The Jasper series, the WISE activity forum, Learning-for-Use (LfU) and the T-GEM model were all designed to foster inquiry-based learning and were developed in response to an over-reliance in math and science on rote learning, memorization and traditional transmissive teaching methodology. However, while they share the common goal of using technology to facilitate a change in methodology towards constructivism, they vary in the details of their approach, the specific goals of the projects and the degree to which they succeed.
The Jasper series specifically dealt with lack of problem solving skills in mathematics students and was designed to provide them with real-life examples, just-in-time learning and the opportunity to construct their own paradigms for problem solving. The technology in this model was used to present the story and allow students to move around in the story to gather pieces of information as they needed them, as well as to free students from heavy literacy demands traditionally present in problem solving activities in mathematics. The intended use of the series was as a collaborative, constructivist activity with the teacher providing appropriate scaffolding while the students worked in groups. In essence, Jasper presents a constructivist problem-based learning approach with the technology being chosen to support the design goal.
WISE (Web-enhanced Inquiry Science Environment) differs from JASPER in that instead of a technology being chosen to support a pedagogical design, a technology was created to foster the design. WISE was designed to provide an online space for teachers to develop inquiry-based activities supported by technology and that could be adapted to the changing demands of curriculum and science instruction. The affordances of the WISE project were incorporated specifically to allow teachers a wide variety of tools to support inquiry based learning. Their basic principles are to make thinking visible, make science accessible, to promote collaboration and to create life-long learners (Clark, Linn & Slotta, 2003). The affordances built-in are intended to promote inquiry-based learning, however, the actual success of the lessons depends on how actively the teacher chooses to use those affordances.
Learning-for-Use (LfU) was originally designed in part to try to meet the conflicting demands of content and process in science education. Too often students learn knowledge or content but cannot apply it in realistic situations. LfU attempts to overcome that obstacle through a three step pedagogical design – motivate, construct and refine. The three steps are very similar to the T-GEM approach of Generate, Evaluate and Modify. T-GEM incorporates setting the stage or providing the basics which lines up with the motivate step in LfU and both acknowledge that the learner must construct their own knowledge. Both models also incorporate an evaluate (refine) step that provides students with the opportunity to make connections and to correct misconceptions.
The Jasper series was designed to meet specific needs within the realm of mathematical knowledge. As such, it had a very specific structure and was oriented towards problem solving within mathematics. While those skills would hopefully be transferable to other problems, the design relied on a change in methodology by the teacher and motivating caused by relating to the characters in the video. WISE stands apart because it is more like an LMS designed to foster inquiry. While LfU and T-GEM incorporate technology, they are primarily models to be used by teachers to engage students in constructing their own knowledge and teaching them how to learn. Although they were originally designed to support learning in the area of science, they both transfer to other subject areas and provide a guideline for teachers as they move towards creating a more constructivist atmosphere in their classes.
Other research has documented the increased impact of technology when combined with a constructivist approach. In their meta-analysis of 46 studies involving almost 37,000 students, Li and Ma (2010) reported that the effect size when combining constructivist approaches with technology in learning mathematics was greatly enhanced. Khan (2010) discusses the difference between TCK, TPK, and TPCK. TCK stands for Technological Content Knowledge. TPK stands for Technological Pedagogical Knowledge. TPCK stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Dr. Khan (2010), states specifically that:
“TPCK … encompasses knowledge of: how different concepts can be represented using technologies, pedagogical techniques that employ technologies to teach content, what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, students’ prior understanding and skill set, and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face.” (p. 216)
T-GEM and LfU increase our TPCK by helping teachers to reflect and engage in metacognition while planning activities and lessons and how best (and when) to integrate technology into the learning environment. They can be guiding principles or templates to help teachers move towards that constructivist environment that is so highly sought after.
Valanides and Angeli (2008) present a study of professional development for in-service teachers in which they state that, “the effective design of computer-enhanced science learning should greatly depend on aligning inquiry-centered pedagogy with the inherent features and affordances of computer tools to transform science content into pedagogically powerful forms” (p. 4). When it comes to incorporating technology into the classroom, I believe that the power of technology-enhanced learning environments lies in their use to facilitate change from traditional transmissive methodologies to constructivism. Jasper provided examples of how this might work, WISE provides a platform within which to construct lessons and LfU and T-GEM provide guidelines for teachers to follow in constructing these lessons.
References:
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215-243.
Clark, D., Linn, M., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Valanides, N., & Angeli, C. (2008). Professional development for computer-enhanced learning: a case study with science teachers. Res Sci Technol Educ 26(1): 3 – 12