Category Archives: Module C

I chose to use the framework of technology being applied to simulated virtual worlds in which students embed themselves in order to conduct an experiment.

Turkle’s Question (1997) “Are we using computer technology not because it teaches best but because we have lost the political will to fund education adequately?”, brings up an interesting debate.

One example in the readings that supports using technology with the PhET project Circuit Construction Kit (CCK). The CCK simulates the behavior of simple electric circuits and provides an open workspace where students can manipulate resistors, light bulbs, wires, and batteries. In these studies, students who used computer simulations in lieu of real equipment performed better on conceptual questions related to simple circuits, and developed a greater facility at manipulating real components. (Finkelstein & Adams et al., 2005)

It is interesting to find that Technology can now enable both a spending and resource savings for STEM related experiments as well as produce greater conceptual understanding for students.

Simulations do not necessarily promote conceptual learning nor do they ensure facility with real equipment, but rather computer simulations that are properly designed are useful tools for a variety of contexts that can promote student learning (Finkelstein & Adams et al., 2005).

I chose to present a lesson on the particle theory and the states of mater.

Step 1

Introduce Particle Theory

Particle Theory states:

• All matter is made up of tiny particles
• The particles are in constant motion
• There is space between the particles
• Particles of the same matter are the same
• There is attraction between like particles

Step 2:

Introduce the Simulated Environment

Using the States of Matter simulation http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/states-of-matter-basics

The learning goals for the simulation will be for students to:

• Recognize that different substances have different properties, including melting, freezing and boiling temperatures.
• Be able to conceptualize what is taking place at the molecular level when substances melt, freeze, or boil.

Similar experiments can be done using ice, thermometers and hotplates however in the virtual environment the student can explicitly observe the concepts behind particle theory and see what is taking place at a molecular level. Simulations do not necessarily promote conceptual learning nor do they ensure facility with real equipment, but rather computer simulations that are properly designed are useful tools for a variety of contexts that can promote student learning (Finkelstein & Adams et al., 2005).

Step 3:

Conduct Simulated Experiment Using Water Molecules

Students should select water and change the state to solid. They will be asked to incrementally increase the temperature to 1 degree Celsius and observe what happens to the molecules.  Continue increasing heat to 100^oC and observe what happens to the molecules.

Step 4

Connect Observations to Concrete Information

Provide information on the freezing and boiling points of water.

Ask students to answer the following questions:

• Why do they call any temperature below 0 degrees Celsius “below freezing”?
• Joe leaves a pot of water on a stove that is 125^oC he came back in 30mis and found that the pot was empty. What happened to the water?

Step 5

Extend knowledge

Allow students to interact with the simulations and make more observations.

• Question students to explain the relationship between temperature of a substance and the speed of particle movement.
• Students should gain the concept that the hotter a substance becomes the faster the particle motion and likewise the cooler the temperature the slower the particle motion.
• The concepts could be further extended toward understanding Kinetic Molecular Theory

Research would suggest that we should provide simulations that are properly designed and applied in the appropriate contexts (Finkelstein & Adams et al., 2005)

 References:

Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S. & Lemaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 1 p. 010103. Retrieved from: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103 [Accessed: 1 Apr 2014].

Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing Through Computers. The American Prospect, 8(31).

How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities?

The human race constructs our own knowledge of the world. Scientific knowledge has been constructed over thousands of years of observations and individuals trying to make sense of their observations. Mathematics is at the base for much of the scientific knowledge we see. Math knowledge is constructed as a means of counting and sorting out objects or information. Anthropologists believe due to the existence of 10 readily available fingers humans developed a “base-10” number system to sort out this information. Evidenced by the fact that the word “digit,” as well as its translation in many other languages, refers to both fingers and numerals (Wolchover, 2012). Even in relatively simple domains of science, the concepts used to describe and model the domain are not revealed in an obvious way by reading the “book of nature.” Rather, they are constructs that have been invented and imposed on phenomena in attempts to interpret and explain them, often as results of considerable intellectual struggles (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott & Mortimer, 1994). The article “Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom”(1994) argues that empirical study of the natural world will not reveal scientific knowledge because scientific knowledge is discursive in nature.

Authority figures play a major role in a student’s construction of scientific knowledge. If students are to adopt scientific ways of knowing, then intervention and negotiation with an authority, usually the teacher, is essential (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott & Mortimer, 1994). This is why it is critical for teachers to be properly trained and not give inaccurate information to students that could create a conflict with accurate facts later in life.

Certainly networked communities and social platforms like Second Life can be used to provide opportunities for student to experience math and science learning activities (Mathews, Andrews, & Luck, 2012). The problem with knowledge being constructed in these ‘worlds’ is the potential of not associating the connection of this knowledge to the relevancy in the natural world. I think what these communities should focus on is the learning community and be used as an option to provide simulations that mirror what can be observed in the natural world. When students encounter authority figures in these communities it is important that they can engage and interact with questions to negotiate their own answers. The environments can create a social culture that promotes scientific learning much the same as the real world environment can.

References:

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Mathews, S., Andrews, L., & Luck, E. (2012). Developing a Second Life virtual field trip for university students: an action research approach. Educational Research, 54(1), 17-38.

Wolchover, N. (2012, May 11). What If Our Hands Had 6 Fingers?. LiveScience. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://www.livescience.com/20241-hands-fingers.html

The Embodied cognition theory is a position in cognitive science stating that intelligent behaviour emerges from the interplay between brain, body and world. The position is one I agree with and it is rather an extension to the theoretical approaches based on constructivist principles. The most interesting concept I read about this week was with the idea of presence in VLE. Presence is the belief that you are “in” the artificial environment, not in the laboratory or classroom interacting with a computer. Typically, during a visit to an artificial environment, attention is divided between the environment created at the computer interface, be it a computer screen of virtual reality helmet, and the environment outside, which might be noisy, or contain someone giving you instructions about what to do, or be distracting in other ways. (Winn, 2003) When thinking about the concept of presence I thought back to my days learning about abstract geometry, planes, rotations and reflections. I can remember that I would often close my eyes and leave my desk in a sense to visualize the problem in my mind. In this way my mind had the ability to create a virtual environment and I was able to solve problems within this environment. I started to think that this ability to establish presence differs from person to person and could be a determining factor in ones aptitude with mathematics. It was this thought that piqued my interest in reading more about VR.

The first article I read looked promising however after reading it in depth I felt I didn’t see much practical information. The article presents SMILE™ (Science and Math in an Immersive Learning Environment) an immersive game in which deaf and hearing children ages 5-10 learn math and science concepts and ASL (American Sign Language) terminology through interaction with animated 3D characters and objects. The paper was entirely focused on the research behind the design of the software and the specifics of how the software will work.  I found the research and development of this software to be something promising and look forward to seeing some practical research results with students.

I chose to read a further article exploring the benefits of VLE in particular a study using the environment called Virtual Puget Sound. The overall findings lead to the recommendation that the extra cost of immersion with VR only pays off when the content to learn is complex, three-dimensional and dynamic, and when the student does not need to communicate with “the outside” while working. (Winn, Windschitl, Fruland & Lee, 2002)

In “The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found” (Stevens, 2012), they made a strong case to include the body as an integrated part in determining mathematical concepts and processes. The evidence presented in this article makes it very difficult to consign the body to the sidelines of mathematical cognition if our goal is to make sense of how people make sense and take action with mathematical ideas, tools, and forms.

References:

Adamo-Villani, N. & Wilbur, R. (2007). An immersive game for k-5 math and science. Proceedings of the I1th International Conference Information Visualization, 921-924.

Stevens, R. (2012). The missing bodies of mathematical thinking and learning have been found. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 337-346.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114

Winn, W., Windschitl, M., Fruland, R., & Lee, Y. (2002). When does immersion in a virtual environment help students construct understanding? Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.