Reading #1 – Learning-for-Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology-Supported Inquiry Activities (Edelson, 2001)
In this article, Edelson (2001) presents research that is based on changes in curriculum and implementation demands in teaching science. At the time of the article, there was a movement towards more inquiry based learning that reflected better what the scientific community actually does, rather than simply learning and memorizing facts. This movement, however, was coupled with continual demands to move students through all of the content required. Many teachers saw curriculum demands and process demands as mutually exclusive – learning “process” is time consuming and they felt that it left too little time to meet the curriculum demands. Edelson (2001) argues that the two are mutually compatible and presents learning-for-use (LfU) as one method of combining the two efficiently.
Edelson (2001) specifically chose to use technology to implement methodology changes for three reasons: Computers are assuming a bigger role in scientific research and practice and this should be reflected how science is learned, the interactive capabilities of technology were a good medium for inquiry learning, and computers were being put into schools – which Edelson saw as an opportunity to show a use for them and get teachers to buy into science reform.
Edelson (2001) uses a constructivist approach to develop the LfU model. The model has four basic principles. (1) Knowledge must be constructed, (2) knowledge construction is goal-oriented, (3) knowledge is context based and (4) students must have conceptual knowledge in order to be able to apply it knowledge in new settings.
These design principles are incorporated into the LfU model through the use of a three step process. The process begins with activities or questions that provide a motivation for the learner to construct knowledge. This is followed by activities that provide an opportunity for the learner to construct the knowledge in “incremental steps” (Edelson, 2001) that scaffold the inquiry process. The third step is the refinement of knowledge. This involves connecting the new knowledge to other concepts and practicing it for ease of future retrieval.
Reading #2: Learning-for-Use in Earth Science: Kids as Climate Modelers. (Edelson, et al., 2002)
This paper presents research on a grade 5 classroom where the authors have introduced an earth-science unit using an LfU approach. While I felt that their lesson outline met the basic principles of LfU – motivate, construct knowledge and refine knowledge – the results that they described in their case studies were problematic for me.
In all three of the case studies presented, the students were not able to articulate the curriculum goals that the activity was intended to meet. While the three students had corrected some earlier misconceptions, they had not constructed the new knowledge adequately. The authors suggested that either the students did not have sufficiently developed abstract reasoning due to their age or that the curriculum may have assume prior knowledge that was not there. Either might have been true, but if one of the goals of LfU is to combine content with process learning (Edelson, 2001), then it seems that this activity has not met that goal.
To try to ensure that both content and inquiry goals are met when using LfU, modifications to the activity are necessary. It might help to build in more collaborative discussion and have the entire class discuss their findings, with the teacher guiding the students towards the necessary conclusion. At the grade 5 level, more guidance from the teacher might be necessary. Edelson et al. (2001) noted that two of the three students had failed to construct the relationship between area and intensity of light. It might be important at that stage of the activity for the teacher to correct the misunderstanding either directly or through discussion with other peers that had made the connection. LfU is meant to provide “incremental steps” for knowledge construction. In this activity, smaller steps and more scaffolding may have been necessary for students to come to a correct understanding of the concepts involved.
Having said all of that, it is worth noting that although content might not have been covered adequately, the students were exposed to the investigative process and their learning of that was also valuable. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the students would have understood or learning the content any better if it had been taught in a more traditional style.
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.
Edelson, D.C. , Matese, G., Pitts, V., Salierno, C., & Sherin, B. (2002). 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.