Tag Archives: WISE

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.

 

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