I did like the PHET simulations. I enjoyed playing with one more specifically as it relates to the present subject taught in my classroom : Fraction matcher .  This simulation looks like some manipulatives of fractions we have in class.  You match the selected fractions using numbers and pictures.  Learners who have the right answer will receive a congratulations message and those who miss will be asked to try again (as in the picture below)

STEM Activity

« Simulations are available to support instruction in many areas of science and engineering» (Srinivasan, 2006), and I would add mathematics as well.  In my own classroom, at this point in curriculum, we are studying fractions and we are comparing them together to understand multiple ways of representing fractions.  One misconception I observe is that students often compare fractions together, without having them on the same denominator.

In this example, I will use the T-GEM exercise to have them understand fraction matching.  As mentioned by Driver et al. (1994), « The core commitrnent of a constructivist position, that knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner, is shared by a wide range of different research traditions relating to science education. »  Simulations should offer my students another way to see, experiment and understand fractions.

 Step 1. Previous Knowledge

 First, students should have some language basis around fractions and the different parts of that concept.  In a constructivist approach, where the learner« explains human learning as an active attempt to construct meaning in the world around” him (Fritscher, 2008), students would build on previous knowledge.

 Step 2. Play

 Here, Students would be invited to play with the model presented.  They would discuss with their peers what is happening and what they are doing.  Finkelstein et al. (2005) stated that properly designed simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment.  « This play can lead to the organization of students’ knowledge and its alignment with … models. Depending upon how these tools are used, messing about may or may not be productive. » (Finkelstein, 2005)

Step 3. Directed Play

To be assured that students were going in the right direction with these simulations, I would ask a few specific questions to make sure they understand the concept, like :

–        How do you know that 2/3 is equivalent to 8/12 ?

–        Explain how you know which of these two fractions are bigger: 3/4, 5/6?

–        What is a fraction ?

Step 4. Analysis

In groups of 2 or 3, students would discuss the reasons why it is happening like this.  They would have to come up with a solution to be able to explain how fractions are equivalent or not.  Together, they would build their knowledge and understand the concept, supported by the simulation.  Driver et al. (1994) stated that simulations are available to support instruction in many areas of science… and math.

Step 5. Synthesis

To further extend their understanding, I would ask students to recreate multiple fractions comparisons in real life, in the school.  And from there, they could demonstrate their learning to younger ones, let’s say grade 3s or 4s.  From this experimentation, we could build our knowledge gain together and define the concepts we learned.

Through this whole experience, both learners and teachers would have build knowledge together and create possibilities for discussions and thinking.

Reference :

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 .

Fritscher, L. (2008, May 09th). Constructivism. Retrieved from :

                  http://phobias.about.com/od/glossary/g/constructivdef.htm

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), 137-41.                                              http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9007-5

From: http://images.fotocommunity.com/photos/digiart/2d-graphics/global-focus-794e539a-d335-4201-b4e2-a5148a67e7c6.jpg

This week readings were fairly interesting, offered novel experimentations and opened my views for new opportunities.  I looked at Globe and Second Life.  These two networked communities offered multiple insights for education and I think they both have their potentials and some drawbacks.  According to Bielaczyc and Collins (1999): « The defining quality of a learning community is that there is a culture of learning in which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding. » I believe the main piece here would be « everyone is involved in a collective effort » and this should drive the process of knowledge gain.  The collective participation where everyone is a piece of the final puzzle is a strong motivator for the learner.  Driver et al (1994) said that developing a shared meaning between teachers and students is the heart of making what is called common knowledge. They also stated that the core commitment of a constructivist position, that knowledge is not transmitted directly from one knower to another, but is actively built up by the learner, is shared by a wide range of different research.

As the technology improves in its power to engage, researchers and educators are increa-singly exploring the use of virtual worlds (Lamb, 2007) or spaces where connections can be created with experts in the field to offer the best to the learners.  Butler & MacGregor (2003) discussed that an annual review over the past 6 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.  Through that network of specialists, teachers and students knowledge is shared and growing fruitfully.  The study of the environment is an effective means for teaching students the elements of science. The environment surrounds children and shapes their lives.  Their natural curiosity stimulates them to understand how the world works and how it is critical to them. (Butler & MacGregor, 2003)  The impact of the Globe community is exponentially positive.  On top of the participation in learning, the students open their horizon and understand other cultures and finally extend their vision of global environment.  GLOBE as an ambitious attempt to put the concepts of authentic science learning, student-scientist partnership, and inquiry-based pedagogy into practice on an unprecedented scale. When well implemented by trained teachers, 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 (Butler & MacGregor, 2003).

Carraher & al (1985) looked at how real-life contexts computational strategies from youngsters in the streets of Recife, Brazil are different from those taught in schools.  They studied how these young kids can use these mathematical concepts (addition, subtraction, multiplication and sometimes division) to accomplish the everyday tasks of surviving in the family business.  They find their own way to achieve the same results.  It is unconventional, but it works for them.  How does this relate to the Globe platform ?  Here I see young learners repeating or thinking critically to make sure they put something on the table at night.  They learned from mentors, teachers, parents, brothers and sisters.  On Globe, learners bring their ideas to the discussion and the specialists become learners as well.  Everybody can be at the same level.  This is a great opportunity for learning on every part.

On another note, other platforms are bringing their fast growing pace on the learning path. As Prensky named them, digital natives do have certain expectation toward the educational system.  Platform like Second Life are trying to answer these learners.  As Lamb (January 4th, 2007) presents it : « Immersive worlds are largely a by-product of the massively multiplayer online games that allow thousands to play inside a dizzying array of virtual environments… Second Life is a 3-D world that extends the concept of immersive environments beyond gaming.”  The opinions are split on this matter.  Second Life brings the virtual hangouts (Hendrickson, 2007) to the population in general and it is believed that this type of experience could very well become integral to the forthcoming Web 3.0 era (Hendrickson, 2007).  On a different look, others see it as an economic system with the sole purpose of driving revenue to the company that owns it (D’Arcy, 2007).  D’Arcy (2007) sees it as a virtual machine created to bring money to the company’s pockets.  Second Life brings me back to the concept of everybody sitting at the same table are learners and share their knowledge.

Now, how does this influence my practice ?  Personally, I do see more potential in Globe, at this point, than in Second Life for learning.  I do really appreciate the sharing and the knowledge found on that platform.  It is possible for everybody to participate in something great.  Scientists offer their expertise and learners help them support them in their quests.  In Second Life, from my personal experience, I don’t see my students navigating in these worlds.  First, I found it a bit disorienting for a little while and I would not feel comfortable at this point, supervising my students in the multiple opportunities offered in Second Life.  Second, after 7 or 8 minutes, already I had people bullying me, without even knowing me.  They were sending me inappropriate spam messages repetitively.  There is no surveillance and as people sometimes, don’t feel connected to their avatar, they feel like doing anything because it’s anonymous.  My students are to young still for that kind of experiences.

References

Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: Advancing knowledge                   for a lifetime. Nassp Bulletin, 83(604), 4-10.

Butler, D.M., & MacGregor, I.D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of                                             Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20.

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.

D’Arcy, D. (2007). Second Life Concerns. January 25, 2007. http://tinyurl.com/2t2xx5

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing                                                         scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Hendrickson, M. (2007). Virtual World Hangouts: So Many to Choose From.                                                         http://tinyurl.com/2xmbdm

Lamb, B. (January 4, 2007). Alternative Existence in Parallel Worlds. UBC Reports 53(1).                                   http://tinyurl.com/2eu43h

Mathews, S., Andrews, L., & Luck, E. (2012). Developing a Second Life virtual field trip for                              university students: an action research approach. Educational Research, 54(1), 17-38

From: http://bit.ly/1jrXcbv

According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998), while role-playing activities have been commonly used in social studies classrooms, they have been infrequently used in science and mathematics classrooms. Speculate on why role playing activities may not be promoted in math and science and elaborate on your opinion on whether activities such as role playing should be promoted. Draw upon direct quotations from embodied learning theories and research in your response.

Despite the growing interest in role-playing activities, both in school classrooms and in the culture at large, … the role-playing activities are rare in mathematics and science classrooms. (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998) Why is that?  When they start in Kindergarten, kids will learn to play in groups and at young age will experiment role playing with toys as they invent, create, experience, live their imagination and creativity through this learning exercise.  Schools observed that phenomena and reproduced it in classrooms and it does allow the students to understand concepts because they embody it.  Winn (2003) arguments that learning occurs when people adapt to their environment.  To understand adaptation, we must think of the learner as embedded in the learning environment and physically active in it, so that cognition can be thought of as an embodied as well as a cerebral activity. 

Following on Resnick & Wilensky (1998), I think role playing is rarely used in Maths and Science for a few reasons : 

1- It is mostly used to help students adopt the perspective of another person (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998) ;

2- Science is usually taught as detached observation and analysis of phenomena (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998) ;

3- Role playing is related to drama and arts at older age.  Scientists are believing in facts and expressing emotions might not be the most comfortable position for them.

Stevens (2012) stated that long banished from the main stage by an idealized, inside-the-head information-processing worldview, the body is steadily being rediscovered in the work of thinking and learning.  It seems like it has been forgotten.  The body is an extension of the brain and is capable of representing what the mind thinks.  By expressing their thoughts, students can demonstrated some processes happening in their brain.  Resnick & Wilensky (1998) discuss the fact that it is much difficult for students to build on their experiences and make strong personal connections to mathematics and science.  The learning process should be more of an active participation and less of distanced reflection.  Stevens (2012) talks about how individual human beings have recurrent shared physical experiences and common biologically given bodies and thereby develop common internal concepts and conceptual systems based on these experiences.  The latter also mentioned how the body is a public resource for thinking, learning, and joint activity, with the body understood as “a dynamically unfolding, interactively organized locus for the production and display of relevant meaning and action.  If the body becomes a public resource to express thoughts, then it has to be understood and linked to learning.  This expressionism is often left to drama courses and arts to be exteriorised.  But Winn (2003) says that constructivists stress the social nature of learning. Knowledge is not constructed in a vacuum, but through the negotiation of meaning within groups of people.  Role playing is a great way to demonstrate learning and create meaning.  Science and Mathematics should not be excluded or distanced from these great opportunities to create connections from personal experiences.

References :

Stevens, R. (2012). The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have

             been found. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 337-346.

Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic

             decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of the

             Learning Sciences, 7(2), 153-172.

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 on January 17, 2013, from: 

             http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-  

               03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

Winn (2003) stated in his article that « cognition is embodied in physical activity, that this activity is embedded in a learning environment, and that learning is the result of adaptation of the learner to the environment and the environment to the learner. The conceptual framework assumes that embodiment, embeddedness and adaptation are completely interdependent. »  He seems to look at cognition in a different way and faces the problem in a more opened perspective.  Winn based his reflection on learning theories like constructivism, where understanding is constructed by students, not received in messages simply to be encoded, remembered and recalled. (Winn, 2003)  Constructivism stresses the social aspect of learning where the learner is negociating the meaning with the group.  Winn tells us that cognition works by taking the state of the learner and the environment as “input,” performing operations on it, and “outputting” the result as behavior.  It forces the learner to experiment the environment like a scientist through a lifelike experimentation.  As every individual experiments life differently, sharing these experiences will grow a shared cognition for learners to refer to.

In this article, Kearney et al (2012) discuss the many opportunities and challenges offered by mobile learning today.  « This theoretical perspective suggests that learning is affected and modified by the tools used for learning, and that reciprocally the learning tools are modified by the ways that they are used for learning. » (Kearney et al, 2012)  The authors look at how m-learning offers opportunities for experimentation and learning.  As the learners have opportunities to live and experience real-life situation out of the buildings with the devices, it is some sort of embodiment, not necessarily noted in this article, but following Winn’s reading, one can see the possibilities.  Personalisation of learning is one strong aspect of this framework, debated in Kearney et al’s (2012) article.

Alibali & Nathan (2012) looked at how gestures represent the way our mind thinks.  « Gestures are often taken as evidence that the body is involved in thinking and speaking about the ideas expressed in those gestures. »  They talk about how learners will express their thoughts with gestures before they explain it with their mouth.  Observations showed that these body movements are evidences of the mind thinking and speaking ideas expressed through those gestures.  Discussions also grew around the fact that scholars of embodied cognition have begun to view gestures as an indicator of embodied mental representations. (Alibali & Nathan, 2012)

In my own teaching, I believe that this would be really impacting the way my students learn.  I realized that I am moving a lot when I teach, but my students aren’t enough.  After reading all these articles, I found interesting how it can impact learning.  I have heard about it and I know that our kindergarten teachers are putting it in practice everyday.  It does make a difference for those students for sure.  The body movement brings another aspect of real life situations where learners will make connections and that will anchor in their brain.  If I look at one specific learning situation to put that in practice, I think math could be a good example.  Manipulatives make a big difference in the learner’s experience.  If they can manipulate objects to demonstrate geometry or fractions, it makes a big difference.  It creates connections in their brain and they also can easily share with peers.

 3 Questions :

A)    If embodiment offers a greater potential for understanding, are learners with hearing loss problem better understanding maths concepts than others ?

B)   Could math concepts embodiment be different or similar between kindergarten and Grade 9 students ? And how ?

C)   M-Learning offers great potential for learning in 2014.  Do all subjects benefit from it equally ?

References:

Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning:

               Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning

               Sciences, 21(2), 247-286.

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a

               pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning           Technology,20(1).

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and

              dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning,  1(1), 87-114.

              Retrieved from :

              http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-              

              03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

The resource I picked is The National Library of Virtual Manipulatives.  It looks a bit like Chemland, that we looked at in the last module.  It provides applications for learners to manipulate and observe, from K to 12.  The student can pick one tool and modify the variables to see the effects of it’s decision.  Many of these manipulatives can be accessible in class, but  not all classes own them.  This website gives access to a plenitude of tools to simulate concepts.  It is available in two languages.

Depending onf the teachers objectives, it could be used to stimulate conversations on the results of the experimentation or on the processes used.  It can also be used as a laboratory to support concepts taught.

Why is visualization necessary (or not) for student understanding of math or science?

I believe students need concrete examples to better understand and make the connections in their brain.  They need to manipulate for themselves.  As Khan (2007) stated, reasoning with a mental model expands the notion of this traditional account to include abductive reasoning with visual representations, thought experiments, and analogies.  This virtual library serves that purpose.

What are the multiple ways that students’ understanding could be represented with this dynamic visualization software and what are the implications for teaching practice?

Student’s understanding could be represented in multiple forms.  It can be reflection, observations, journaling, discussions with peers or in groups… It does work through engagement and involvement of the student.  They can expand their thoughts to push the limits of the application.  The implications for the teaching practice are many but to name just a few of them : teachers can draw from that database to support their teaching ; they can use the simulation to apply a concept, where otherwise, they might not have the material to demonstrate it, etc.

What are some ways that a students’ understanding could be challenged with dynamic visualization software?

Here, the teacher can have the student extrapolate on an idea or a concept and see how it will respond to their understanding.  After they could verify the comprehension with the virtual lab.

What are the social opportunities and potential cognitive opportunities that may emerge from interaction with this software?

The social aspect of it is mostly the discussions that will surround the project.  As the students will understand the concept better, they will be able to articulate their ideas on the subject.

How would you use this technology in a classroom?

I use dit in math to support a concept I taught, to demonstrate something new. I made my students discover by themselves how a specific concept could be taught.  They used the application to teach others about what they found.  Some even invented new activities for younger ones to use.

Reference:

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

Looking at the four foundational technology-enhanced learning environments, one commonality is striking me and that is the student engagement.  The anchored instruction, WISE, LfU and T-GEM all demonstrate a sense of authenticity in their goals and require, as scientists do, a systemic organisation.  Knowledge building, social skills increase and meta-cognition development and the use of digital technology are all aspects of these learning environment.  As the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992) stated :  « theorists emphasize the importance of having students become actively involved in the construction of knowledge. »  These settings offer those opportunities.

The Jasper series « situate instruction in the context of meaningful problem solving environments that allow teachers to simulate in the classroom some of the advantages of “in-context” apprenticeship training .»(Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992)

Linn et al.(2003) define inquiry as engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments.  WISE offers an environment that will allow for discussion, reflection, knowledge building and inquire about their environment.  In comparison, The Jasper Series anchor the learner in a situation or circumstances that will have him or her repeat a multi-step model to solve problems.

Edelson (2001) said integrating content and process together in the design of learning activities offers the opportunity to increase students’ experience with authentic activities while also achieving deeper content understanding.

The Learning for Use model is based on four principles described in Edelson’s (2001) paper and based on the central tenet that is constructivism.  The learner builds knowledge structures and make connections between them. 

The GEM environment is a cyclical pattern, as mentioned by Khan (2007) and is repeated multiple times to reach the goal.  Generating, Evaluating and Modifying the hypotheses make the learners reconsidering their thoughts to gradually and consistently improve their thinking.

The last four weeks have been filled up with lots of reflections and information.  These four TELEs were new to me and as I am not a science teacher, they resonated differently.  I teach all subjects in grade 6 and I enjoy inquiry based teaching. I explored that philosophy of learning for the last two years.  I aim at having my students involved in their learning and knowledge building.  Those TELEs resonated to me as they are based on constructivism and situated learning theories which support the inquiry based learning.  With my colleagues, we developed four projects across the year to cover all subjects for the year.  The idea is to keep students interest and have them commit to attain their goal.  I believe that the GEM environment could help here with the cyclical pattern of generating, evaluating and modifying.  As Edelson (2001) mentioned it, knowledge cannot be transmitted directly from one individual to another.  Otherwise, learner has to be responsible for his knowledge and skill building development.

Reference:

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration                  of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and                        Development, 40(1), 65-80. Retrieved from:                                                                                                        http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02296707

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. Retrieved                        from:  http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/

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

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science                                       Education, 87(4), 517-538. Retrieved from:                                                                                                       http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10086/abstract

As much as teachers want to use technologies in their classroom, the model can be perfect but if they haven’t been taught how to use it, it will be a challenge.  Khan (2010) stated that despite a body of literature on the use of computer simulations in science classrooms, comparatively little research has been done on how to teach with this technology.  That is a challenge for new and experienced teachers.  The teacher as to be aware of the limitations of its students and the tools.

In one of the theme I teach in Grade 6, aerodynamism, students have a hard time understanding Bernoulli’s principle.  In the GEM model, to generate hypotheses, I would certainly use online simulations to have them see what is happening.  Something like this,  would create discussions on how planes can fly.  Students have different ideas on the matter and they are happy to share them, as they think they each have the answer.  I normally, also have a pilot from WestJet come in my class to talk with the students about his job and how planes fly.  He does a great job in having them evaluate their thoughts and rethink how to modify their ideas. By the end of these sessions and some videos, students can explain how Bernoulli’s principle can help them fly to the tropics or to their families.  I don’t mean that it is clear as water, but nonetheless they have some basis.

Through collaboration and discussion, students have the opportunity to generate ideas, hypotheses and their desire to learn more about the subject.  As they are growing their body of knowledge, they evaluate the possibilities offered to use the best one.  And finally, they can modify their hypotheses as they learn.  It is a dynamic thinking, not static.

After that, we will start building paper plane and achieve the longest fly!

Reference

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Image from: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/oreo-moon/en/

Imagine how LfU principles might be applied to a topic you teach. Now switch out the digital technology. What other domain specific (and non-domain specific) software might help you achieve these principles while teaching this topic? By domain-specific, we mean software designed for STEM education, and by non-domain specific, we mean software or other forms of technology that could be used generally in multiple domains (eg. Wikis). Other GIS software can be selected for the switch.

The four principles are (Edelson, 2002):

1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed 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.

One topic I do teach is the phases of the moon.  How it affects the Earth ?  How does it work ?  What does it change for us in our everyday life ?  I always ask my students how do they think the moon affects our lives.  Some misconceptions that I observe are that the moon produces light ; light is reflected from the earth to the moon ; phases of the Moon are caused by a shadow from the Earth or clouds; different countries see different phases of the Moon on the same day; the Moon goes around the Earth in a single day; the Moon does not rotate.  To correct these misconceptions and have the students understand what is going on with the Moon, we have some websites, videos, animations and some experimentations.  Here are some examples : Wonderville or website like this, or another one from NASA, finally BrainPop.  These kind of websites do create some interests and stimulate questions. If I wanted to apply the LfU principles to this project, I would certainly try to create motivation towards this project by having a group discussion about the Moon and find out what they know about it.  The idea being to plant some seeds and generate interests.  Edelson (2002) stated that the first step in learning for use is recognizing the need for new knowledge.  By introducing the subject, I suspect some interest will grow.  A short activity on planets and their satellites would take place and make the students want to know more.  Knowledge construction is the next step, as cited by Edelson (2002).  The learner needs to create new connections to build knowledge.  Videos and/or animations would support the learner in it’s quest to new knowledge.  Discussion with peers would follow this activity to support the process and exchange of ideas reinforce these new understandings. From this knowledge refinement, which responds to the need for accessibility and applicability of knowledge (Edelson, 2002), is taking place.  Learners learn to make connections between knowledge that they acquired.  They access and apply the notions learned, when they understood them.  They can apply them in real life situation.

Domain specific application I would use on top of websites could be QuickPhase or Astronomical Applications.

For non domain specific, I would use Wikis, Prezi, Voki, Moodle and KidBlog to pursue activity specific discussions or reflections.  As these applications multiple interactions from peers to combine ideas, reflect on ideas or build ideas from scratch.

Reference :

Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002, April). Learning-for-Use in Earth science: Kids

as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Download this paper as a Word document from Northwestern University’s site:http://www.worldwatcher.northwestern.edu/userdownloads/pdf/LFU_PF_NARST02.v3.doc

Retrieved from: http://www.uvm.edu/~slathem/inquiry/Inquiryprocess.jpg

Today, educators tasks increased a lot.  At the same time that they are being asked to teach more content more effectively, science teachers are being asked to devote more time to having students engage in scientific practices. (Edelson, 2001)  To be able to achieve the high demand they need tools to support the teaching and learning process.  Traditional teachers perceive these demands as unachievable because they teach content and inquiry skills separately.  Edelson (2001) points out that  they view content learning activities and process learning activities as competing for the scarcest of classroom resources-time.  For many reasons, digital technology forged itself a large place in the science teaching.  It offers multiple opportunities to develop learners skills in the process.  Data collection, data analysis, modeling and communication are a few of the practices reflected easily with the use of technology.  These tools also « …offer  benefits for learning in their ability to store and present information in dynamic and interactive formats. (Edelson, 2001)  And finally, Edelson stated that the introduction of computers into schools presents an unprecedented opportunity for reform.

In Edelson’s (2001) article, the Learning for Use (LfU) model is presented as a valuable option to teaching science.  He describes this model’s goal as to overcome the inert  knowledge problem by describing how learning activities can foster useful conceptual understanding that will be available to the learner when it is relevant.  This model is based on four principles « that are shared by many contemporary theories of learning (Edelson, 2001):

1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed 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.

This approach is based on the use of technology and offers a high volume of interest as it provides opportunities for learners to interact with technologies, it involves their interests.  Edelson (2001) stated that for robust learning to occur, the learner must be motivated to learn the specific content or skills at hand based on a recognition of the usefulness of that content beyond the learning environment.  Digital technologies does support that motivation in the experimentation.

From the four principles mentioned earlier, this model is based on the principles of the main theories of learning.  The first principle is based on the main tenet of constructivism.  The learner builds is new knowledge on the old one as a progression towards better understanding and making connections between knowledge structures.  The second principle support the idea that learning must be initiated by the learner, pointed out Edelson (2001).  In third, this principle claims is basis from the situated learning cognition theory where knowledge can be retieved based on contextual cues.  And finally, the fourth principle captures the difference between declarative and procedural knowledge. (Edelson, 2001)  For a learner to be able to make conclusions and connections between knowledge it needs to be able to operationalize its knowledge.  It is a learned process acquired through experimentation.

By design, multiple pedagogical principles are reflected in the construction of the LfU model.  The use of this model requires preparation and understanding of these principles from the teacher, if he wants it to be effective and stimulating for the learners.

Reference:

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported                inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.                                            Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/

From: http://www.flickr.com/photos/anned/8700093610/

In this post, I did think about the WISE platform and how it embedded learning to a point where learners doesn’t think twice in doing the activities and they just progress in their thoughts without knowing or thinking about it.  WISE is a platform where teachers can create and develop, and where learners will learn, experiment, chat, exchange and negociate ideas, and where learning is happening.

I believe the motivation behind WISE was to sustain learning through inquiry.  Linn et al. (2003) define inquiry as “…engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments.”  At that point, they developed the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE).

Projects in WISE are developed by teachers and are supported by curriculum objectives.  As it is through the internet, students need to use technology to connect to those projects.  It offers a great opportunity to gain knowledge on the use of 21st Century tools available to them.  While using the technology, the learners connect with peers across the country and have possibilities to discuss subjects of interest with them.  They build knowledge on science but also gain skills and new ideas.

One project I found interesting and that I could relate and use in my classroom is: Investigating Planetary Motion and Seasons.  This project connects with my curriculum and it is a unit that I will be working on very soon with my students.  I found interesting ideas in this project, and I believe I would use it in with my students to deepen their understanding of the planet movement and the seasons and how the phases of the moon have an influence here.  One problem i could notice is that I am working in french in my school and all of these are great ideas, but they don’t come in french and I did not find anything like it in french.  Meaning, there would be a lot of work translating this activity in french for my students.  At this point, this is not an option.  But I could see the potential for science in schools.

Cheers,

• Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science                              Education, 87(4), 517-538.                                                                                                                                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10086/abstract