Jasper Woodbury Series
In general, I appreciated what the series was designed to accomplish and the need for some authentic problem solving skills in our students. I am tired of hearing “I hate word problems”, but can’t say that I disagree with my students. I found it particularly interesting that some of the comments about Jasper (both from the readings and the discussion forum) revolved around literacy and struggling students. Watching a video and gleaning information from it, rather than text, takes the pressure off students who struggle with literacy. Also, students who have weaker skills can often offer insight into problems when working collaboratively that other students miss. It reminded me of a physics class I taught years ago. They had to design and build a device. The academic kids had no idea where to start, but the “shop” kid who was taking the course to get into a trade, had lots of ideas. He taught the “smart” kids how to build and they helped him with the theory. Everybody felt smart and useful.
More and more I am seeing the power of collaboration and group problem solving. If implemented as designed, the Jasper Woodbury series seemed to be a great example of this at work. I would like to see something similar developed online with teaching aids available.
WISE – Web-enhanced Inquiry-based Science Education (my version of the acronym!)
I saw so much potential in this site that I was quite surprised by some of the comments in the discussion symposium. I appreciate the validity in many of the comments (lacks constructivism, too prescriptive, too difficult to use the editing tools/dashboard, teachers with no tech knowledge would be turned off, etc.) but I think they missed the bigger picture. Yes, some of the lessons in the library were too prescriptive and seemed like “on-line textbooks”, but I think that is a reflection of the designer rather than the tool. Yes, more collaboration is needed, but in a blended learning environment the teacher could certainly build that in. They could let the students explore and discuss and then come together away from the computers and collaborate, or visit a blog and discuss or … the options are endless.
A number of people asked who would be overseeing the quality of the lessons. Why do we need someone to determine if the lessons are of high quality or not? Aren’t we professionals? Can’t we make that decision on our own? If the lesson is good, use it. If it could be good, modify it and then use it. If it stinks, make your own. I agree that we don’t need to recreate the wheel repeatedly, but on the other hand, that doesn’t mean we don’t have to do our jobs or should expect someone else to do them for us.
In one discussion thread, CM commented, “What does seem effective is actively supporting a community of teachers to author together. There’s something motivating about the sense of ownership this creates.” That got me thinking. We expect our students to work towards metacognition and to embrace constructivism, but these are both far more difficult for them than us just giving them the information. But we baulk at having to design our own lessons because it is “easier” to find them online. But as teachers, the metacognition regarding pedagogy and educational philosophy that can come from designing a truly constructivist lesson is incredibly valuable PD. Maybe we are acting like students who want the easy way out instead of the best way. If only we would collaborate as teachers like we expect our students to do. (I am sure some of us do … just a bit of a general rant). I am all for finding creative ideas online, but I think we still need to think it through and decide how we are purposefully incorporating everything we do, rather than just taking the easy way out.
MyWorld and LfU (Learning for Use)
Of the four technologies we have reviewed in this unit, MyWorld was the least applicable to my situation and the least user-friendly. This opinion could be a reflection of my lack of interest in Geography, but I found the technology frustrating to use and it would have taken a great deal of practice for me to get beyond the technology to be able to develop activities with it that would speak to broader concepts. However, the Learning-for-Use (LfU) model that the required readings presented in their use of MyWorld were very applicable and useful. I have reviewed them more fully in my formal e-folio entry on the same topic.
In general, the LfU design has three principles that match quite closely to the GEM model (discussed below). The learner has to be MOTIVATED to learn – through questions or activities, the learner then CONSTRUCTS knowledge through scaffolded activities and then REFINES the knowledge and corrects any misconceptions. This process falls within a constructivist approach and provides a practical guideline to think about when designing lessons and activities.
T-GEM
My thoughts regarding T-GEM and Chemland originate from two primary sources – the readings and the discussion forum. Although there is definite overlap, I am going to separate journal discussion into those two areas for ease of reference later on in the course.
Discussion Forum Thoughts:
I was amazed at the variety of applications that my classmates found for T-GEM. T-GEM design was applied to activities from senior high school mathematics and science to primary level mathematics and science, and many ages and subjects inbetween, including computer science. I feel this shows the true adaptability and value of the T-GEM approach. The principles behind it can be adapted to fit any subject area and lend themselves to creating a constructivist environment facilitated by technology use.
Comments in a couple of posts stood out for me.
First of all, the following question was posted:
“What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am curious if the teacher adapted his teaching style to the theory, the theory came out of observing his teaching or the teacher’s style and the theory were unrelated coincidences?” (post by MA, Feb 24th, 2012, Chemland discussion forum)
Dr. Khan replied that:
“The theory generally came out of observing the teaching. Often we find in research on expertise, that experts are unable to deconstruct their practice fully (this includes expert scientists, expert teachers, etc…).” (post by Dr. Khan, Feb 24th, 2012, Chemland discussion forum)
I found both the question and the response intriguing because as I had been reading the required articles, I had been thinking that the GEM process is one that is often engaged in by good teachers but perhaps without every formally evaluating or acknowledging it. Even more to the point, I think it is an internal process that many good students have gone through for years when learning via a traditional “transmissive” style. Students who have excelled in the past have probably been “internal constructivists”, asking themselves questions about what they are learning and actively making interconnections with prior knowledge (generating relationships), thinking about how the new information fits with previous knowledge (evaluating those relationships) and modifying previous paradigms or conceptions to incorporate the new knowledge (modification).
We may acknowledge that constructivist pedagogy enhances students learning, but realistically, many students have learned, and learned well, for hundreds of years from the traditional transmissive style of education. Many of these students went on to make those scientific and mathematic discoveries that we are teaching our students about now. Perhaps what set them apart was their intrinsic and natural adoption of something like a GEM model while they were learning.
The other post that stood out for me was a T-GEM activity created by MA for a concept in computer science (or computer studies). In his post, MA specifically “… flipped the technology aspect on its head … purposely NOT using technology to expose students misunderstanding of how the technology actually works … CS students have a hard time understanding how the code is executed by the computer.” (Post by MA, Feb. 23, 2012, Chemland forum) This post stood out for me because I think in our quest to incorporate technology, it is equally important to recognize those specific times when NOT to incorporate technology. MA did not opt out of technology use by default – he made an explicit decision based on pedagogy and his students’ needs. This is a valuable point to consider and remember when integrating technology.
Thoughts from Required Readings
I have discussed the principles of T-GEM and its applicability and connection to other literature in my formal e-folio post. Here I would like to discuss a point of interest that is related and yet different that was stimulated by one of the article’s discussion of TPCK.
In the second required reading, New Pedagogies for Teaching with Computer Simulations (Khan, 2010), Dr. Khan 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)
Dr. Khan (2010) then goes on to discuss a study of teachers with different levels of TCK, TPK, and TPCK. She states that:
“However, after specific training in how to teach with computers, teachers with stronger pedagogical skills and better knowledge about the content and learners outperformed teachers with less PCK. The authors’ recommendation was that teacher educators need to explicitly teach how the unique affordances of technology can be used to enrich subject domains for specific learners and that teachers need to be explicitly taught about interactions among pedagogy, content, technology, and learners to develop their TPCK.” (p. 216)
I plan to look at the study by Valanides and Angeli (2008) to which Dr. Khan was referring.* I found these results absolutely fascinating. I wonder if teachers without training in how to teach with computers face higher levels of frustration that teachers with training, and that this might lead to them abandoning the technology and reverting to traditional methods. Perhaps without specific training, more teachers find that they cannot make technology do what they want it to, or that it does not meet their hopes for it or the goals they are trying to achieve, and, becoming disillusioned, they abandon it.
I feel this speaks to the need for professional development opportunities for teachers. If this study is supported by other studies, then maybe teachers need to be made aware of these findings and provided with opportunities to get that training that might make the difference.
I find these results particularly interesting in light of changes that the government in BC is trying to implement in British Columbia. The move towards “teacher facilitators” rather than qualified teachers and having more students access their entire course load via technology are two examples of these changes. If TPCK is truly important to effectively integrating technology, how will making these sweeping changes without additional teacher training while simultaneously reducing the number of trained teachers, have the positive impact the government is proposing?
*I read the article by Valanides and Angeli (2008). There were a number of points in it that I found extremely interesting. The following are just a few:
- That only three of the teachers in the study used their new knowledge of technology to design inquiry-based learning activities. The remaining seven used technology to help with traditional teaching methods.
- The need to use computers to “transform and represent content into forms that are pedagogically powerful” (Valanides and Angeli, 2008; p. 7)
- The idea that professional development and/or pre-service training should include specific examples of how technology can transform content in ways that cannot be achieved without the technology. I think that many teachers would do more if they had specific and practical examples, rather than just theory or ideas.
- The fact that constructivism, which is not a new theory, is still misunderstood or unknown by many teachers (myself included until this program). How can we change that? The government is trying by passing legislation. Surely there are better ways? Teachers generally want to be good teachers, but so many fads come and go that we get jaded and ignore the “latest trend”. How can we, as professionals, promote constructivism within our profession without getting other teachers’ backs up? This requires more thought.
References:
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
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
Final Thoughts from Module B
As this module comes to a close, my thoughts keep returning to constructivism. My current feelings on the topic are that constructivism should be a large component of students’ daily activities, but perhaps not the only component. Some topics require too much time to reach through constructivism within the constraints of today’s educational system. Others are so difficult that the scaffolding to help students understand them becomes more like traditional teaching methods. Constructivism is hard work – for the teacher and the student. The learning gained is more meaningful, but I think a blend of traditional methods with a large helping of constructivism is a wise choice within today’s parameters and for today’s students. Using GEM can move traditional methods towards constructivism.
I still feel that part of the power and potentional of technology in education is to facilitate constructivism. I want to say “the true power and potential”, but I don’t like absolute statements when there is still so much more to learn about technology, education and the (hopefully) symbiotic relationship between the two. I do think that technology can help traditional methods, too, but that it will not make as dramatic a difference for the students. In that role, it is more for the teacher. Clark (1994) said that it is the change in methodology that accompanies the use of technology that makes all the difference. I do not disagree. I still think, though, that technology does influence learning because it allows us to make changes that are not logistically possible without it. The use of simulations in science class, combined with T-GEM is one example of this.
On a personal note, I have enjoyed the chances I have had this semester to start implementing some of those changes in my classroom. I tried using T-GEM (fairly successfully from a subjective perspective) and am continuing to do so, I have added in some YouTube clips into class to enhance some topics and I have continued to work on my class website/blog. The website has offered one unexpected benefit to my students during the current job action in BC – they have a compiled set of resources to access and a location to discuss questions with their peers. Because the site was there, I was able to upload some additional resources for my students when job action seemed imminent and have provided them with the scaffolding to collaborate, learn independently and to take responsibility for their education. I have tossed the ball back to them and said, “Here are all the resources you need to practice what we learned in class. Fly at it.” I strongly encouraged them to form study groups, chat online, and to use all of the resources at their disposal. I think these are important skills many of them will need next year at university and see this as a somewhat structured, protected, dry run at learning how to learn, using technology to help. A potentially silver cloud in the current discouraging education climate in BC.
I continue to work towards shifting my daily class routine more towards constructivism. T-GEM and LfU are both pedagogical models that have given me practical and do-able steps in this process. I also continue to struggle over the demands of content and process and the time issues involved in constructivism. I have a feeling that in the end it will be about balance and will probably vary from class to class. At times it is all a little overwhelming and at others, I can’t wait to get started … or keep working on it, as the case may be!
References:
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.