calculations” (Thomas, 2023a, Auto E-ography Discussion). Later, I share the work of a former colleague as she reveals, “As I continue to learn and grow in this exciting space, I get ever more convinced of the power of immersive [VR] technology to enhance people’s sense of awe, wonder, and empathy for this planet and its inhabitants” (Edwards, 2022). Both reflections emphasize the importance of emotion in driving learning and development in the cognitive and social spheres.

Educational tools have various affordances that can benefit my students. Recognizing the affordances incentivizes me to integrate these tools into meaningful learning activities. Here I summarize the affordances I have identified throughout the course in my posts.

Table 1

 Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) Affordances

Throughout this course, I focused on educational technology tools useful in my immediate math teaching context. Even though educators, researchers, or learners endorse the tools, each teacher must evaluate them in the context of their unique learning goals. While technological devices can be amazing, they are always applicable, and I have created my own hot or not list. One of the most important features for making my list is that the tools are easy to learn and can integrate into my current classroom activities with minimal adjustment. My hot list for visualizations includes Desmos, GeoGebra, and Mathigon. These tools effectively illustrate math concepts and support problem-solving and communication. The following excerpts represent some thought around how I can make use of them.

I also like that Desmos can be used to create a polished graph so easily, …, shared with the class, and the resulting equation discussed – and so easily. …  I would provide a computer lab setting for this activity, and introduce learners to the Desmos activity in a paired learning/collaborative learning space. I would also have physical handouts …which would act as scaffolds.

(Thomas, 2023a, T-GEM Discussion)

GeoGebra’s activities afford active, student-centered, discovery-based experiences that can be completed individually or in groups.  … Mathigon can be used by the student for active and discovery-based learning, or it can be used by the teacher to help illustrate concepts and procedures, or both.

(Thomas, 2023a, Padlet Resource Sharing Discussion)

A method I use, reinforced throughout the course, involves using video presentations for learners who need more time, prefer greater independence, and benefit from multiple modalities or choice of delivery. Roblyer & Doering’s (2012) statement reiterates this, “technology can support multiple paths to studying the same material (p.42).”

(Thomas, 2023a, Anchored Instruction Discussion).

Additionally, I have identified engagement tools such as Quizlet, Quizizz, Kahoot, and Poll Everywhere that are useful for formative assessment, learning reinforcement, active learning, and team-building. I agree with my interviewee that “… for the most part students like it. They like the way that it breaks up the class, and it’s something different; it can be fun. But you’ve got to be careful not to overuse it” (Teacher T, 2023, as cited in Thomas, 2023b).

There are some tools that I don’t anticipate using, such as TinkerCAD or ArcGIS, which for my learners, would require too much time to learn and would not likely be continued beyond the course. Similarly, AR and VR tools look exciting, but their specialized nature and high cost make them a lower priority. I am committed to providing quality learning experiences for my students through the effective identification and integration of educational technology tools, which offer multiple benefits that would otherwise not be achievable

The final theme in my course journey is identifying the opportunities and challenges that implementing TELEs presents. 

My Unpacking Assumptions post outlined a lengthy list of what I expect of good technology tools; this course has demonstrated the ability of technology to deliver. TELEs are capable of providing student-centered, flexible, and engaging activities. The internet connects learners with each other and a broader community while expanding available real-life contexts, thus enhancing meaning and transference to the material covered. Integrating technology improves the efficiency and effectiveness of various tasks and reflects practices that apply in 21st-century workplace settings. This extensive list of benefits might compel one to make a significant shift in practice, but I routinely ground myself in realistic undertakings, reminding myself and others that,

You don’t have to go all in with TPACK to gain something from it. Whether you apply it to every lesson or revisit it from time to time, this framework can help you think more strategically about how you’re using technology in the classroom.

(PowerSchool, 2023)

In my teacher interview reflection, I note this shift in my perspective, “At the onset, based on the complexity I envisioned [in integrating technology], teacher time commitment to was a significant issue in my mind. Now I recognize that integrating technology effectively does not require dramatic and instantaneous change” (Thomas, 2023b). I have evolved in my thinking and note, “Goals need to be SMART; progress can be small and incremental and still make a difference to one’s practice and students’ learning” (Thomas, 2023a, Knowledge Mobilization Discussion)

I think that there is more to think about than the technology when adopting new ed tech into practice, such as taking the time to identify the purpose and best manner to integrate. Having said that, sometimes you just need to dive in and give it a try so you can make those judgments.

(Thomas, 2023a, TPACK Discussion)

Alternatively, I am aware that these opportunities are not without potential barriers and complications, and understanding and anticipating them allows one to strategize to either mitigate or accept them. Teachers and students will need training to work with new technology, which will require time and energy. Student partnerships and teacher collaborations can provide valuable support to muddle through various challenges.

Assumptions around anticipated challenges, such as low digital literacy and limited device access, can be minimized by providing technological support and facilitating access to the necessary technology. Possible learner reluctance to try new instructional and technical strategies can be moderated best in a face-to-face environment first and can improve learners’ overall experience and adoption. Activity designs that integrate TPACK’s essential elements intentionally, appropriately, effectively, and flexibly will be well-positioned to develop Roblyer & Doering’s (2012) view that technology is valuable in solving problems and developing 21st-century skills and attitudes.

(Thomas, 2023a, Anchored Instruction Discussion)

This one was one of my biggest frustrations at the onset of the course, but I have recognized that I need to be realistic in setting and reaching goals and need to adopt a more generous timeline. The solution, derived from my teacher interview, is to recognize that good things take time. “Similar to GEM, teaching is a practice that improves with repeated iterations” (Thomas, 2023a, Synthesis Discussion).

My frustrations and expectations around student adoption of technology have also softened. Technology integration may be exceptionally challenging for students with fewer skills and less access. Thus, it is vital to provide encouragement, support, and alternatives to prevent technology from becoming a barrier.

DiGiusto (n.d., as cited in Vilchis, 2022) provides three guidelines for incorporating technology:

  • The technology should be optional, allowing students to appreciate the benefits and adopt it by choice.
  • It must be inclusive in a social setting, promoting connections and generating resources that increase the learning quality without alienating the students.
  • It should enrich student-teacher interactions. 
  (Thomas, 2023a, Unpacking Assumptions Discussion)

This analytical reflection captures my interests, intentions, and strategies for further exploration as I transition from here to my teaching context. Technology integration is an aspect I will continue exploring, adapting, and improving with my teaching practice, using the TPACK framework, my expanded awareness of technological tools, and my desire to continuously evolve my practice to serve students better.

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.

Edwards, L. (2022, December 18). An orca carousel feeding scene. Found in the Fjords  https://foundinthefjords.org/

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Khan, S. (2012). A Hidden GEM: A pedagogical approach to using technology to teach global warming. Source. The Science Teacher, 79(8), 59-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43557744

PowerSchool. (2022, April 20). The TPACK Framework Explained (With Classroom Examples). PowerSchool. Retrieved February 8, 2023 from https://www.powerschool.com/blog/the-tpack-framework-explained-with-classroom-examples/#:~:text=TPACK%20is%20a%20technology%20integration,content%20knowledge%20(a.k.a.%20TPACK)

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2012). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching. (6th Edition ed.) Allyn & Bacon.

Snelbecker, G. E. (1989). Contrasting and complementary approaches to instructional design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories in action (pp, 321-337). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Spiteri, M., & Chang, Rundgren, S. (2020). Literature review on the factors affecting primary teachers’ use of digital technology. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9376-x

Thomas, B. (2023a, Various Dates).  Re: Various posts [Discussion post]. UBC ETEC533-65A Technology in the Mathematics Science Classroom 2022W2 EdXEdge. https://learning.edge.edx.org/course/course-v1:UBC+ETEC533-65A+2022W2/home

Thomas B. (2023b, February 2). Implementing Technology in the Classroom: A Teacher’s Perspective. ETEC 533 Brenda Thomas. https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec533brendathomas/

Vilchis, N. (2022). The best way to adopt EdTech is to do it with purpose. Edu News. https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/educational-technology-with-purpose/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Immersive Mathematics Learning: Info Vis Using GeoGebra’s Augmented Reality

Posted on April 6, 2023 by bhalland

THE RESEARCH IS IMPRESSIVE!

GeoGebra, a free and versatile dynamic mathematics software program, has expanded as an Augmented Reality (AR) tool (Kronk, 2018). There are many benefits to AR Technology. Tomaschko and Hohenwarter (2019) cite Bower et al. (2014), Dunleavy & Dede (2014), Hwang (2014), and Wu et al. (2013) as they summarize the following situations where AR can support and enhance learning:

  • bridging formal and informal learning
  • collaborative learning
  • constructivist learning
  • context-aware ubiquitous learning
  • inquiry-based learning
  • games-based learning
  • situated learning

AR benefits, more specifically for mathematics education, include 

  • enhanced visualization, which reduces cognitive load and increases accessibility for learners (Quintero et al., 2015, as cited in Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019)
  • active physical learning which is likely to support better spatial relationship skills (Bujak et al., 2013, as cited in Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019)
  • increased learner control and autonomy ((Bujak et al., 2013, as cited in Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019), and
  • increased ability to support differentiated learning preferences (Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019).

Geogebra’s expansion as an AR tool affords new ways of teaching and learning mathematics. Studies show that AR can 

  • positively influence cognitive learning (Sotiriou & Bogner, 2008, as cited in Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019)
  • improve creativity, critical analysis, and students’ learning outcomes (Bower et al., 2014, as cited in Tomaschko & Hohenwarter, 2019)
  • increase students’ interest and motivation (di Serio et al., 2013, as cited by Goff et al., 2018)
  • increase engagement (Kamarainen et al., 2013, as cited in Goff et al., 2018) and
  • increase content retention (Vincenzi et al., 2003, as cited in Goff et al., 2018). 

AR IS ACCESSIBLE!

AR experiences are delivered through common mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets. It is an easily accessible tool that can be integrated into classroom practices to develop learners’ digital skills.

Image: Using GeoGebra AR to Model Objects. Credit: Brzezinski

GeoGebra AR allows virtual 3D math objects to be designed and placed into real-world environments, allowing exploration from any angle. Additionally, guided activities lead users to discover math in the real world by taking screenshots from different perspectives. It is interesting, but it is a little underwhelming. There are multiple AR examples of how on Tim Brzezinski’s YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtN4Hcxd3KakOEVYp3GnN-xUEj0n89m35), but I do not see them as fitting any objectives for my learners. 

A more recent GeoGebra application, Automatically Augmented Reality (AAR), is something that I see as much more valuable, extending the tool’s purpose beyond ‘new technology’ and motivation. This application takes objects from real life and examines them according to their geometry. Using the AAR app, one can take a picture with their phone and examine the underlying shapes in the object, thus linking math, reality, and technology more tightly.

Image: Using AAR to Inspect Building Geometry. Credit: Altamira

Botana et al. (2019) describe how math promenades could be the source for mathematically examining contextualized images. For students who struggle to ‘see’ the math around them, this is a revolutionary approach where the math is presented to them rather than having to propose the math present. I currently implement a similar project, where students analyze an object for composite shapes. Extending this to include AAR to illustrate and confirm (or deny) their interpretation would be an excellent next step. The AAR app is a valuable tool for learners’ conception both in and outside the classroom.

Image: GPT Intro Screen Credit: softweb solutions

ChatGPT received the following question and provided the answer shown below.

What is the role of teachers and learners in integrating immersive technology experiences?

When designing educational activities using Augmented Reality (AR), the teacher plays a crucial role in guiding and facilitating the learning process, while the learner takes an active role in exploring and discovering the content.

The teacher should design AR activities that align with the learning objectives and provide clear instructions on how to use the AR tools effectively. They should also provide feedback and support throughout the learning process, as well as scaffold the learner’s understanding by posing questions and offering guidance.

On the other hand, the learner should take an active role in engaging with the AR content and exploring the environment to make connections between the real world and the virtual content. They should also be encouraged to experiment and try different approaches to solving problems, and to reflect on their learning process and outcomes.

Overall, AR provides an opportunity for learners to be more active and engaged in their learning, while the teacher supports and guides their progress. (Chat GPT, 2023)

Familiarizing teachers and learners with new technologies is imperative as they are already infiltrating the workplace to improve worker efficiency and effectiveness. There are benefits and limitations to new technological tools, and exposing students to these tools will help ensure that, as workers, they are comfortable, knowledgeable, and critical when using them

References

Botana, F., Kovacs, Z., Martinez-Sevilla, A., & Recio, T. (2019). Automatically augmented reality with GeoGebra. In T. Prodromou (Ed.), Augmented reality in educational settings (pp. 347-368). Brill. https://brill.com/display/title/55719

Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education – Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15.

Brzezinski, T. (2021, July 11). Building and Modeling with Augmented Reality Playlist [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtN4Hcxd3KakOEVYp3GnN-xUEj0n89m35

Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., MacIntyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers and Education, 68, 536–544.

Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers in Education, 68, 586-596.

Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). New York, NY: Springer.

Goff, E. E., Mulvey, K. L., Irvin, M. J., & Hartstone-Rose, A. (2018). Applications of augmented reality in informal science learning sites: A review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 433-447.

Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments – A context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–14. ISO. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/59902.html

Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, Al, Mazzuca, D.,  Tutwiler, M. S., & Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers in Education, 68, 545-556.

Kronk, H. (2018, September 28). “Everything is a function.” How GeoGebra brough AR to math education. Elearning Inside. https://news.elearninginside.com/geogebra-interview-pt-3-ar/

Mead, C., Buxner, S., Bruce, G., Taylor, W., Semken, S., & Anbar, A. D. (2019). Immersive, interactive virtual field trips promote science learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(2), 131-142.

McPherson, H., Frank, G., Pearce, R., & Hoffman, E. (2021). Virtual Field Trips: Pivoting Cross-Curricular Experiential Learning to an Online Platform. Science Teacher, 88(6), 45-51.

Quintero, E., Salinas, P., González-Mendívil, E., & Ramírez, H. (2015). Augmented reality app for calculus: A proposal for the development of spatial visualization. In E. G. Mendívil, P. G. Ramírez Flores, J. M. Gutiérrez, & E. Ginters (Eds.), International Conference on virtual and augmented reality in education (pp. 301–305).

Sotirious, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2008). Visualizing the invisible: augmented reality as an innovative science education scheme. Advanced Science Letters, 1(1), 114-122.

Tomaschko, M., & Hohenwarter, M. (2019). Augmented reality in mathematics education: The case of GeoGebra AR. In T. Prodromou (Ed.), Augmented reality in educational settings (pp. 325-346). Brill. https://brill.com/display/title/55719

Vincenzi, D. A., Valimont, B. Macchiarella, N., Opalenik, C., Gangadharan, S. N., & Majoros, A. E. (2003). The effectiveness of cognitive elaboration using augmented reality as a training and learning paradigm. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol 47, pp. 2054-2058, Vol 19). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Sage.

Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers and Education, 62, 41–49.

Posted in Module C | Leave a comment

Embodied Learning: Analyzing Immersive Technology Options

Posted on April 6, 2023 by bhalland

Compare and contrast learning with two (or more) different tools. Include specific examples.

Virtual learning realities expand opportunities and generate curiosity and excitement for learners. Hsi (2008) discusses virtual and augmented reality integration into informal learning institutions (such as public libraries, museums, zoos, aquaria, community outreach centers, and after school programs), and describes engaging activities for both on-site and off-site learning experiences.  

Virtual Field Trips

Off-site museum experiences include interacting with information via websites, in the form of tours, games, or videos. My local museum, Telus Spark Science Centre, hosts a YouTube playlist where you can watch staff conduct experiments and interact with their exhibits (https://www.youtube.com/@TELUSWorldofScience/playlists). When using virtual field trips in the classroom, the teacher serves to scaffold virtual field trips to facilitate a rich and engaging learning experience where students take active roles in the learning process. 

Augmented Reality

On-site museum experiences tend to be more physically interactive, allowing more sensory immersion through physical, visual, and auditory immersion, possibly even physical (haptic) feedback.

Mine-control, a company that specializes in creating interactive artwork for museums, demonstrates several exhibit examples online, allowing learners to observe how their interactive exhibits operate (https://www.mine-control.com/work#/moderation/).

AR in the mathematics classroom often consists of visualization tools, such as Desmos and GeoGebra, where tools can be manipulated and results examined visually to help learners identify and understand concepts.

Interactive Virtual Field Trips

Mead et al. (2018) examined science learning outcomes achieved through immersive virtual field trips (iVFTs). They discovered that iVFTs engaged students, increased student interest, and fostered learning by substituting virtual environments for environments that otherwise might be difficult or impossible to visit.

NetLogo! also offers multiple interactive experiences where learners can manipulate various aspects of an environment to see the effects, such as the Climate Change activity (https://www.netlogoweb.org/launch#http://www.netlogoweb.org/assets/modelslib/Sample%20Models/Earth%20Science/Climate%20Change.nlogo).

Virtual Reality

My institution uses VR skills training with the practical nursing program, and it has many benefits:

  • students are exposed to diverse and ‘controlled’ training situations
  • the tool’s evaluation capability that makes it far easier to provide objective feedback to students who miss a step or draw an inaccurate conclusion
  • further support of anxious students given they are fully immersed in a new environment where it’s just them and their patient – much like in a healthcare environment.

An educational VR game that is currently being developed by a former colleague will immerse learners in an ocean eco-system where they take the perspective of an orca and learn first hand about the environment and how it is being threatened by pollution and other changes over time. Aside from content learning, the embodied experience fosters empathy and motivates the learner to better understand what is happening and take actions to address the harm that is occurring (Found in the Fjords, 2023).

The benefits of integrating immersive technology tools into educational settings are several and includes “higher academic outcomes when compared to traditional lecture-based instructional techniques… Among these outcomes are increases in academic performance, increases in motivation to learn, increases in content engagement, and increases in content retention” (Goff et al., 2018, p.435). However, immersive technology does not guarantee these outcomes. Immersive technology is a vehicle, not a result, and “no technology satisfies all the needs of its users. It requires smart use of it” (Wassie & Zergaw, 2019). Table 1 below provides a quick comparison of the various immersive technologies discussed and their features.

Table 1: Comparing Immersive Technology Tools

References

Bow Valley College. (2022). Can virtual reality help Calgary’s front-line fight COVID-19? Our Stories. Retrieved March 27, 2023 from https://bowvalleycollege.ca/our-stories/2020/fund-development-and-alumni/virtual-reality-in-times-of-covid-19

Found in the Fjords. (2023, March 28). Found in the Fjords: An arctic ocean VR experience [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duvEwIKF-3g

Goff, E. E., Mulvey, K. L., Irvin, M. J., & Hartstone-Rose, A. (2018). Applications of augmented reality in informal science learning sites: a review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(5), 433-447.

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 20(9), 891-899.

Mead, C., Buxner, S., Bruce, G., Taylor, W., Semken, S., & Anbar, A. D. (2019). Immersive, interactive virtual field trips promote science learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(2), 131-142.

Schlesinger, J. (2020, September 28). Practical nursing students at Bow Valley college use top new tech to prepare for the real world. Calgary Herald. https://calgaryherald.com/sponsored/news-sponsored/practical-nursing-students-at-bow-valley-college-use-top-new-tech-to-prepare-for-the-real-world-2

Wassie, Y. A., & Zergaw, G. A. (2019). Some of the potential affordances, challenges and limitations of using GeoGebra in mathematics education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1734. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108436

Posted in Module C | Leave a comment

From Plato to Graphing Calculators: The Return of the Body in Mathematics Education

Posted on April 1, 2023 by bhalland

I found Winn’s (2003) overview of how cognitive neuroscience contributes to a system-theory view on learning a refreshing perspective on how learning occurs in artificial (digital) learning environments. This theory includes a conceptual framework that focuses on three interdependent aspects: 

1. Cognition is embodied in physical activity

2. Cognition occurs in activity embedded in the learning environment, and

3. Learning results from reciprocal adaptation between the learner and the environment.

Winn presents updated information that supports a more sophisticated understanding of the cognitive neuroscience processes and behaviors in the context of complex systems interacting, thus providing a compelling theory as an alternative to constructivism. In the system theory, learning is a process of adaptation resulting from embodied (physically active) and embedded (immersed in an environment) cognition in a dynamic exchange between the learner and their environment.

Stevens’ (2012) article celebrates a return of the body as a central component in concepts and cognition, particularly in the space of mathematics, where, since the days of Plato, mathematics has been heralded as “have[ing] nothing material in them and are distinct from physical things”(Kline, 1972, p. 43, as cited in Stevens, 2012, p. 339).

Stevens acknowledges the nuanced differences between ‘conceptual’ embodiment and ‘interactionist’ embodiment in the literature, the first focusing more on the creation of complex ideas resulting from the cumulative lived reality of humans, and the second focusing more on the body as a physical form to create and manifest meaning and action. Despite the differences and the competing perspectives, Stevens articulates that, once again, the body is a force that must be acknowledged and reckoned with when addressing matters of teaching and learning, including the previously disembodied domain of mathematics.

My third article was by McCulloch et al. (2013) and their research on student use of graphing calculators. They examined the degree to which students trusted a graphing calculator solution, particularly when it differed from their hand-produced solution. They viewed their research through the instrumental genesis theory, which claims that learning is shaped by the tools used and their relationship with the tools. Their premise states that “the mathematical context matters, as the tool and the mathematical knowledge shape each other in the process of the instrumental genesis” (p. 202). Their data revealed four main patterns of behavior that were evident as students rationalized their interactions with their calculator:

1. The consideration of careless errors,

2. The routine of checking their manual work,

3. The recognition that the graphing calculator has various affordances/limitations, and

4. The degree of self-confidence in their math skills.

Their results showed some interesting findings, including that most students viewed their graphing calculator as the math master and would give it primary authority. Also, they found the graphing calculator contributed to the learning process by self-regulating their practice, as differences in answers would trigger a response in checking their work. In addition, the calculator could provide alternate means to represent solutions (graphs, tables, etc.), thus adding to their understanding. The articles presented above all focus on the role of embodied and material practices in mathematics learning and how these practices can support or hinder mathematical understanding. Together, these articles profile the significance of embodied methods for supporting mathematical knowledge and reasoning; thus, these practices should not be overlooked or undervalued in mathematics education

The articles presented above all focus on the role of embodied and material practices in mathematics learning and how these practices can support or hinder mathematical understanding. Together, these articles profile the significance of embodied methods for supporting mathematical knowledge and reasoning; thus, these practices should not be overlooked or undervalued in mathematics education.

Questions for reflection:

  1. In light of the theory of instrumental genesis, what practices might you apply to the use of technology such as the graphing calculator to ensure learners are developing critical thinking around its use?
  2. In what ways do you incorporate embodied and material practices in your math teaching practice to support student learning?
  3. How do you see these practices contributing to student understanding of mathematical concepts and reasoning?

References

McCulloch, A. W., Kenney, R. H., & Keene, K. A. (2013). What to trust: Reconciling mathematical work done by hand with conflicting graphing calculator solutions. School Science and Mathematics, 113(4), 201-210.

Stevens, R. (2012). The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 337-346.

Winn, W. (2002). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Posted in Module C | Leave a comment

Informal and Formal Settings: Mobilizing Knowledge with IT Tools

Posted on March 26, 2023 by bhalland

Carraher et al.’s (1985) study, “Mathematics in the Streets and in Schools” examined the mathematical abilities of children street vendors with little formal education. They found that the children understood important mathematical concepts and could effectively and accurately use these understandings in their sales transactions, despite formal assessments suggesting differently. Their findings have implications for teaching and learning. Carraher et al. conclude, “educators should question the practice of treating mathematical systems as formal subjects from the outset and should instead seek ways of introducing these systems in contexts which allow them to be sustained by human daily sense” (p. 28).

Mead et al. (2018) examined science learning outcomes achieved through immersive virtual field trips (iVFTs). They discovered that iVFTs engaged students, increased student interest, and fostered learning by substituting virtual environments for environments that otherwise might be difficult or impossible to visit. The adapted learning technology designed into the iVFTs used a set of design principles called education through exploration (ETX) and an intelligent tutoring system to automatically and personally guide student actions through independent investigation, discovery, and analysis. This feedback acts as a “positive feedback loop” (p. 132) that motivates, challenges, and rewards the learner. 

Hsi’s (2008) article “Information Technologies for Informal Learning and Out of School Settings” describes how museums and science centers have used digital exhibits to augment learning with onsite visitors before, during, and after their visits. Onsite displays often include immersive digital interactives, a new physical presentation genre that creates full-body interactivity with a digital world using haptic feedback, infrared interfaces, computer projections, and shadow-capture images. Learners build their scientific understanding by physically interacting with digitally designed objects. Onsite visitors can continue learning, along with remote learners, using online digital libraries that offer virtual explorations, interactive activities, and multimedia resources. Hsi elaborates on several informal learning examples, including out-of-school homework and hobby programs built on expanded online communities created through Web 2.0 capabilities. These spaces and technologies facilitate social interaction and identity development with friends, family, and a larger online community of practice. In addition to learning content, learning occurs in real-life networks within purposeful contexts.

All of the articles above present the merits of contextualized learning. The two recent articles convey a general trend of integrating IT to expand learning experiences in formal and informal learning spaces. Implications for STEM learning practices include:

  • the importance of developing contextualized, real-life learning experiences,
  • the importance of integrating technology into teaching and learning approaches, and
  • the importance of recognizing that learning should acknowledge and integrate both formal and informal learning opportunities.

References

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21-29. 

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, 20(9), 891-899. 

Mead, C., Buxner, S., Bruce, G., Taylor, W., Semken, S., & Anbar, A. D. (2019). Immersive, interactive virtual field trips promote science learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(2), 131-142.

Posted in Module C | Leave a comment

A Synthesis of Foundational TELEs

Posted on March 17, 2023 by bhalland

TELE Blossoms in Fertile Foundations

Examining the four foundational TELEs presented in Module B reveals a lot of similarities. They all reflect a constructivist learning paradigm and employ teaching and learning strategies that encourage learners to indicate their current understandings, use new information to examine and explore how these align with their current thinking, and then expand or revise their understandings to accommodate new learnings (Khan, 2012; Edelson, 2001; Linn et al., 2002; CGTV, 1992). All the different TELEs do this in a context designed to be authentic, motivating, student-centered, and socially and technologically supported. The teacher continues to play a pivotal role, using TPACK skills. They must provide appropriately designed activities that foster conceptual and procedural knowledge for diverse learners and mediate the learning process with appropriate scaffolding, feedback, and assessment (Kim & Hannafin, 2011; Linn et al., 2002). The technological medium provides expanded affordances to learners, such as more learning autonomy, enhanced forms of representation, increased access to scaffolds from various sources (machine, peer, and teacher), and integration of technology tools to support learners to become technologically competent in a 21st-century learning environment.

The various projects covered use their specific teaching and learning frameworks, but even given these distinguishing features, I see them as more alike than different. My visual design depicting the similarities of these foundational TELEs shows the common underlying foundation that provides the rich and fertile learning components that result in the unique experiences and outcomes generated by each of the different projects and their respective frameworks.

A Representation of Foundational TELEs from Module B

Graphic Link: https://www.canva.com/design/DAFdSzyxJFA/g6L_ODu6QzeOwEUVJ96v3w/view?utm_content=DAFdSzyxJFA&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=sharebutton

Personally and professionally, Module B has been an interesting exercise in consolidating the importance of providing activities that reflect the elements examined. Activities should be relevant and accessible and have a socially supported component for sharing, challenging, and developing new skills and understandings. The consistent theme with technology has been its ability to provide expanded opportunities to the learning process. These insights motivate me to continue to apply and further challenge myself to integrate these teaching and learning practices and tools for learners.

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.

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. (2012). A Hidden GEM: A pedagogical approach to using technology to teach global warming. Source. The Science Teacher, 79(8), 59-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43557744

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2002). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Posted in Module B | Leave a comment

T-GEM Model & Chemland

Posted on March 12, 2023 by bhalland

Using Desmos for “Playing Catch-Up” – a T-GEM Lesson for Math 10C (AB)

Big Idea: Representing and analyzing situations allows us to notice and wonder about relationships

Curricular Competencies: Students are expected to be able to do the following:

·        Reasoning and modelling

·        Understanding and solving

·        Communicating and representing

·        Connecting and reflecting 

Curricular Content Knowledge: Students are expected to know the following:

I have chosen to develop a lesson using T-GEM that focuses on developing skills and content related to relationships between variables as represented in a context. This is a heavy section in Math 10C and many struggle with it as it has lots of interconnected pieces as relationships are represented in graphs, tables, and equations. To add to the challenge, many learners are using how to operate the TI-84 graphing calculator for the first time. In the adult learning program I teach, learners are exposed to some very basic graphing and equation skills in the pre-requisite course, but moving to Math 10C is often experienced as a big jump for them.

I found an activity from the Desmos website. Desmos has teacher accounts that are free to sign up for and from there, it looks like, similar to WISE, teachers can use pre-made lessons as is, or adapt them to their own needs and goals. I found this lesson that compares two runners and focuses on relationships between related variables, using graphs, tables, and equations. It contains 14 slides as it develops the lesson. I am suggesting some modifications, but I have not actually used this platform before.

https://teacher.desmos.com/activitybuilder/custom/5818fb314e762b653c3bf0f3?lang=en&collections=featured-collections%2C5da6485a83c0877d4b5708dd

The following chart is an image that shows the progression of the activity and how it follows the T-GEM methodology. At the end of my proposed lesson, there is room for extension. The Desmos activity provides an extension scenario to model from.

One thing I have noticed with the Desmos activity, and which Khan (2012) clearly identifies also, is how the web applications, on their own, may not be effective at supporting learning since they may lack guided steps, probing questions, or support problem solving. Thus, with T-GEM the teacher role is clearly tasked with supporting the learning at each phase of the T-GEM cycle. In phase 1, the teacher supports students as they generate their ideas or models, by asking probing questions to elicit, not correct, student ideas. In phase 2, the teacher helps students evaluate their models by examining specific instances, using the student model to predict further, and testing student models to see how well they align with simulations. The teacher supports they students as they work through a process which confirms, rejects, or modifies their model. In phase 3, as students modify their ideas, teachers should inspect the modified models for accuracy. Khan’s work and the work of Clement & Rea- Ramirez (2008) indicates that using a T-GEM approach is effective in supporting student inquiry skills and conceptual understanding.

References

Clement, J. J., & Rea-Ramirez, M. A. (2008). Model-based learning and instruction in science. Neatherlands: Springer.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877–905. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20226

Khan, S. (2011). New Pedagogies on Teaching Science with Computer Simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2

Khan, S. (2012). A Hidden GEM: A pedagogical approach to using technology to teach global warming. Source. The Science Teacher, 79(8), 59-62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43557744

Posted in Module B | Leave a comment

Learning for Understanding (LfU) & My World, ARCGIS

Posted on March 3, 2023 by bhalland

In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

I have to admit I’m finding this section of TELE design a bit distant from my immediate context. The challenges as I see are many, and reflect some of what Edelson (2001) set out to confront, including the (real or perceived) scarcity of time that instructors regularly identify to adequately address the primary content and process outcomes expected of learners. Other important challenges I would add to this include

the amount of technical comfort my learners have when they arrive in my program,

  • the amount of technical comfort my learners have when they arrive in my program,
  • access to computers in my teaching setting,
  • student access to technology outside their instructional times,
  • the specificity and level of the technology skills developed in the contexts presented,
  • the narrowness of scope that my course is responsible for developing, and
  • the lack of applicability of the LfU activities profiled to the most popular career paths of my learners (social work, nursing) at a level appropriate to their development (grade 8 or 9 level)

Examining the activities presented in this section, I don’t see strong connections for my learners based on the amount of time and background development that would be required.

I do, however, recognize the value of integrating the 4 learning principles that LfU is founded on:

  1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
  2. Knowledge construction is a goal-direct process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals.
  3. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use.
  4. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied.
    (Edelson, 2001, p. 357).

Further, I appreciate and apply the 3 design steps that the LfU model uses (Edelson, 2001) in my own practice, specifically,

  • establishing motivation within a learning context,
  • constructing new knowledge through scaffolded, personal experience that integrates guided exploration and communication, and
  • refining and applying knowledge in a relevant and meaningful context.

I also like the blend of constructivist and cognitive practices that the LfU model emphasizes, particularly the guided teaching sequence and reflective approach that are prominently positioned (Edelson, 2001).

So, what I would be looking for would be some semblance of a technological tool that is relatively intuitive and requires little instruction, is applicable to their personal context and perhaps loosely indicative of similar tools related to possible careers paths of interest. This digital activity, although rudimentary, provides a simple example of an activity that I would be looking to emulate with a real-life tool:

 https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/cheerpj/eating-and-exercise/latest/eating-and-exercise.html?simulation=eating-and-exercise

This activity take a person’s physical status (age, height, width) and calculates bodyfat and BMI. Students are able to create a daily diet analyzed according to macro nutrients and a daily physical activity plan to see how this would impact a client’s weight. This would connect well with some of the many apps that are already on the market for personal use and are likely available in a professional context as well.

At the onset of the learning, learners could connect their prior experiences and understanding on this topic and yet be further challenged to recognize that they lack specific knowledge and skills important to building a healthy lifestyle plan. New knowledge related to algebraic formulae such as basal metabolic rate (BMR), body mass index (BMI), nutrition analysis, and activity energy expenditure would provide a relevant and engaging context to understand and develop mathematical content and skills. Finally, the content and process learning objectives could be further practiced, applied, and evaluated in relation to the applicable tool for refinement and extension of knowledge.

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.

Phet Interactive Simulations. (n.d.). Eating and Exercise. Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/eating-and-exercise March 2, 2023.

Posted in Module B | Leave a comment

My WISE Customization

Posted on February 24, 2023 by bhalland

The Power of Plants to Disrupt Cancer Cell Reproduction

Image: Plants as Cancer Medicine. Credit: WISE Program

I explored customizations for the activity “What makes a good cancer medicine? Observing mitosis and cell processes.” The activity targets grades 9 – 12 and suggests a time commitment of 4-5 hours. It is anchored in a medical research scenario, examining plant medicines that disrupt cancer cell reproduction; it addresses cellular biology concepts of cell structure and mitotic cell reproduction. My customizations focused on revealing student preconceptions and increasing opportunities for scaffolds, collaborative learning, cognitive recall techniques, and assessment feedback.

Image: TELE Scaffolds. Credit: Carey, L.

At the onset of the activity, I added some orientation components. I added a generative prompt of what it means to be a scientist to see what student perspectives are around knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Sharing anonymous responses can segue into a class-wide discussion to introduce students to the importance of interdisciplinary perspectives and the five-step inquiry-based problem-solving framework (Kim & Hannafin, 2010, as cited by Kim & Hannafin, 2011) that the activity follows. This approach allows students to better recognize, understand, and apply the process. Also, the class discussion provides an opportunity to present and explain the “add to notebook” expectations and its purpose as a means of progress monitoring and formative/summative assessment.

Image: Scaffolding Strategies. Credit: Lift Learning

I adjusted several tasks to help focus, support, and engage learners around the learning goals, which includes specialized cell terminology and processes. I replaced a silent video on mitotic cell division with one that includes audio and text to introduce students to new vocabulary and proper pronunciation. The updated video also includes an added learning strategy using the acronym IMPAT-C to sequence the different mitotic stages. In addition to having students draw the predicated rate of growth for cancer cells relative to the rate of growth for normal cells, I added a prompt for them to explain how their graph demonstrates the importance of early cancer detection.

Given that working with the WISE program technology would be a new experience for my learners, I intend to preview and model the WISE activity for learners, thus showcasing the common layout and how to navigate through specific steps. In my exploration with the activity categorizing the mitotic stages, I found the stamp tool awkward to use; thus, modeling this tool with upfront support may reduce learner frustration. In addition to providing teacher support with technology, pairing students and endorsing a practice of asking other learner pairs for technology help first, before the teacher, promotes collaborative learning.

Finally, upon conclusion of the primary lesson, I inserted extensions to explore based on their personal interests, thus encouraging further independent learning. Topics include strategies to prevent cancer, cancer symptoms, pet therapy with cancer patients, and a general knowledge cancer quiz.

References

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

Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE Science: Web-based Inquiry in the Classroom. Technology, Education–Connections. Teachers College Press.

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.

Posted in Module B | Leave a comment

SKI and WISE Intro

Posted on February 24, 2023 by bhalland

Setting a Background to Customizing Anchored Instruction

The WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) Program

What was the motivation to create WISE?

WISE provided a means to support teachers in creating engaging, inquiry-based science learning environments that could be customized to meet local needs. The project goal was to provide a bridge between educational research and classroom practices. (Kim & Hannafin, 2011).

The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) Framework

In what ways does SKI promote knowledge integration through its technological and curriculum design? Describe a typical process for developing a WISE project.

The SKI framework aims to promote the integration of students’ prior knowledge and new information to help them develop a deeper and more integrated understanding of science concepts and processes. The SKI framework integrates two key constructs in its design features: problem-solving and scaffolding. The curriculum goals are inextricably linked and supported through the technological format. Each activity proceeds through five problem-solving steps: problem identification and engagement, evidence exploration, explanation reconstruction, communication and justification of explanation, and revision and reflection of explanation (Kim & Hannafin, 2011). The scientific inquiry steps proceed in a constructivist, collaborative, scaffolded context. The high-interest, interdisciplinary topics are developed with peer interaction. Individual and paired work is shared through the digital space for feedback and reflection.

Fig 1. Integrating Knowledge in an Inquiry-Based Context. Credit: Kim & Hannafin (2010)

Students have scaffolded support provided through either static or dynamic prompts as they proceed through the activity. The WISE activities seek to optimize cognitive and social affordances using blended interaction with peers, teachers, and technology

Comparing The WISE Program and the Jasper Woodbury Adventure Series

The Jasper Series math program and the WISE science program share some common design principles. Both programs emphasize the importance of realistic problems that encourage generative learning and problem-solving in interdisciplinary contexts. Both programs also use multi-media formats to create an engaging and immersive learning experience, although the Jasper series is solely video based and the WISE program uses different forms of technology tools. Each program provides embedded data to support problem solving and scientific thinking, and both use an iterative style to foster deeper understanding; the Jasper series revisits the context with different challenges and the WISE program revisits the five-step inquiry process in all activities. Both programs provide collaborative learning opportunities, thus encouraging students to work together to solve problems and develop social skills.

Image: WISE vs Jasper. Credit: Thomas, B

There are some noticeable differences between the two programs. The Jasper Series is not designed with formative assessment strategies to inform teaching and learning, whereas the WISE program is intentional in providing assessment opportunities, including self, peer, and teacher assessments. Although both programs allow for interdisciplinary aspects, they each have different priorities; the Jasper Series program is focused on math, while the WISE program is focused on science.

WISE Customizations for My Context

How could you use a WISE project in your school or another learning environment?

Working with adults there is a lot of experience and concern around the political, economic, and social challenges. The WISE topics that deal with relevant community topics or social justice issues would likely provide a high degree of interest and engagement and build interdisciplinary connections. If possible, it would be interesting to include one activity per term as a means of building and practicing students’ skills and understanding regarding the scientific inquiry process.

What about WISE would you customize?

Many learners in the adult upgrading program are ELL students or learners that have been away from school or struggled with school, and may lack confidence. To help build language skills and to provide lots of formative feedback, I would be sure to customize the WISE activities so that there are numerous dynamic scaffolds available. Allowing learners to have access to vocabulary lists, procedural prompts, and graphic organizers caters to diverse learner needs and helps further the development of skills, concepts, and meta-cognition. Similarly, I would customize to include lots of multi-media to complement written content. Including video, audio, images as well as text supports different learning styles and preferences and reinforces understanding. A final customization that I would regularly integrate into the WISE activities would be opportunities for self, peer, and teacher formative assessment to support self-regulation, collaboration, and individualized support.

I would provide dynamic scaffolds for learners select, such as vocabulary lists, procedural prompts, and graphic organizers to strengthen skills, concepts, and meta-cognition. Similarly, regular opportunities for formative assessment check-ins, through peer interaction or self-regulation, are helpful for students to build general learning skills.

References

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417. 

Posted in Module B | Leave a comment