(Image captured from the WISE4 website)

« The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment is a research-based digital learning platform that fosters exploration and science inquiry. » (http://wise.berkeley.edu/)    Projects focus on science inquiry and are specifically tailored for the classroom.  They explore new ideas and evidence and provide peer interactions on these ideas along the way.  Students have the possibilities to write their thoughts, discuss them and put them against other ideas to form their own ideas about the subject of inquiry.  Collaboratively, these theories are framed and validated  through discussion and model-based testing, where after they refine these ideas using a variety of tools.  Multiple authors wrote on this model to explore the possibilities offered and to understand the process of learning presented.  Linn et al. mentioned that their research team is convinced that students possess a lot of intriguing and potentially valuable ideas about science, but there’s limits to their ability to interconnect these ideas or to apply them to new ideas or concepts.   Science must capitalize on views held by students for 2 reasons:

1. intellectual contributions of the students
2. by connecting science to everyday life experiences can make science more relevant to                students

Students need new ideas, improve capabilities to make inferences, develop criteria for what constitutes important evidences and draw conclusions based on multiple ideas or observations.  The WISE platform makes thinking visible to help students understand their own ideas.  The use of technology in schools provide much more possibilities in science and science literacies.  The design of this project was based on four pedagogical principles (Gobert et al., 2002):

1. Make science accessible to all students ;
2. Make thinking visible ;
3. Provide social support so that students can learn from each other ;
4. Promote autonomy and lifelong learning.

By offering these opportunities to the learners, the WISE projects bring forward learning and provide feedbacks from peers.  As Hattie et al. (2007) stated, feedback needs to provide information specifically relating to the task or process of learning that fills a gap between what is understood and what is aimed to be understood.  Vygotsky named it the Zone of Proximal Development.  For the feedback to be effective, there must be learning going on.  In this process, the WISE project offers multiple options.  Hattie et al. (2007) stated that the idea of students developing self-regulation and error detection skills… are created by teachers in WISE.

Reference

• Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding         of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the             American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana. This is a            conference paper. Retrieved conference paper Saturday, October 29, 2013                             from: http://mtv.concord.org/publications/epistimology_paper.pdf
• Hattie, H. & Timperly, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,               77(1),81-112.                                                                                                                                 http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/loginurl=http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

• 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

This last week, after the anchored instruction symposium, I opened to other perspectives on teaching and that made me review my own ways.  The Jasper series offer a great set of tool to teach mathematical concepts.  It does ask the learner to be more involved in it’s own learning and go through a series of challenges to demonstrate it’s learning.  Is it appropriate for every learners?  Following some of the discussions in our group, I noticed some really good aspects discussed by colleagues.

There is been some discussions around the Jasper series being video textbooks but also great learning tools when well used.  I think that using that kind of technology is a great opportunity for our learners but we need to be careful on using it.  The tools can’t replace the teacher and they won’t teach by themselves.  These kind of technology “afford students opportunities to create problem structure as they solve the problem, potentially leading to more opportunities for group interactions that support generative learning.” (Shyu, 2000)  Teacher has to build on these discoveries and quest to explore more concepts and extrapolate to greater understandings.  Real life situations offer multiple learning affordances that teachers can apply in classroom to better solidify the learners foundation.

Reference

• Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s           experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.                                             http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00135

How does this technology support learning and conversely how might it confound learning?

The Cognition Technology Group at Vanderbuilt (1992) stated that the Jasper Series is a technology-based program designed to motivate students and help them learn to think and reason about complex problems.  The theoretical framework is consistent with constructivist theories and emphasizes generative learning anchored in meaningful contexts.  This series offered a different approach to mathematics more appealing to students and presenting multiple options of resolution.  The student was stimulated all the way by an interesting story and the quest for pieces of the puzzle to answer a challenging question.  Not only the answer is the goal, but the process, the thinking and the questioning are equally important.  Done indivdually or in teams, the effort would only stimulate and motivate the learner to find an answer and hope that is the best one.  Building on the constructivist theory, where with the help of teamates, the learner would grow it’s learning on evidence and experience, the “theorists emphasize the importance of having students become actively involved in the construction of knowledge.” (CTGV, 1992)  Involving the learner in  his development and reflection has a large impact on his understanding and long term memory.  ” A number of theorists emphasize the importance of helping students engage in generative rather than passive learning activities.”(CTGV, 1992) Also, Bottge et al. state that the cognitive perspective defines “problems” according to howthey function for the persons attempting to solve them.  Meaning, to integrate meaningful problems in the learning they have to mean something or relate to the learner.  Otherwise, it is almost a waist of time.

What suggestions do you have for how the Jasper materials or other digital video might be utilized in your context (include suggestions for activities that do not involve the videos)? What research supports your suggestions?

In my context, I have 20 Grade 6 students largely involved in sports.  I am not convinced that the majority of my students would be interested in the Jasper series for a long period has it doesn’t relate to them that much and it is a bit old.  Shyu (2000) mentioned that with the widespread application of multimedia technology, the ideas of situated learning can be better achieved, because computer technology can be deployed to expand the power and flexibility of learning resources.  In 2014, the concept created by the Cognition Teachnology Group at Vanderbuilt is really interesting and supports well the constructivist approach, but today’s learners need more interaction.  There is other options available today, like C.S.I. Web Adventures or The Adventures of Josie True which provide the learner with a close to life experience to experiment math or science.  I think capturing the interest of our learners is key to involvement and engagement.  Also, Webquests offer potential for math learners, like Mathematics and Sports Webquest, in MathGoodies. For the challenged learners, the interaction and the audio-visual offer more potential than just paper.  Bottge et al. (2002) discovered that previous studies have shown that students with disabilities can solve challenging and authenticmath problems in remedial settings when the tasks are presented in video and applied formats.  Meaning that the anchored intruction brings up different aspects of the learning involving personal experiences that support the learner in his challenging questions related to a known environment.

How might the video and/or the activities be augmented for children with learning issues in math?

Bottge et al. (2002) suggest that full-time general education instruction without in-class special educationsupport does not adequately meet the needs of students with learning disabilities.  Is the anchored instruction the best solution for the students with learning challenges?  Probably not.  They still need direct support to keep them on task and support them with heavier challenges.  It doesn’t mean they dcan’t do it, they need support to achieve the problem or to find information.  To improve these activities for children with learning issues in math, I believe that more manipulative and smaller video sections could help. They need more scaffolding to be able to connect the dots and reach the objective.

Cheers,

References

Bottge, BA, Heinrichs M, Mehta, ZD, Hung, Y. (2002). Weighing the benefits of anchored math               instruction for students with disabilities in general education classes. Journal of Special               Education, 35, 186-200.                                                                                                                       http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/loginurl=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246690203500401

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of                   anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational               Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s                 experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.                                               http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00135

From the website “The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury” I discovered a series of videos available with a fee to support math curriculum through multiple challenges.

“The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury™ consists of 12 videodisc-based adventures that focus on mathematical problem finding and problem solving. In particular, each adventure provides multiple opportunities for problem solving, reasoning, communication and making connections to other areas such as science, social studies, literature and history (NCTM, 1989; 1991). Jasper adventures are designed for students in grades 5 and up. Each videodisc contains a short (approximately 17 minute) video adventure that ends in a complex challenge. The adventures are designed like good detective novels where all the data necessary to solve the adventure (plus additional data that are not relevant to the solution) are embedded in the story. Jasper adventures also contain “embedded teaching” episodes that provide models of particular approaches to solving problems. These episodes can be revisited on a “just-in-time” basis as students need them to solve the Jasper challenges. Each adventure is designed from the perspective of the standards recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).”

These videos and challenges are a great add-on to the math curriculum in a classroom, I believe.  They are challenging and offer life “as we know it” problem.  The students are facing real life situation where they could think of what they would do exactly to help solve the challenges.  I think it was a great concept to represent problem solving, reasoning, communication, etc.  To build this adventure and add all the details and make them visible without knowing it, it was a great representation of PCK.  The creators knew their content and had pedagogical experience to have the learner figure out the solution without giving information freely.  It would be interesting to rebuild something like this today, with actual problems lived by our students. Could it be on a field trip to the mountains, maybe a group of students going on a ski trip through their Phys. Ed. program.  On the way, they might find an injured elk and try to find someone to save him.  This adventure project made me think of any opportunities that I miss to make some connections to real life with my students.  I will be more attentive to these possibilities to offer a better understanding through problem solving situations.

Cheers,

Reference

The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury™

So, PCK or TPCK as I prefer to look at it.  After reading Shulman’s (1987), I appreciated Nancy’s flexibility to open her teaching and modify on the go.  She deeply understands her content and make pedagogical decisions to reach her knowledge goals.  It is brilliant.  Content and Knowledge are to be in balance, as mentioned by Keith in a previous post.

Dr. Koehler (2011), in his post on PCK, mentioned “PCK exists at the intersection of content and pedagogy. Thus it does not refer to a simple consideration of both content and pedagogy, together but in isolation; but rather to an amalgam of content and pedagogy thus enabling transformation of content into pedagogically powerful forms. PCK represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented for instruction. Shulman argued that having knowledge of subject matter and general pedagogical strategies, though necessary, were not sufficient for capturing the knowledge of good teachers. To characterize the complex ways in which teachers think about how particular content should be taught, he argued for “pedagogical content knowledge” as the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process, “

One example for me was in the evidence and invertigation unit.  to make sure my students understood the content that I taught on evidences, we went online on the C.S.I. web adventures.  We challenged ourselves on that game to refine and apply our knowledge.  It has been a great application of real life simulation.  If it wasn’t from the web based game, they wouldn’t have that kind of experimentation, as it’s not possible to have a field trip on a crime scene.

As a last thought, is PCK or TPCK covering every aspects of the learner preparedness to come in class and learn?   What are we missing?

Because this philosophy is great on paper, but does it apply everyday?

Cheers,

References

Image from: http://bit.ly/Image-iPad

The definition of technology that stood out for me is: “Jonassen (2000) thinks of how learning with technologies provide “cognitive affordances.” He says, “I do not believe that students learn from computers or teachers-which has been a traditional assumption of most schooling.” He goes on to suggest that, ” [S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.” He believes that technology can support meaning making by students and that this happens when students learn with rather than from technology. Jonassen draws the analogy to carpenters who cannot build houses without a proper set of tools, to students who cannot construct meaning without access to a set of “intellectual” tools to help them assemble and construct knowledge. Essentially, Mindtools is the name Jonassen has ascribed to those computer applications that require students to think in meaningful ways in order to use the application to represent what they know. Mindtools include digital tools that support knowledge construction, exploration, learning by doing, learning by conversing, and learning by reflecting, such as: databases, semantic networks such as concept mapping software, spreadsheets, modeling tools, microworlds, search engines, information visualization tools, multimedia publishing tools, and synchronous and asynchronous conversation environments.”

How to define “technology” today?  I don’t think it has the same definition from 10-15 years ago.  Jonassen here does the honor of demystifying what it is or what it could be.  “Students learn from thinking in meaningful ways”, they experience life in authentic situations and represent their creative thinking from/with technology.  Technology today is an expression of yourself, it is a meaningful part of your mind and it is connected to your everyday routine in multiple ways.  As a strong connection with the being, technology has to be used included, embedded, infused in the learning process.  It can’t be left alone. I believe that many of today’s learner are inclined to experience technology for learning as they express themselves through it.  They present themselves, they talk about their experiences, they chat with their friends, they post ideas on everything and nothing.  Technology is not necessarily them but isn’t it an extension of them.  Technology used to be, a device, a machine or something built by man.  Today, it is still created by men, but I think it is more vast and diversified to name it.  Technology is an opportunity that offers multiple ways to design yourself and make your way in the world.

Here is a great little video, from Will Richardson (father, educator, author & blogger) on students learning.  They are learning through peers, not waiting for learning to come to them, but searching for it.  Technology does support the process a lot here.

Ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and/or science.

I think, probably, the ideal desing for a math/science learning experience would be through the constructivist learning approach.  Learners build on what has been owned before and keep growing.  From there, they use technology to support their learning with peers, friends, teachers.  Technology is there to help them simplify the process and make the learning interesting.  Ideas, reflexion, discussion, collaboration, cooperation, readings: these should all be part of the STEM learning and ideal pedagogical scenario of technology learning experience.  I have read that learning would be more effective when there is engagement from the learner in the process of learning rather than being in a passive environment.  Inquiry-based learning does open doors to STEM teachers.  It is a student-centered community offering collaborative opportunities to solve real world problems.  I believe the IBL is a great pedagogical design and offers multiple possibilities for STEM, supported by technology enhanced experiences.

Reference:

Jonassen, D. H.  (2000).  Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

The teacher I interviewed for that project is from a francophone school and she is teaching grade 4.  (I moved the key excerpts in a new page) Please see above.  

This post is a comment on a fellow student’s post in the discussion thread of week 3.

Surely, the use of the SB is offering some great potential for the younger ones.  On your question:”Is use of technology, such as a SmartBoard, actually improving learning concepts, or is this an assumption rooted in passionate beliefs of the teacher?” I am undecided as if SB are the change in learning.  I do believe that it might have been a trend and now it’s something else.  Maybe it was an assumption rooted in passionate beliefs of the teacher.  Vi Coulter (2013) stated that classroom dynamics are evolving quickly and so must teacher pedagogy.  The tools used for teaching are very diverse and SB is one of them.  As pen and paper, if the pedagogy remains the same as it was before, it doesn’t make a change.  Bleecker (2007) in his paper noted, from a research in UK, that smartboards produce no statistically appreciable difference in achievement among girls and boys.  What do engage learners more with the SmartBoards?

In my own classroom, students love to go click on the SB, but they are not eager to run in front of the class to manipulate something on the wall.  We have SB in every classroom (Grant for government in past years) and they have been in contact with them for since Kindergarden. It is not new anymore, it is just there.  Some teachers are using them while others aren’t anymore.  There is so much more tools available online in a collaborative environment that I found it is more beneficial to my students that way.  I can see their enthousiasm when they log in to MathAmaze in groups and challenge themselves, or when they go on NetMathsto complete lessons I sent them.  I can also see them all excited when we look at YouTube videos on crime scenes or forensic science games.  It is my belief.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Reference:

Bleecker, J. (2007). An Analysis of Smartboards: Catalysts for Pedagogical Change? Technology in               the Mathematics and Science Classroom.                                               Retrieved from: http://www.chss.sd57.bc.ca/~jbleecker/ETEC533/Papers/Unit_A/bleecker_framing_issues.rtf

Coulter, B. V., & Bozeman, M. (2013). The Effects of the Integration of Interactive Technology,                   Specifically the SmartBoard and CPS Clickers on Student Understanding of Scientific                   processes.  Retrieved from:

http://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2769/CoulterB0813.pdf?sequence=1

In this post, I will present my perspective on some assumptions of the classroom use of technology.

Technology brings opportunities just waiting to be caught.  In the science and/or math classroom, it will give access to knowledge otherwise impossible to connect with.  Either it is a scientist, a specialized technician or an amateur with multiple backgrounds open to share the knowledge with students, technology makes it happen.  In class, students raise questions and sometimes teachers can’t answer because of a lack in the specific discipline or no interest at the time (maybe!).  Technology will bring an expert in class through VC, IM, a forum or other video/chat tools used by the school.  This way, the students access up to date information that they can use, discuss or debate.

As mentioned earlier, to support a concept presented in math (for example), the teacher could use some videos (like Khan Academy) or bring a mathematician in class through VC.  This would enhance the experience.  He could provide some apps as well to practice the concept or online games.

On the positive side, it opens learning to everybody at multiple levels.  Anybody can contribute at their own pace and at their own understanding to the development of the project.  Everybody will learn something, either how to support and help colleague or new information.  On a negative note, technology is not always responding perfectly.

For example, today we were learning, in our evidence & investigation unit, about fingerprints.  My students had lots of knowledge about fingerprints learned on TV or sometimes online.  We used some websites to discover the categories of fingerprints and how to recognize them. We played a little online game to put them in situation. Following this,  I presented the characteristics of fingerprints and how to observe them.  After experiencing some discoveries on their own, they were much more open to learn about the arche, looped and whorl patterns.

In this video, Heather had multiple misconceptions that she acquired over the years.  When asked about the seasonal changes, the phases of the moon, she had conceptualized ideas but they were wrong.  Heather thought that the earth would go around the sun in a curly loop kind of way and summer appears when the earth is far from the sun and the rays are bouncing of something causing the weather to be warmer.  While in winter, as the sun hits the earth directly, then it is colder.  After thinking about it, she doesn’t remember where she got this idea of the trajectory of the earth.

Learners do have misconceptions building in time where they just put together ideas, stories, pieces of evidence they heard, saw, felt everywhere.  it is not the reality most of the time, but as they haven’t been told otherwise, these are the concepts they keep with them until the day somebody prove them wrong.  Even, like Heather, it can be so deeply anchored, they still believe in their theories to be thru.

Teaching grade 6, I often hear multiple misconceptions about science, math or other subjects.  Students will bring their baggage with them in class and will show off knowledges in front of friends, but at the same time will learn the hard way.  Many times they will argue with me and we will search for answers and test what they know to make sense of the world.  Eventually, after discussions and research, they will rebuild their knowledge or clarify some of them.  These kids are still at that age where everything on the internet and on TV is reality.  Lots of time they don’t even try to find out the legitimacy of the information.  As well, they have parents with limited openness of mind and they will demonstrate what they learned at home.

One of them, is in astronomy.  In Grade 6, I teach Astronomy: the constellations, phases of the moon, planets, galaxies, etc.  Last year, one of my students came to class with the idea that we were the only galaxy in the Universe.  She believed it so hard, that it took a few weeks of discussions, theory, videos, demonstrations to change that misconceptions.  What made a big difference is the technology we used.  Lots of kids always have questions about the dark holes and they all have theories that they heard or read somewhere and they think this is real.  We always have discussions on the dark holes.

I do teach also air and aerodynamism.  The great debate each time is how those big planes can fly.  They are getting pushed by the wind, they are going so fast that they lift, I hear some many theories.  Every year, I bring a pilot from West Jet to explain how it works and the benefits of the Bernoulli’s principle and the 3rd Law of Newton.  This is a great presentation for the kids and they do get a little bit more understanding on how the planes fly. They correct their misinterpretations by believing the expert in class.  I am not a pilot but he is.

In math, order of operations is always a great debate, even with some parents.  PEMDAS brings you back to the right process.  But students are doing it easy and taking only what they want.  They will demonstrate their misconceptions as just following the equation or do the multiplications and the rest after.  Sometimes, I don’t understand why and how they do it, but numbers appear from anywhere.  It is always a lot of fun to reconstruct the conceptions of this important concept in math.  One of the first thing I demonstrate and stay strict with is to write every steps, line by line.  So, that they, and I, can see what they did and how they did it.

As Driver (1985) is mentioning, many children come to science classes with ideas and interpretations concerning the phenomena that they are studying even when they have received no systematic instruction in these subjects whatsoever.  He also says that students may ignore counter-evidence, or interpret it in terms of their prior ideas (p.3).

I believe kids need to be taught how to access the information and be able to manage that information properly.  They need to be able to understand, at an appropriate age, what is happening.

As Posner et al. (1982) suggested that there are analogous patterns of conceptual change in learning. Sometimes students use existing concepts to deal with new phenomena.  They add, often, however, the students’ current concepts are inadequate to allow him to grasp some new phenomenon successfully, then the student must replace ·or reorganize his central concepts.

References:

• Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science.                    Children’s ideas in science, 1-9. Retrieved from:                                                                          http://staff.science.uva.nl/~joling/vakdidactiek/documenten/driver.pdf
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W. and Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a                        scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci. Ed., 66: 211–                        227. doi: 10.1002/sce.373066020. Retrieved from:                                                                      http://www.fisica.uniud.it/URDF/laurea/idifo1/materiali/g5/Posner%20et%20al.pdf