Category Archives: Module B

Walking the Talk …

Posted on by
Reply

The most prevalent obstacle that impedes inquiry-based learning in educational settings is the instructor’s understanding of inquiry and pedagogical approaches as well as the ability to implement these successfully. This was shared through the expressed frustrations of the Jasper Series designers when teachers did not seem to recognize the value in exposing students to analog problems that were conceived for the purpose of improving transfer and abstraction of concepts and strategies, opting instead for adventures that introduced the need to use different skills overlooking the opportunity to increase adaptive expertise (Hatano, 1984). Within the WISE environment, customizing the platform for successful inquiry-based learning requires a level of competence that designers cannot necessarily assume teachers possess. The inquiry map alone, which directs students through the process, can present a significant challenge in that even Linn, Clark & Slotta (2003) caution that its level of detail affects student engagement. The prescriptive nature of WISE projects provide students with the necessary information to proceed independently, but also provide opportunities for teachers to misinterpret the structure of the investigation. Manipulating the available scaffolding steps along with the limited opportunities for socially constructing knowledge embedded within WISE provide a potential recipe for reinforcing the transmission model, albeit with animations and the technological affordances of accessing past progress. While the Jasper Series was founded on stronger pedagogical principles that provide valuable insight into TELEs and continue to describe essential qualities of powerful and effective learning environments, both it and WISE promote more of a packaged approach to inquiry that does not require teachers to explicitly understand the theory and pedagogy behind them before integrating them. As potent as they could be in bringing inquiry-based learning to the classroom, they could also be used to further entrench traditional instructional approaches that reinforce inert knowledge. It cannot be assumed that teachers possess the aptitude to integrate these TELEs. Just as students require explicit instruction to develop inquiry skills, teachers need to be “explicitly taught about interactions among pedagogy, content, technology, and learners” to develop their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge, or TPCK. This conceptualization is critical.

The Learning for Use design framework and T-GEM cycle of instruction, originally attached to My World and Chemland TELEs, offer the greatest potential for reform in the mathematics and science classroom. With a primary emphasis on the inquiry process rather than prescribed activity steps, it requires teachers and students to adopt an inquiry mind-set that becomes the foundation for implementing them. They are not distinctly tied to one particular curricular area or TELE, offering transportability to any number of educational contexts, within the classroom or outside of it. Their cyclical nature and use of abductive reasoning puts greater emphasis on the relationships between students and between students and the teacher highlighting the role social collaboration and collective understanding plays in the development of robust mental models that can help students conceptualize content and repair misconceptions. Understanding this pedagogy requires teachers to pursue a pedagogical model that exemplifies the development and refinement of useful and adaptive pedagogical knowledge because inert knowledge or memorization of a set of activities in an effort to apply either of these methods will not suffice. The broad scope of these two approaches compel educators to seek knowledge for understanding.

Integrating constructivist pedagogy into classroom practice is not a simple process. “The constructivist theories of learning apply to teachers and designers” as well as students (Edelson, 2001, p. 381). If teachers are going to be successful implement the Learning for Use framework or T-GEM instructional cycles, it is imperative that have parallel experiences with this learning process themselves to model best practice and become co-learners with students in a continued process of reflection and refinement.

image: Walking the line by Kalexanderson released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – Share Alike 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.

Edelson, D., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V. & Sherin, B. (2002). Learning-for-use in Earth Science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 6, 27-36. Retrieved from http://eprints2008.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/25206/1/6_P27-36.pdfbe

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.

Linn, M. Clark, D. & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

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.

Assessing the Affordances of TELEs

Posted on by
Reply

Anchored instruction in the Jasper Series, WISE’s scaffolded knowledge integration framework (SKI), the Learning for Use model when applied to My World, and applying the T-GEM cycle to Chemland explorations showcase the application of pedagogical design in response to ongoing research regarding effective technology-enhanced learning experiences (TELE) in mathematics and science classrooms. All four TELEs are driven by documented discrepancies between theoretical best practice and actual instructional approaches in all levels of education. Although varied in their application, each design is grounded in constructivist principles that focus on inquiry-based learning, mental models, socially constructed knowledge, and reflective conceptualization aimed at integrating both content and process outcomes of science or mathematics education. Reasons for pursuing this common pedagogical design are rooted in substantive conclusions of researchers who assert that “inquiry is associated with an array of positive student outcomes, such as growth in conceptual understanding, increased understanding of the nature of science, and development of research skills” (Khan, 2007, p.877). To achieve this authenticity within TELEs the design must be nourished by activities that “provide the opportunity to ground abstract understanding in concrete experience” (Edelson, 2001, p. 378). Reforming science and mathematics requires a pedagogical shift away from the passive “transmission approach [which] does not acknowledge the importance of the motivation and refinement stages of learning and relies too strongly on communication to support knowledge construction” (Edelson, 2001, p. 377).

While the tenets of How People Learn are most prominently applied to the Jasper Series and the development of anchored instruction, emphasis on pedagogically sound learning environments that embrace knowledge, learner, assessment, and community-centered principles is also woven into the pedagogical approaches attached to WISE, My World and Chemland. The degree to which each of these aspects are incorporated into the design structure of these TELEs varies, although all demonstrate a more concerted effort towards being knowledge and learner-centered beyond assessment and community-centered. The perceived authenticity of the inquiry plays a significant role in developing science process skills, conceptualization of content skills, and students’ connection with relevance of math and science outside of the classroom. All four TELEs strive to create an environment that promotes and nurtures learning from inquiry, as well as underscoring the importance of the facilitator’s role from a pedagogical perspective as technology is unable to independently and meaningfully guide students through this process.

Authenticity of the inquiry process is best illustrated in the Learning for Use framework and T-GEM cycle – each having potential in educational settings well beyond My World and Chemland. Investigating these two pedagogical approaches reveal a process-based structure that is emergent and tailored to students in a specific setting. Both offer cognitive and social affordances in learner-centered environments that move beyond the pre-packaged options of the Jasper Series or WISE projects. The depth of conceptualization possible in TELEs designed using these pedagogies provide students and teachers with an inquiry process that develops authentic problem solving skills, robust thinking skills and reflective practice. Every stage of the inquiry process is integral and must unfold explicitly for students if they are expected to develop effective knowledge organization indices that can be accessed in the future. Understanding the principles behind Learning for Use and T-GEM requires a broader comprehension of constructivism, situated cognition, abductive reasoning and inquiry-based learning. Implementing these approaches in a classroom involves the application of a holistic process that encompasses more than specific activity guidelines or steps, providing students with greater opportunities for skill transfer and improving teacher heuristics within technology supported inquiry learning (TSIL). The cyclical nature of Learning for Use and T-GEM parallels authentic inquiry in the scientific community and strengthens students’ abilities to evaluate and refine mental models as part of the process of abstraction. For successful integration, teachers must possess in-depth knowledge of their students and the ability to promote students’ gradual construction of knowledge individually and collectively.

“computer simulations are particularly valuable for science teachers because they help students visualize aspects of science that are either too large or too small to view, afford rapid testing of ideas, reveal trends in graphs or other representations, and provide extreme situations to support thought experiments and what if scenarios” (Khan, 2010, p.216)

Exploring these TELEs has created an increased impetus for reflecting on my own integration of computer simulations and technology enhanced learning experiences in my practice. Being able to better articulate my pedagogical approach in specific educational contexts and analyze how I am using technology to support students’ development of authentic inquiry processes has strengthened my TPCK, which in turn will strengthen my ability to design knowledge, learner, community, and assessment-centered learning environments that promote inquiry and conceptualization. T-GEM and Learning for Use pedagogy will be valuable resources in designing the inquiry-based classroom I envision. The scaffolded knowledge integration framework and anchored instruction principles have contributed to an increased understanding of inquiry-based learning and enriched my instructional design principles which will in turn positively impact my current and future practice. The limitations observed in the WISE project design have challenged my perception of how best to approach teaching inquiry using technology because a one-size fits all model, transmitting incremental procedural steps, is inadequate. I believe teachers need to carefully gauge students’ inquiry skills to determine authenticity or if they are merely witnessing the appearance of authenticity in the wake of poorly designed or poorly implemented pedagogy. First and foremost though, this necessitates a depth of understanding involving inquiry-based learning from an educator’s perspective that cannot be underestimated.

 image: Thinking by heyjudegallery released under a CC Attribution – Share Alike 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.

Edelson, D., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V. & Sherin, B. (2002). Learning-for-use in Earth Science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

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.

Linn, M. Clark, D. & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

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.

 

T-GEM Possibilities …

Posted on by
Reply

After reading the articles this week, I find myself contemplating GEM in my planning … a lot. I am excited to try and implement this model of inquiry as it seems to be what I’ve been looking for. While I think I have been incorporating aspects of it already, it has given me a better foundation to reflect on my efforts to help my students develop key processes of inquiry, not just in science and math either … everywhere. I realize I need to put more effort into using “modeling and inquiry [to] facilitate the development and revision of abstract concepts” (Kahn, 899) in my classroom.

In Grade 7, students are expected to understand properties of matter. It can be a difficult concept for some as the abstract notion of particles and molecules aren’t readily observable. Creating enough hands-on activities to demonstrate this is also a challenge because changes involve increases and decreases in temperature, which produce safety concerns and impinge on time factors. A computer simulation can help students understand this concept beyond text-book facts and static images.

To begin with we would investigate quantitative and qualitative properties of matter, so students would be introduced to the concepts of solids, liquids, gases and particles as well as the rationale behind temperature being measured in kelvins. This would provide the appropriate background information before engaging in the PHET simulation – Properties of Matter.

GENERATE
Students are asked to collect data on neon and its particles in the 3 different states of matter. The first relationship they are asked to generate is how the particles compare to each other in each state.

EVALUATE
They need to test their hypothesis by investigating 2 other substances, argon and oxygen, in their different states of matter.

RE-GENERATE/RE-EVALUATE
Students collect further data by documenting temperature observed at each state with each substance. They are then asked to explain and test the relationship between temperature and the energy of the molecules, using the option of heating or cooling the substance.

EVALUATE/MODIFY
Finally, water is investigated to see if their theories of particle movement and interaction in relation to temperature continue to be valid. Students will be guided toward the solid model of water to investigate its particles further, its response to further cooling, and asked to evaluate/modify their assumptions about particles within solids – leading towards an understanding of the properties of ice compared to other solid substances.

Further investigations ~ this would extend into the next science class

Students use the temperature data they have collected to investigate what happens to different substances when they are heated or cooled to the same temperature observed by another substance in a particular state. E.g. Neon is observed in a gas state at 55 K … what does argon look at 55 K? What state of matter is most likely represented at this temperature?

Students are asked to comparatively investigate the substances and determine the impact variations of temperature would have on these substances according to a scale of temperature. E.g. Investigating boiling points, melting points and freezing points.

image: Beaded Molecules: preliminary tries by fdecomite released under a CC Attribution license

References

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.

 

Teachers as Learners: The Link to Reform

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Technology Affordances in Earth Science Education

Posted on by
Reply

Concepts in Earth Science can be challenging for students to grasp as real examples relating to curricular content are often difficult or simply cannot be brought into the classroom to provide students with first-hand experience with them. Size and accessibility are factors which compromise students’ abilities to form mental models that accurately reflect scale, so comparative models are often relied on in place of actual phenomena or their processes. For students to conceptualize these appropriately, spatial-thinking and scale must be understood which requires abstract reasoning that teachers cannot presume is already present. Lack of opportunities to collect first-hand data presents an additional problem, which results in an over-reliance on data banks that detract from the authentic mirroring of processes within the scientific community.

Technology offers innovative means of exploring Earth Science phenomena through computer-generated simulations and models as well as methods of data collection, data analysis, and ways of communicating scientific research (Edelson, 2001). It is a component of authentic scientific practice reinforcing its inclusion in classrooms, and considering its potential as a catalyst for educational reform, devising specific uses of computers to bridge content and process standards in science may provide educators with a sustainable approach for technology integration. It can also enhance the inquiry process by breaking down the walls of the classroom to connect with information and individuals worldwide, store content for future use or reflection, and present student learning to both a local and global audience synchronously or asynchronously.

With WorldWatcher being designed to “bring the power of scientists’ computational tools to learners (Gordin & Pea in Edelson, 2001), it presents an authentic learning environment in which students can develop inquiry skills through a scientific research process. Using data visualization and tools for analysis, students can explore Earth science phenomena and identify emerging patterns in data using scaled models. This provides a feasible solution to the challenge of students accessing realistic representations of the Earth by providing a window into understanding complex phenomena that students are known to develop misconceptions about. Not only do students have the opportunity to work with data collected by the scientific community in WorldWatcher, they’re also presented with the chance to apply their understanding from previous scaffolded lessons as they create and collect their own geographic data to further investigate the relationship between geography and temperature. This technology merges practical and realistic scientific inquiry-based pedagogy that motivate students to construct and refine knowledge that “support its future retrieval and use” (lEdeslon, 2001) and students’ ability to transfer this useful knowledge to new contexts.

image: Earth from Space by NASA Goddard Photo and Video released under a CC Attribution license

References

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.

Edelson, D., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V. & Sherin, B. (2002). Learning-for-use in Earth Science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Implementing WISE

Posted on by
Reply

Throughout my exploration of WISE, I entertained thoughts about how it could be integrated into the classroom. The animations and simulations embedded within the projects definitely have the potential to the enrich learning environment for students, but its promise of helping educators “create sustainable classroom inquiry instruction across the varied contexts learning takes place” (Linn, M., Clark, D. & Slotta, J., 2003) was not substantive based on the activities I had the chance to explore; however, I’m not ruling out that I have yet to tap into existing projects whose pedagogy would in fact impress me. I believe WISE has the potential to motivate students and facilitate knowledge integration, but as a constructivist portal for inquiry-based instruction, this platform leaves too much room for educators to copy and revise projects without staying committed to the pedagogy that WISE developers set out to promote with its design. Discovering examples such as this has made me skeptic of its universal benefits in classrooms and its potential role in developing inquiry skills if educators are not guided and scaffolded themselves in learning how to create and refine inquiry-based pedagogy. As Edelson (2001) points out that “the constructivist theories of learning apply to teachers and designers as well … [so] if they are to learn to use it successfully, they must go through a learning process themselves.” The effectiveness of technology integration is always determined by the hands who wield it. If WISE had more influence on teachers’ professional development to better ensure it was used in accordance with robust inquiry principles, it could do more to reform science education.

As it stands, I think WISE is best integrated with other means of instruction with or without  additional technology, face to face interactions in classrooms or within a distributed learning context. From my observations, I question the strength of the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework tenet, “helping students learn from each other” within the WISE context. Facilitating social opportunities that promote collaboration, peer feedback, and perspective taking are noticeably minimal in the projects I perused – another reason to  integrate it within a larger body of instruction so students can take advantage of the social nature of learning. WISE, as I see it, should not be implemented by educators  as a stand-alone unit. It must be supplemented in the best interests of learning.

image: IMG_4950 by bionic released under a CC Attribuition – Noncommecial license

 References

Linn, M. Clark, D. & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Nicaise, M., Gibney, T. & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: student perception of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79-94, doi: 10.1023/A:1009477008671

 

WISE Foundations vs Application of Inquiry

Posted on by
Reply

Although the motivation exists, building inquiry into the science classroom to better mirror realistic scientific discovery has been hampered by the need to reach a plethora of curriculum standards. The motivation behind the development of WISE is derived from the desire to remedy this. Linn, Clark & Sotta (2003) define inquiry as “engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments” (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2003). Through the use of a revised Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework and its four main tenets (making thinking visible, making science accessible, helping students learn from each other, and promoting lifelong learning), this was a much needed shift towards inquiry-based learning positioning WISE as an innovator in the field of science education.

With these design principles in mind, my exploration of some of the projects within WISE has prompted more inquiry into how it might be used in a classroom, the thinking and understanding it encourages in students, and the overall instructional design as it applies to learning theory. The theory behind the design offers great potential for Vygotsky-inspired social constructivist activities in that the intent is to provide students with a model that promotes meaning making and the construction of knowledge along with learning with and from others, as well as teacher scaffolding that includes the introduction of necessary cognitive tools . A deeper analysis  of an independently chosen project – Photosynthesis 2012 – uncovered a number of issues I feel may become obstacles to WISE’s progress towards meeting social constructivist goals. Given the evolution of the possible online learning spaces, WISE appears very linear in nature (more like an LMS), fairly dependent on a text-based medium (i.e. understanding is demonstrated primarily through reading and writing activities similar to pieces of worksheets), and offers limited opportunities for collaborative and social learning. In reading the Quick Start Guide and the Teaching Tips available within the project overviews, it appears that one of the founding principles, “helping students learn from each other”, is primarily addressed within teacher-designed activities external to the WISE project. Teachers are encouraged to group students in pairs during the project process, structure discussion and discourse within the classroom, and integrate group/partner activities to meet the goal of socially constructed learning. WISE offers an asynchronous discussion forum that can be a powerful medium for sharing and reflecting on student perspectives, but it seems to fall short of embedding truly collaborative opportunities. In the case of the photosynthesis project that I selected to revise, not one asynchronous discussion activity had been included. Students seem to continue to be on the consuming end rather than the producing end and while the foundation for knowledge integration is present in WISE, what’s stopping a teacher from using it to perpetuate a transmission model of learning? Because it is possible to revise projects for this purpose as well. Online learning environments like WISE have incredible potential to redefine students’ classroom experiences, but they are only as effective as the individuals using and adapting them for their own pedagogical use. Developers envision  a more critical approach to science process and concepts being implemented using the WISE, but as the educational philosopher Paulo Freire pointed out “computers were not technologically determined to compel students to use them in a critically conscious manner”  (Papert in Kahn & Kellner, 2007), so how well WISE helps students develop inquiry skills is dependent on the individual designing it and the individual wielding it. Likewise, Ivan Illich’s cautionary advice  that “technologies like computers could either advance or distort pedagogy, depending on how they were fit into a well-balanced ecology of learning” (Kahn & Kellner, 2007) is an integral component of WISE’s future success in bringing a greater degree of inquiry into the science classroom.

Using the Authoring Tool, I explored the inner framework of the Photosynthesis 2012 project after saving a copy of it so I could edit and revise it as my own. My version has been renamed Exploring Photosynthesis. As I investigated the three activities that each included multiple steps, I made improvements to ambiguous language and sentence structure. I also altered the html code to add more text features, like bolded and italicized words as well as bulleted lists to separate ideas. I was also able to locate the code for the hover text for glossary words so I added it into the first page where it suggested students explore an example of it, but no example was to be found. I felt it was necessary to embed a short video in Step 1.6 as this form of media had not been previously included within other steps, yet it stands to enrich the options for presenting critical information to students. I was surprised to find that video wasn’t used more often, although there are far more projects within the WISE pool than I had time to explore. I was heartened to discover an audio tool within the Extras of the Authoring Tool, but I was disheartened to find that I was unable to access it to see what it offers. When considering diversified instruction, balancing the text with audio components would meet more students needs and potentially minimize the barrier of language that can impede conceptualization for some students. I also found that some steps lacked sufficient information for students without considerable background knowledge (even if the intent was to cover some concepts during class) to proceed and be motivated to innately inquire further. I was happy to see that the steps involving MySystem technology offered students opportunities to revise and apply feedback as well as potentially share their understanding with others if this is enabled. I intend to investigate this option further to get a better grasp of its benefits. With this particular project, I found instructional strategies frequently utilized that seemed to focus on recall, which could be improved on while still maintaining the scaffolding principle that is an integral component of WISE. Effort had been made to scaffold the acquisition of content; however, the development of inquiry skills, which was the underlying goal of this environment, was not adequately supported in a manner that provides students with opportunities to “improve their art and technique of inquiry” (Nicaise, Gibney, & Crane, 2000) through repeated and explicit practice. There are opportunities to use inquiry skills within the steps, but  without initial steps that help students hone inquiry skills and deepen their motivation to inquire more. While I haven’t added the extra step yet, I feel it’s important to ask students about what questions they need to ask and be able to answer if the intention is to discover the best method of growing energy-rich plants. Knowing how to formulate “good” questions is a critical skill in the inquiry process. I also found it interesting that the initial inquiry question had minimal impact at the conclusion of the project. Emphasis was not placed on presenting their understanding to peers or the teacher regarding how they can help Mary. My subsequent investigations and revisions will hopefully ascertain whether this is a grievous oversight or an inadequate inquiry question that can be revised and strengthened to promote greater learning. Time will also tell if these first impressions are substantiated by my future investigations into alternate projects or if the developers of WISE are steadfast in their desire to continue revising and collecting data on the effectiveness of this learning environment in the pursuit of meaningful inquiry-based pedagogy.


image: Why by Tintin44 – Sylvain Masson released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – No Derivatives Works license

 

 References

Kahn, R. & Kellner, D. (2007). Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich: technology, politics and the reconstruction of education. Policy Futures in Education, 5(4), 431-448. doi:10.2304/pfie.2007.5.4.431

Linn, M. Clark, D. & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Nicaise, M., Gibney, T. & Crane, M. (2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: student perception of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79-94, doi: 10.1023/A:1009477008671

Expectations of Linear Math

Posted on by
Reply

When technology is introduced into the math classroom, one potential pitfall that can impede its integration and the impact it has on student learning is the degree of flexibility it provides in how problems can be solved. With all of the technology possibilities that can be found online, drill and practice activities and games continue to be teachers’ most popular choices. Why? Historically, instructional design in math has been promoted through a linear and cumulative progression whether it’s in the classroom, face to face, or online. It’s familiar. It’s easy. It appears that students are improving their skills when they use it. So what’s the problem?

The problem is that math reasoning and the development of process skills that foster conceptulaization are not best served by linear pathways. Looking back on one of the interviews I conducted earlier in this course, the same dillema presented itself to Teacher B that had integrated technology in her math classroom for her master’s thesis. In her research on teaching mathematics using technology for the purpose of motivation and engagement in 2005, she found the options available online, even with a paid subscription, offered limited potential for flexible thinking. Although teachers might relish the idea that they can track student progress as they work through linear modules relying on algorithmic knowledge are they really promoting knowledge for understanding? Does success in a linear math program transfer to success with math outside that particular context? Why have we become so habituated to students learning math through memorization of symbols and steps?

This perpetuated belief that math is best taught along a direct pathway from A to B bypasses the importance of understanding math processes and developing adaptive expertise that moves beyond the inert knowledge we have previously celebrated. Assessments need to change to reflect what needs to be valued in terms of success with math concepts as well. Technology could be a catalyst for reform if it’s chosen for its ability to challenge ingrained assumptions about how best to teach mathematics. How math is traditionally taught and predominantly supported through technology conflicts with how I believe it needs to be taught and how technology could be used to support it. This is why the Jasper Series caught my attention.

Jasper designers have organized instruction around meaningful problems and have chosen technology that promotes inquiry and reasoning well beyond memorization. Scaffolding necessary skills and developing mathematical schema supports students to learn with understanding, and opportuntities to practice after receiving feedback, make revisions, as well as reflect on their perspective in relation to others, all while promoting “collaboration and distributed expertise, as well as independent learning” (Pellegrino, 2001).

The most impressive component of the Jasper Series, especially considering it’s development and application spanned the late 1980s up until early years of 2000s, is the potential it offers students in developing transfer skills due to its commitment towards encouraging multiple feasible solutions to authentic problems. The motivation and engagement to learn and think critically is nurtured in their efforts to unveil “the relevance of math and science to the world outside the classroom” (Pellegrino, 2001). The instructional designers have debunked the myth that math needs to be taught in a linear manner. It’s just too bad more people weren’t listening 30 years ago because they were really on to something great. Mathematics clasasrooms need to be learning communities that foster inquiry. More efffort needs to be placed on incorporating cognitive theory into instructional design to create experiences that develop a “disposition to skilled learning and thinking … to overcome [the] phenomenon of inert knowledge” (Corte, 2007).

image: Connection to Nowhere by Tom Haymes released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – Share Alike license

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1, 119–30. doi: 10.1007/s11519-007-0002-4.

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.

 

Looking Back: Jasper Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

After an initial introduction to the Jasper Series, visions of linear technology use, limited diversification potential,  and isolated learning experiences seeped into my brain. Why? Because I assumed, based on quick and scattered facts, that there would be issues with any artefact designed twenty-odd years ago. Big assumption. It definitely provokes a desire to investigate the series more in the hopes that educators and learners can continue to learn from the extensive research and collaboration that went into its creation. I certainly hope that now after reading and learning about the Jasper Series, I will eventually get to see it in action one day.

On further investigation, it was clear that in reality the Jasper Series was ahead of its time. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised by the theoretical framework the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) utilized in the creation of the Series. This was an incredible venture incorporating the dimensions of How People Learn while embedding cognitive theory in the instructional design.Over the course of almost two decades, the CTGV intertwined “theory, instructional design, research on learning and assessment, technology, teacher knowledge and professional development and the realities of diverse learners in diverse instructional settings” (Pellegrino & Brophy, 2008) into their ongoing development of Anchored Instruction. Their assumptions about learning are grounded in a constructivist framework prompting the design of learning activities that focus on opportunities for students to create knowledge for understanding within social contexts. Using the principles of How People Learn, the Jasper series was devoted to designing powerful learning environments that encompass these four dimensions:

  • Effective learning environments are knowledge-centered
    • explicit attention to what is taught, why it is taught, supports learning with understanding rather than remembering, and identifies what competency looks like
  • Effective learning environments are learner-centered
    • teachers pay careful attention to what students know as well as what they don’t know, and continually work on building on students’ strengths and prior knowledge
  • Effective learning environments are assessment-centered
    • importance is placed on making students’ thinking visible through the use of frequent formative assessment, designing instruction accordingly, and helping teachers and students monitor progress
  • Effective learning environments are community-centered
    • emphasis is placed on building a sense of comfort with questioning rather than knowing the answers, and developing a model of creating new ideas that build on the contributions of individual members

This is a model of instructional design that has yet to date itself and should be in the forefront of educators’ minds in current practice. Pellegrino & Brophy’s (2008) advice on how to best implement Jasper learning activities in the classroom can also be applied to the context of other classroom activities because it encourages the development of adaptive expertise and conceptual understanding. If process is the critical component needing to be highlighted in education, then the ability to seamlessly transfer skills to different contexts or repeated contexts is essential. I can’t help but think had I seen the Jasper Series earlier in my career, it could have sparked greater reflection and increased innovation in my teaching long before I started to question the effectiveness of teaching with the traditional imbalance of guided-instructional strategies.

 

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1, 119–30. doi: 10.1007/s11519-007-0002-4.

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.

image: DSCN10816 by subewl released under a CC Attribution – Share Alike license

Using Technology to Create Powerful & Effective Learning Environments

Posted on by
Reply

Using anchored instruction in the Jasper series, instructional designers sought to create effective learning environments that were knowledge-centered, learner-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered encapsulating the four dimensions of How People Learn. Authentic complex problems became the anchors around which activities and instruction were based helping students connect with a wider community while providing a window into the relevance of math and science outside the classroom. The possibility for multiple solutions also offered students greater perspective on the application of math concepts in the real world, and having access to multiple perspectives in the classroom exposed students to different perceptions among individuals and the collective. The challenges integrated experiential learning, guided learning and active learning promoting increased opportunity for developing “adaptive expertise” rather than limiting students to “routine expertise” which does not require depth of understanding to complete tasks quickly and accurately (Corte, 2007). Teachers were encouraged to further support students increasing flexibility of transfer by exposing them to analog problems designed to stimulate the invention of solutions for recurring problems, consequently enhancing students’ willingness and readiness to take risks with new learning challenges and seek effective solutions.

Technology played a key role in the designers’ efforts to integrate instructional strategies and tools that supported meaningful learning through the investigation of authentic problems within a scaffolded environment. Using video, complex problems involving the practical use of mathematical skills could be introduced to students in an authentic context that could be view and reviewed. This created a unified foundation for the students who then worked collaboratively to generate ideas while still allowing for the development of multiple perspectives promoting increased flexibility of thought. Incorporating technology also offered increased learner engagement and a creative method of introducing math-related scenarios that cannot be duplicated within a classroom without it. Access to important information and data was improved with the development of technology tools allowing student navigation of the video story in a non-linear fashion, emphasizing that authentic problem solving does not require a rigid set of rules that must be followed in a particular manner – it is a process of visiting and revisiting data, as well as refining and applying potential solutions. The technology base helped strengthen the development of a community of learners through collaborative inquiry working towards finding a common goal, although greater gains could have been achieved if the Jasper technology had offered similar social opportunities to the SMART model whereby students had access to a more robust collection of alternate perspectives, including real students’ work. In addition, technology could have afforded increased formative assessment opportunities (self, peer, teacher) encouraging conceptual growth and greater understanding about the value of revision. As noted by Pellegrino and Brophy (2008), the depth of formative assessment and community building within the Jasper project could have been improved upon. Technology could have help the designers balance the four dimensions of How People Learn to a greater extent; however, technology that could facilitate these two areas has improved tremendously over the last two decades and the options for integrating it for these purposes today presents a different context than what was available to the Jasper designers at the time.

 

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Corte, E. (2007). Learning from instruction: The case of mathematics. Learning Inquiry, 1, 119–30. doi: 10.1007/s11519-007-0002-4.

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.

image: Anchor by Keka 😉 released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – No Derivative Works license