Information Visualization Resource Sharing
The above YouTube clips are three examples of how YouTube can be an information visualization resource, in my opinion.
The above video clips are not interactive or simulations or modelling tools. They aren’t even animations but they do provide the same visual perspective that animations can, only 100% “real-life”. If you watched the Physics probe video back in the Module A, you might recall Teacher B saying that she sometimes worried that students think simulations/digital technologies were set-up to reach specific conclusions that were not necessarily real-life. That would not be a problem with these visualizations – the videos are real-life using real-life objects.
The YouTube clips above are visual representations of concepts that are traditionally abstract. They visually relate one concept with another and challenge the viewer to look at the bigger picture and engage the viewer in higher order questions. While the viewer cannot interact with the video, most of the visual examples provided in the videos would be relatively easy and inexpensive to repeat hands-on. This leads to the question, why not skip the video altogether and do the activity hands-on in the first place. My answer to that involves time, money, lack of teacher creativity and increased student engagement. The “Fibonacci in Nature” video shows in five minutes what might take hours to do in class, not to mention the difficulty and cost involved in finding the resources for some areas (flowers are difficult to find in the winter in the Cariboo). The Origami Proof of Pythagoras would be easy and cheap to do in class, but rather than have the teacher present the steps, a YouTube clip might engage the students faster and can be moved through like a Jasper Video at a student’s convenience. The videos are extremely creative, and from the perspective of a not-so-creative linear thinker, very attractive and require only one computer and a screen to show the whole class at once. Limited resources in my school make some of the info-vis simulations and interactive sites difficult to use with my students. I just can’t get them to the computers easily or often enough to make it worthwhile.
If the goal of information visualization is to provide the opportunity for students to see abstract concepts visually, then the above YouTube clips meet that goal – in a teen-friendly, easy to use package. An extension of this would be to have students take a topic and create a similar visual representation to show on YouTube.
Resource Sharing
The resource sharing forum was amazing. There are so many options available online to help students interact with content and to create visual representations of very complex concepts. It is almost overwhelming trying to decide where to start. I think the readings associated with the T-GEM model give a great deal of insight. The teacher in the Khan (2010) article used the simulations to help students hypothesize relationships between variables. Different simulations will provide different information and interactions, which allows teachers to choose what will work for specific topics and subject areas.
However, one area of concern arises when teachers use multiple applications. The learning curve that students go through when using new technology will be repeated throughout the course, resulting in more time lost from the actual subject matter. Hopefully some of the skills used in the various applications will be transferable to other applications which might mitigate the learning curve slightly.
My exposure to the information visualization theory has resulted in a renewed effort on my part to use graphing calculators (GC) and applets more in class with my students. Because I have access to GC (availability), it is relatively simple to incorporate them purposefully into lessons. Experience and practice have given me a good idea of the affordances of the technology and this helps, too. I enjoyed playing with NetLogo and love the programming aspect of it, but found myself repeatedly thinking that I go do the same things with GC much more quickly and easily, without having to relocate the class to a computer lab. Availability is a huge issue in incorporating technology into the classroom.
I also think that it is important to take into account the time that is required to learn how to use the simulation/information visualization tool – both for the teacher and the student. The sheer number of tools available online is overwhelming and one could get lost in trying to find the “right” one, or trying to use them all. The skills learned by the student in using the simulations are valuable in their own right and hopefully transfer from one application to another, however, this still has to be balanced against the time it takes away from learning the math or science. Ultimately, finding a couple of sites that cover multiple topics would be ideal – using the same application repeatedly allows students to become adept with it and reduces time off task.
References:
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Update on my class website
It has been interesting as I have gone through this course to see how it has impacted my class website and my teaching style. My goal all along has been to use technology to facilitate a change towards constructivism. I have been using the principles of T-GEM in class on a regular basis, incorporating more graphing calculator technology wherever possible and useful and I have made some specific decisions about my class website.
During a recent pro-d day, myself and another colleague shared our websites with some of our peers. I very much respect what my colleague is doing with his site, although it is very different from mine, and it made me think about exactly what I was wanting to do with mine and why. My colleague’s site is intended specifically for his current students and only they can access it. It contains his daily notes, videos of his lectures and worked out answer keys to worksheets and workbooks. It suits his goals and works for him. My vision is different – not better or worse, just what suits my style of teaching and where I would like to go.
I purposely have not included any of my own notes from class. Often in class we are doing activities that do not translate well into formal notes – for example, investigating parabolas with graphing calculators. The activities are very fluid and I adapt them to what the class asks and to their strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps I am just too lazy to write them out formally! My website contains links to other sites, both text-based and video, that explain or provide examples and self-assessments for the topics we are covering. I feel that students accessing the site have already seen my notes and style and seeing or hearing or reading explanations from different styles can only help them. I feel it also shows consistency – I am not just making it all the math up, but there are others out there who say the same things! It gives the students an opportunity to feel part of a larger community.
Additionally, I feel that by providing the links but not the notes, I have put the onus back on the student. They can use the site … or not. They can find an explanation that works for them and build their own understanding … or not. They have to take responsibility for learning and building their own knowledge because I am not giftwrapping it, just providing the opportunity for them.
I also use the site for enrichment by providing links to extra information and to give the students links to simulations/applets that they can use and try out on their own. I am still in the process of compiling a list of sites that I think would be helpful from the ones we have shared in ETEC 533. I hope to add some of those links to the site in the near future.
I found the site to be particularly helpful during recent, unplanned days off school (job action in BC). When school resumed, students had used the blog site to ask questions and had accessed the videos to help clarify concepts. One student even commented that she was “disappointed” that there hadn’t been more discussion on the site. She was too shy to ask a question, but was hoping others would. That got me thinking again about the class blog I wanted to start.
I have decided to try having a class discussion in a Moodle shell. It is set up and ready to go and I am hoping to start using it after spring break. I chose that venue because I wanted a discussion that was easy to track and follow and, for now, I wanted a private discussion place until I am sure of how I will use it and until I learn how to help the students use it effectively. I am still mulling over ideas about how to use it but I am very much a trial and error person, so I think I will jump in and then see how it goes.
Information Visualization
I recognize the value in info-vis and I think that many of us have tried to incorporate it where we can, whether through technology, or perhaps analagies and metaphors in the “olden days”. I enjoyed the activities that my peers posted, particularly the Illuminations site, and look forward to trying some of them out and sharing them with my colleagues. I tried out NetLogo but do not think I would use it in class. I loved using the programming aspect of it, but it is not feasible to teach that to the point where it can be of value within the parameters of my classtime and curriculum constraints. Maybe some time in the future … or in an integrated math/computer science class.
Knowledge Diffusion
I really enjoyed reading the papers related to GLOBE. I think that it would be a great activity and a chance for students to use and learn some real science skills. I have covered it formally in my Knowledge Diffusion e-folio entry, but one thing that came to mind about all of the knowledge diffusion sites was the time investment necessary to make them work. Whether it is searching through Exploratorium to find what you are looking for, and then trying it out and relating it to an education activity, or undergoing formal training to join GLOBE, creating an opportunity for students to share knowledge and enter into a larger community in a meaningful way just takes time. Lots of time.
Embodied Learning
I enjoyed the readings I chose for this lesson – they were by far my favorites for the course. While reading them, my thoughts and ideas and the notes I wrote strayed far and wide – from embodied learning to using writing in math class to peer collaboration.
The first paper I read was by Winn (2003). Embodied knowing/learning had been discussed in a previous course but I felt that this article filled in some of the missing pieces for me. I think my understanding is still sketchy, but certainly fuller than it was before. The article also helped me to see where embodied learning fit with constructivism. Constructivism advocates a strong collaboration component and I strongly agree with many of its principles. However, one of my issues with the theory of constructivism is the “no right answer” aspect, no absolute to evaluate against. I like the instructional activities – in moderation – but cannot reconcile the lack of an absolute. This article, in a way, answered that question. It stated that:
“A central premise of the constructivist position is that all knowledge is constructed by the student and that every student’s understanding of the environment is idiosyncratic. It follows, the argument goes, that there can be no objective, fixed standard against which to assess what a person knows. The premise is not problematic. The conclusion is. … Of course, no-one’s knowledge of the world can be complete, and therefore everyone knows the world in a somewhat different way. But these differences in knowledge arise because everyone has a different set of experiences, not because there is no objective reality.” (Winn, 2003; p. 12)
I do not think that embodied learning and constructivism are mutually exclusive, any more than I think that all direct transmission is bad. My personal theory is leaning towards a theory that takes them all into account. Or the idea that using only ONE theory for teaching leads to a boring classroom where only learners with certain styles/abilities/interests can learn.
I try to use a constructivist approach, like T-GEM (or sometimes just GEM) in my interactions with my students. However, some students get so frustrated that ultimately they just need the answer. Every time I incorporate a more structured constructivist activity, I recognize how much time they take. Valuable activities and worth the time … when they work ideally, but so time consuming. I hope that as curriculum constraints change, there will be more time for some of these activities, but at the moment, I use the mind-set consistently, intersperse the activities when I can, and use a variety of other techniques (lecture, reading, video clips) to keep things from getting stale.
Embodied learning makes sense to me. When we interact with something, it changes how we perceive it and therefore how we think about it and understand it. Sometimes I think the act of writing is embodiment. Gestures, sound effects, facial expressions all play a part. I do think this fits well with constructivism – using more senses and interacting with the subject more allows us to construct better understanding of what we are doing.
Both of the articles by Radford (2010, 2005) that I read reinforced the idea of embodied learning in math class. Both of his articles remind me of the importance of writing in math – and in talking and collaborating. Putting thought into words or symbols or gestures makes it more concrete and helps the learner figure out what they are thinking. Gestures explain things that we cannot put into words. Radford (2005) identified the idea that multiple semiotic means are used when students discuss math. Often, one semiotic system is used for one aspect of a problem, and another for a different aspect of the problem. We have to look at them together in context to understand what is going on in the students’ learning process.
I am intersted in learning more about how personal mobile devices can be used in math classes. The articles I read were interesting, but a little out of date and not pertinent to my personal setting. Roschelle (2003) suggested the following for effective use of mobile devices in the classroom.
- Effective use was found when there was a “hub” – the students were connected within the classroom, but not to the internet in general
- Effective when teacher controlled the communications
- Spatially directed communications – the students have to move or physically interact with their surroundings (like taking the temperature of a stream with a probe, moving around in a class to catch a virus, etc.)
- Short, asynchronous messages (texts, T/F, etc.) rather than synchronous chats or long emails worked best
- Aggregate information and public display – aggregate means understanding the general trend in the class and responding to it, rather than to individual students (in terms of misunderstandings); public display helps students understand and see where they fit.
I am not sure how a “hub” would work or if it is even possible in this day and age of texting and cell phone use. The suggestions in the article make sense, but are difficult to enact. I need to see more research and practical examples in this area before I am sold on how mobile devices can work in my classroom – I am open to the idea, just not sold on it yet.
References:
Radford, L. (2010). Signs, gestures, meanings: Algebraic thinking from a cultural semiotic perspective. In V. Durand-Guerrier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME 6) (pp. XXXIII – LIII). Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
Radford, L. (2005). Why do gestures matter? Gestures as semiotic means of Objectification. In Helen L. Chick, Jill L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of Melbourne, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 143-145.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), pp. 260-272
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.