Walking the Talk …

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

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.

 

Expectations of Linear Math

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

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