The My World software offers students the opportunity to work with compiled data and investigate its relationship to the world in various contexts. It has significant applications for Science, Social Studies and Math. The Analyze option enables users to create tables of comparative data that can be exported and accessed at at later date. After completing a sample lesson locating major world cities with a proximity of 500 km or less from Vancouver and measuring their distance away, I explored some of the other data sets in new layers in a new project. I was able to locate and measure the distance of volcanoes within a certain range in relation to Victoria and Vancouver, B.C. The data offered interesting information about each volcano in the table it generated including elevation, type and last eruption. Considering most students would be surprised by how many volcanoes are actually in our general vicinity, this information could be the motivation for the first step in the Learning for Use framework. Reaching the limits of their understanding, knowing there is a need for new knowledge to understand this phenomena – because who wouldn’t want to know more about volcanoes in your own backyard! – would elicit a desire to learn more.

Becoming comfortable with the My World software is essential as I didn’t find it very intuitive overall. Working with layers and navigating through the Analysis option can be cumbersome. I ran into a glitch with the Analysis option when I was exploring different features in the program.  Suddenly, choosing a way of analyzing wasn’t an option and for some reason (I didn’t have a lot of time to investigate, unfortunately) this happened when I started a new project from already inside the program versus starting one when the program first opened. I don’t mind trouble shooting with technology. In fact, I enjoy the challenge, but I know that others would get frustrated and decide it’s not worth it.

Although this was an issue specifically with My World, this problem drew me back to Edelson’s advice about educator’s implementing the LfU framework and how important it is that the constructivist theory of learning embedded within its structure needs to be embraced by teachers as learners, too. If teachers are to “learn to use it successfully, they must go through a learning process themselves that incorporates the steps of Learning for Use” (Edelson, 2001, p. 381). To do this, it takes time and we all know how time gets in the way of a lot of things we want to do as teachers. I think this is a big hurdle in educational reform. There are great ideas for change, proven ideas, but to really understand and embrace new pedagogy and revise your practice, you must commit to spending time being a learner first.

Pellegrino and Brophy (2008) also mentioned the obstacles created by inert knowledge and the measures they took in the Jasper Series to increase students’ transfer skills. They were committed to not giving “students tools because these can often be applied without understanding, causing people to fail to adapt when situations change” (p. 283). To a teacher, would LfU not be considered a tool? And if it’s demonstrated to them and they are interested in applying it, how do we encourage teachers to take the time to experience it as a learner? How do we convince them that the time is worth it and how understanding the framework is vital to being successful with it? An inquiry model isn’t something you can script – otherwise it becomes mechanical and loses authenticity. You need to breathe it.

I’ve ended up thinking a lot about this dilemma. The goal of LfU is to overcome inert knowledge and help students generate useful knowledge, but do all teachers know the difference between routine expertise and adaptive expertise? How many teachers are experts with inert knowledge and believe this is the goal of education? Adopting pedagogical models like LfU on a wider basis may have more obstacles in their way than anticipated. Are we asking teachers to teach skills that they may not possess themselves? Edeslon is absolutely correct when he states that integrating LfU “is not a simple process” (2008, p. 381). But at the same time, I think there is simplicity in the LfU framework that increases the likelihood that teachers are able to connect with it’s pedagogical design, if time (there it is again) is put into helping others understand it. It could be a model that schools adopt as common ground for developing an inquiry base with students.

Volcanoes Near Victoria & Vancouver (analysis table example)

image: volcano erupting, Guatemala by photosbesthike by phreleased under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial license

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.

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.