GEM is an acronym for a pedagogical approach to teaching science that involves students taking an active part in constructing their own understanding of relationships and concepts, as well as learning how the scientific inquiry process works (Khan, 2007). The G in GEM stands for students Generating ideas about relationships, E represents students Evaluating the relationships they have constructed and M is the stage where students Modify those relationships to account for any discrepancies discovered during the modification stage. The T at the beginning of T-GEM is an adaption of the strategy to incorporate Technology into its implementation.
T-GEM fits extremely well with a constructivist approach to learning. Constructivism asserts that knowledge cannot be transmitted from one individual to another, but that learners must construct their own understanding and knowledge by being actively engaged in the learning process (Belcher & Dori, 2005). Having students generate relationships between variables meets that criteria – the students must construct their own understanding rather than having the information transmitted to them. Evaluation and modification provide the opportunity for students to analyze these relationships and correct misconceptions. This is all done from the students’ perspective. Rather than being told the answers, students must arrive at them on their own.
T-GEM combines constructivism and technology, or rather, uses technology to facilitate constructivism. Through the use of technology, students can go through hundreds of simulations and quickly review data that would take months, if not longer, to compile in a hands-on lab situation. Although this does not negate the need for hands-on experience, the technology allows the students to see patterns and formulate ideas for relationships that time would not allow without technology.
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. Specifically, Li and Ma (2010) reported that:
“…[the] method of teaching had large effects of technology on mathematics achievements of students (1.00 SD). When used in settings where teachers practiced constructivist approach to teaching, technology had much stronger effects on mathematics achievement than settings where teachers practiced traditional approach to teaching.” (p. 228)
T-GEM also aligns with other programs that have been developed to meet the needs of adding constructivism and promoting inquiry-based learning in post-secondary sciences courses. For example, MIT has developed a program called Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) which uses technology to help students understand abstract concepts using simulations and models. Specifically, the approach was designed to “help students visualize, hypothesize and improve their intuition about conceptual models of electromagnetic phenomena … [using] an “active learning” approach” (Belcher & Dori, 2005). TEAL was implemented in an undergraduate physics course and research into this program has shown promising results (Belcher & Dori, 2005).
T-GEM is a specific, practical and useful model to apply when designing lessons and when reviewing the pedagogy underlying the effective implementation of technology into a constructivist learning environment. It was developed from research in the field of science education (Khan, 2007; Khan, 2010), but can be easily adapted to any area of study. For example, here is one approach to applying it in high school mathematics.
References:
Belcher, J. , & Dori, Y. (2005). How does Technology-Enabled Active Learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of The Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.
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.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.