February 2017

Technology, Learning for Use and Supporting Students in Science

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

After reading and reflecting on the aims of LfU (Learning for Use) I believe there are a number of ways that LfU has the capability of supporting students who are experiencing conceptual challenges understanding Earth Science. The main goal of LfU experiences are to seamlessly integrate content and process activities so that students achieve robust and useful understandings that are deep and accessible (Edelson, 2001). In particular, technology supported inquiry learning provides an opportunity for these students to be supported throughout their learning. The Create-a-World Project which includes the use of the programs WorldWatcher and Progress Portfolio demonstrate a robust example of how technology can be used to support these learners. WorldWatcher provides a geographic visualization and data analysis engine whereas Progress Portfolio provides a place to record and monitor investigations and capture the ongoing work done in Worldwatcher.

The objective of the  Create-a-World Project is to have students investigate relationships between temperature and geography from a climatic perspective. Since this project is designed with the LfU model it follows certain protocols. Most importantly LFU focusses on the application of knowledge and through a knowledge application task LfU creates demand for learning and offers space for refinement as students apply knowledge they have learned (Edelson, 2001).  Reflection is also built into this process and a necessary part of the learning cycle. LfU is similar to the traditional learning cycle in which students are involved in an exploration or activities that help them understand a concept. This includes hands-on observations, measurement and gathering of evidence. Through this process, students begin to explore relationships and concepts and/or discuss findings and finally additional observations are discussed, noted and shared then applied and refined.

Examining a knowledge application task will illustrate the process and how technology can support the aims of LfU. In the introduction of the Create-a-World project students are inspired to begin to think about global temperature through guessing and colouring in the average temperatures in the world in July. This is to start the discussion about the concept and to promote communication. The LfU reasoning for this is to elicit curiosity and to have students confront limitations in their understandings (Edelson, 2001). It is noted in other literature that students are not likely to change their understandings in science until they notice contradictions to existing ones and that constructing relationships is a way to breach this divide (DeLaughter, Stein, Stein & Bain, 1998).

In step 2 students compare conjectures using WorldWatcher using real data. They use visualization and analysis tools to compare their own maps with actual July temperatures around the world. The LFU reasoning for this is that this allows students begin to observe patterns of temperature variation and to elicit curiosity in their causes (Edelson, 2001).

In fact, deeper more robust learning occurs when we encourage students to pursue a concept in a variety of contexts and examples until these new models are integrated. The students need to understand why they are pursuing the problem and this is best achieved  when students encounter information in the context of pursuing larger problems and  issues that they find intriguing (DeLaughter, et al., 1998)

In step 3 the students invent their own worlds using a paint interface and data sets. The LfU reasoning is to create a demand for student learning. Students must have an understanding of temperature to create this world.

In activity 4 students begin to explore the relationship between geography and temperature using WorldWatcher tools. The maps created are inputted into the Progress Portfolio program and they are able to annotate the relationships they see. Then they engage in group discussions in which they further refine their understandings. In this way they acquire additional knowledge construction.

In activity 5 the students begin to explain findings through discussions and have the opportunity for hands-on laboratory explorations of concepts thus explored. At this time the teacher can offer explanations or address misconceptions.

Finally, in activity 6 the students create temperature maps for their created worlds based on all the factors they have studied. They also document the rules they are using while creating these maps and record these in their progress portfolio. Then they present to their classmates and explain their work and have an opportunity to discuss the reasoning behind their choices.

So after outlining this example, here are the ways that I believe that LfU has the capability of supporting students who are experiencing conceptual challenges understanding Earth Science. Firstly, LfU design creates demand for learning and eliciting curiosity. In the Create-a-World project the students are required to create a fictitious world, and this would be the impetus for learning about temperature and climate. The technology used in WorldWatcher allows them to paint data and manipulate data for this purpose. So technology is supporting this type of learning.

In addition, eliciting curiosity through identifying potential misconceptions and for activating existing knowledge is achieved with technology. Technology provides simulations which may be unavailable to direct observation (Edelson, 2001). Technology may also provide ways to articulate and demonstrate concepts using, for example, drawing programs.   Eliciting curiosity may not happen with traditional style lecture or through textbooks which often tend to be outdated or misrepresent scientific concepts.

As students continue to discover more about scientific concepts and delve deeper with their understandings, technology can assist with data collection and analysis, modeling, and prediction which may be hampered without these technology tools due to time constraints, lack of resources or complex data management capabilities.

The computer is also used as a communication tool which provides the ability to present information in a wide variety of formats, which may not be possible in traditional presentations. This not only allows for differentiation but also allows for students choice, both aims of educational reform.

Finally, technology provides a place for reflection. It supports record-keeping during inquiry and also provides for the possibility of ongoing discussion threads for communication as well as presentation tools. In addition, investigation tools are provided through visualization and analysis capabilities, artifact construction, expressive and record keeping data collection and tools such as annotation as well as drawing capabilities.

DeLaughter, J. E., Stein, S., Stein, C. A., & Bain, K. R. (1998). Preconceptions abound among students in an introductory earth science course. EOS Transactions, 79 (36), 429-436.

Edelson, (2001). Learning for use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 38 (3), 355-385.

Reflections on Anchored Instruction Posts/Discussion

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

 

After reading through the myriad of posts in the Anchored Instruction portion of module B several themes seemed to stand out. When discussing the Jasper Series videos the value of this type of teaching and learning was evident. My peers spoke to the abstract thinking that is an outcome of learning. In addition, the positive learning that occurs through collaboration, having an authentic purpose for learning, engaging students, a student centered and constructivist approach and scaffolded problem solving were all hilighted.

On the other hand, many also alluded to the possible drawbacks to using this style of teaching/learning. The lack of teacher understanding of how to use the videos effectively surfaced, as well as the problems with lack of technology training for educators, which may leave them at a disadvantage when attempting to incorporate anchored instruction using these videos or technology in general.Several peers also mentioned that these videoes were a bit outdated and that newer technology(ies) could provide the same type of anchored instruction. Virtual reality was suggested, as well as videos that are even more interactive and open-ended.

It was interesting to read that several peers were attempting to integrate anchored instruction in their own classrooms but tailoring it to meet both their own needs and the needs of their students. I think seeing the videos provided some with a springboard which they could then use to change or start to change their math program. If nothing else, the videos provided a new way to look at math instruction and although there would be a learning curve before fully integrating this type of instruction in a classroom, many felt that anchored instruction and using videos would be a valuable component of a student centered classroom.

I still have questions about evaluation/assessment as well as how to properly scaffold group work and collaboration. I believe in constructivist teaching/learning but I also understand that it is not a linear way to teach and learn and it takes a lot of work and flexibility in approach. This may not be comfortable for some educators and having a mentor to help them through developing a classroom with anchored instruction components would be beneficial.

Considering WISE Design and Jasper Adventures

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Wise research aims to bridge the gap between the research that shows the efficacy of inquiry learning in science and the method in which science is generally delivered. In science specifically it has been found that students have many misunderstandings developed either through experiences, concepts or examples (Linn, M., Clark, D. & Slotta, J., 2003). In order to address these, WISE curriculum projects promote knowledge integration through providing inquiry projects which are flexible, customizable and adaptive. They also believe in sustainability. Through field testing and multiple cycles of trial, adaptation and refinement the inquiry projects are continually honed to meet the specific needs of the students. In this way WISE is a bottom up approach rather than a top down approach and is meeting the educational goal of delivering curriculum in a differentiated way, which is one of the goals of education.

In addition, WISE supports the provision of an instructional pattern to assist students through the inquiry. These include eliciting student ideas, adding ideas to these and supporting the process learning to improve understanding. In this way WISE is able to scaffold the students’ learning in an indirect way, while still providing them with many pathways to reach their conclusions. WISE guides the students through the inquiry project without being prescriptive, which leads to deeper learning.

In addition, WISE project teams are made up of diverse partners so as to provide a more holistic inquiry. These include pedagogical specialists, scientists, teachers, and technology designers. WISE framework design principles include making thinking visible, making science accessible, helping students learn from each other, and  promoting lifelong learning, all goals of 21st century education as well as sound pedagogy.

Further to this, many WISE inquiry projects have been designed with detailed steps for the first inquiry investigation and then providing less detailed steps in subsequent projects. In this way students are able to move from supported learning to more independent pathways. This method is debated. When considering the Jasper Series, the belief that students can develop basic skills in the context of meaningful problem posing and problem-solving activities rather than isolated “targets” of instruction seems to refute this. That being said, the Jasper Series coincides with WISE with its emphasis on complex, problem solving, communication and reasoning and in connecting mathematics to the world outside the classroom. (Cognition and Technology and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992).

Looking at this more closely in WISE design it has been found that students prefer to not have a lot of detail before they begin their inquiry, but rather work well with an  initial page that provides an entry into the disciplinary knowledge and provides hyperlinks for students who wish more detail. In this way, making science accessible may not mean making it simple (Linn et al., 2003). This mirrors the anchored instruction shown in the Jasper Series as well.

Another link between the Jasper Series and WISE seems to be the belief that the educator should be a facilitator rather than the disseminator of information. In WISE an inquiry map helps students work independently on their project with prompts that help guide through process. Teachers can also easily customize the projects to match their curriculum and students.

The flexible, continually changing approach to WISE is based on the need for scientific materials that enable local adaptation along with support from multiple cycles of trial and refinement. Students’ needs and what scientific inquiries which engage them are also closely considered. Providing students with content they are interested in and that may have an impact on them is part of the real-world problem solving that is encapsulated in anchored instruction.  This continual refinement is also found in the Jasper Series. Technology can provide for this, whereas traditional textbooks cannot. Furthermore new technologies can be integrated into WISE and the system itself scaffolds the use of offline activities by providing a project context, a pedagogical framework, and proven curriculum design patterns.

Customizing WISE would be beneficial. If I were to use any of the inquiries I could integrate the climate and realities in Northwestern Ontario or the Canadian Shield. In addition I could integrate information about Lake Superior, one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world, which is situated in Thunder Bay (the students’ hometown). Local flora and fauna could be considered. The seasons and the weather locally could also be integrated. These are just some examples.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87 (4), 517-538.

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

Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities-Jasper and Reflections on my Teaching Practice

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The article, “Mathematics Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Instructional Components”, helped me to further analyze the Jasper series and its goals. Within this study the researchers sorted the studies by major types of instructional variables. Their interest was in the detailed curriculum design and teaching practices that resulted in enhanced mathematics and they focussed on the essential attributes of effective practice. They went further and defined “explicit instruction”, which in previous research has shown positive effects in terms of increased understanding of mathematical skills for students with learning disabilities. The researchers broke it down into three components: (a) The teacher demonstrated a step-by-step plan (strategy) for solving the problem, (b) this step-by-step plan needed to be specific for a set of problems (as opposed to a general problem-solving heuristic strategy), and (c) students were asked to use the same procedure/steps demonstrated by the teacher to solve the problem (Gersten, Chard, Jayanthi, Baker, Morphy & Flojo, 2009). They also looked at the methods that exemplify a generic approach for solving a problem, student verbalizations of their mathematical reasoning, using visual representations while solving problems and range and sequence of examples. They further investigated providing ongoing formative assessment data and feedback to teachers on students’ mathematics performance, providing formative assessment data and feedback to students with LD on their mathematics performance and peer-assisted math instruction.

The results of the meta-analysis rendered some interesting data. Firstly, peer assisted learning did not provide much benefit, whereas being tutored by a well-trained older student or adult appears to help significantly (Gersten, et al., 2009). When assisting students with LD in my classroom, this finding is important, as I often pair my students with LD with their peers in order to provide more scaffolding or scaffolding when I am busy helping other students. I will need to rethink this approach.

In addition the two instructional components that provided significant benefits were teaching students to use heuristics (a process or method) to solve problems and explicit instruction (Gersten et al., 2009). When reflecting on these findings I still have some questions. I do teach my LD students a certain process or method to solving mathematical problems but I also don’t want to limit their strategies as we are being told to allow them to explore mathematical problems with a variety of strategies. Now that I think about this, perhaps students with LD do not benefit from a variety of strategies but are best served with a limited number of strategies to use, at least initially. In terms of explicit instruction, I do provide this to my students with LD, although they are also part of any open-ended problem solving that we do in class. I feel it is important to expose them to this type of mathematics as well, but perhaps they would be better served working on other math during this time. That being said, the researchers found that explicit instruction should not be the only form of instruction, so perhaps I should continue to expose the LD students to our open-ended problem solving discussions.

They also found that the sequence of examples is of importance when new skills are being taught, so scaffolding is critical for student success. Examples and problems should move from simple to increasing complexity (Gersten et al., 2009). When reflecting on my own teaching, I find that I do this naturally with all students, as it makes sense to me to move from simple to more complex problems. That being said, and reflecting on the Jasper series, perhaps introducing complex problems that students have to work through and problem solve through may be of more benefit.  The Jasper experiment believes that engaging students in real-world problems that are inherently interesting and important helps students understand why it is important to learn various sub skills and when they are useful. The Jasper adventures are purposely created to reflect the complexity of real world problems (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992).  As part of inquiry teaching (a method I use to teach some of the time in my classroom), I often introduce mathematical problems based on math explored in read-alouds. For example, when reading the book “Iron Man” we explored measurement as we explored how big we thought the Iron Man, the science fiction character in the story, would be compared to us as students. So in this way I attempt to introduce concepts that lead the students down possibly unexplored mathematical pathways and see what they can produce. I am left with the wondering: Do LD students benefit from this?

Importantly, the study showed that the process of encouraging students to verbalize their thinking or their strategies, or even the explicit strategies modeled by the teacher, was always effective (Gersten et al., 2009). In my teaching practice I often use verbal understandings to gain a better understanding of student understanding/misunderstanding and for ongoing assessment to move forward. I do this for all students, but particularly for students with LD.

It appears that teachers and students also benefit if the teachers are given specific guidance on addressing instructional needs or curricula so that they can immediately provide relevant instructional material to their student.  Teachers require support!!  This is an important point to discuss as educators are often expected to know what to do in all situations with a variety of different styles of learners, with a variety of curriculum and with a variety of learning abilities. As Schulman (1986) noted in his research, teacher training and the type of training provided needs to be revised to reflect both content and pedagogical knowledge.  The fact of the matter is that educators do not have all of these skills and cannot devote the amount of time required to meet the needs of all students. Teachers require the supports of special education teachers, administration, professional development, etc. in order to gain and implement these skills.  The research further disseminates this as the researchers recommend that providing specific instructional guidelines and curricular materials for teachers  and co-teachers or providing support services, peer tutors, cross-age tutors and/or adults providing extra support would be of direct benefit to students with LD (Gersten, et al., 2009).

Interestingly the researchers found at there seems to be no benefit in providing students with LD-specific feedback that is specifically linked to their goal attainment (Gersten et al., 2009). This seems to refute the feedback loop that we are encouraged to use as educators in order to help students to move forward in their learning. I will have to consider this when providing feedback to LD students. Perhaps spending more time on heuristics and explicit instruction and use of visuals would provide better scaffolding for their learning. I look forward to your thoughts on these points.

References

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

Gersten, R., Chard., D.J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S.K., Morphy, P., Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202-1242.

Shulman, Lee S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.  Educational Researcher, 15(2)., pp. 4-14.

 

Schulman and PCK Reflections

Uncategorized Leave a comment

In Schulman’s reflections we see the recent development of a distinction between knowledge and pedagogy. The idea of teacher competence has shifted towards competence with pedagogy rather than the historical view of teachers as the holders and disseminators of knowledge.  With the emphasis  on classroom management, organizational skills,  assignment creation and questioning formats, planning and assessment strategies Schulman proposes that an important piece is missing. We should be asking  questions about how the content of the lessons is taught. The important questions of where teacher explanations come from, how decisions about teaching are made, how to represent content, how to question students and how to deal with problems of misunderstanding are integral to sound practice. He proposes that by asking these questions we can begin to build information that can address gaps in these areas.  Content deserves as much attention as the elements of teaching process.

 

He disseminates this further, breaking down knowledge into 3 components: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge, all of which should be robust for education to be rich and for an optimal teaching and learning environment.

In my own classroom I am currently teaching the concept of time to grade 2 students. When teaching this concept, the background knowledge in skip counting by 5’s and well as previous understanding on time to the hour both on analog and digital clocks is helpful. It can be a difficult concept for some students because the numbers on the clock 1-12 also correspond with skip counting by 5’s all the way from 0-60. The hour is 60 minutes, there are 5 minutes between each number on the clock. So, there are a lot of competing mathematical ideas for young children to simultaneously understand. In addition, there are several different names for time. There is 6:30 and half-past 6:00. There are 6:45 and a quarter to 7:00. In addition, with a heavy reliance on telling time digitally, for example on a mobile device, many parents are not discussing time or telling time using an analog clock at home. Yet, it is still in our  curriculum.

When I teach time I usually have the children construct a model of their own clock with paper and this is a scaffold for them as we begin to explore the concept. In grade 2 the curriculum asks for us to explore 15 minutes on the clock, so 6:15, 6:30, and 6:45.  I begin by reviewing time by the hour and having a discussion with the students about why it is helpful or important to learn to tell the time. We brainstorm ideas and discuss this. Then we begin to map out different important times within the day at school, nutrition break, lunch, recess, etc. On idea I have been reflecting on lately is the fact that time is viewed different within different cultures, and I would like to explore this more fully as I am only teaching from my perspective of linear time. Some cultures believe in circular time.  This brings me back to PCK.  Just because an educator has knowledge of something does not mean it will fit within the structures of our school. Time is limited and decisions need to be made based on many factors.

Digitally I use an interactive clock on the smart board to practice telling time, and I also have children engaged in time games which helps solidify understandings in a fun way. Telling time is a skill that can be taught in school, but for it to be useful the students need to “need” to use it in real ways in their lives. So I introduce the concept, allow them to try using it in school and hopefully in grade 3 and so on they will continue to grow in their understandings and ‘need” to be able to tell the time.

Shulman, Lee S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.  Educational Researcher,  15,  2., pp. 4-14.

Ideal Pedagogical Design in Technologically Enhanced Science/Math

Uncategorized, , , , , , Leave a comment

  

The ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and/or science would be based on innovative teacher and student practices. Constructivist activities would allow for student led learning, with teacher as facilitator. As Kozma (2003) notes, teachers are not the disseminators of information but rather act as the “guide on the side”, providing planning, structure and ongoing check-ins and assessment for learning. With this type of learning, the educator must have proficiency using technology tools and platforms in different ways, so ongoing collaboration between educators as well as ongoing training would be an important piece of this puzzle. The pedagogical design would take into account the availability of appropriate technology tools as well as providing stimulating questions or wonderings in which the students would be able to choose their learning path but still be provided with scaffolding throughout. These questions or wonderings could then be linked to the curriculum through purposeful guidance by the educators and through looking for patterns and links between the queries and the curricula. Students would be encouraged to work collaboratively and to reach findings and to use technology to its full capabilities including analysis, problem solving, designing and implementing.  Students would be encouraged to reflect on their learning, share through a variety of presentation tools and continue to incorporate new technology tools in their learning.

Robert B. Kozma (2003) Technology and Classroom Practices, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2003.10782399

Initial Reflections on the Jasper Series

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Before reading the article about Jasper anchored instruction, I explored the videos just to get a feel for what this series entailed.  I also wanted to get my initial impressions without having much background. The first thing that struck me was that they were posed as challenges, which I believe would be engaging to students. Then I noticed that they were real-life explorations and I reflected that they would foster rich discussion amongst students. These problems or “situations” would allow students to test out, hypothesize, work and rework as they problem solved. It would be messy but rewarding. They may require some facilitation along the way or a sounding board, but the problem solving would be student centered.

Some questions I had after watching the videos were:

  1. Would it be possible to have the students conduct some of these situations in real-life? (as an adjunct to the videos)
  2. What background in mathematical terminology would the students require?
  3. Could the students competently solve these problems without some prior math knowledge in the area of exploration (rate, capacity, range, temperature, etc.)
  4. What software or platform was used to create and share the videos?

After reflecting on the videos I read the essential article, ” The Jasper Experiment: An Exploration of Issues in Learning and Instructional Design Cognition and Technology”. I was happy to see that many of my reflections correlated with the article.

Within the situational videos basic skills are important, but students develop them in the context of meaningful problem posing and problem-solving activities rather than as isolated “targets” of instruction. (    )students must learn to identify and define issues and problems on their own rather than simply respond to problems that others have posed. I also found it interesting that the videos naturally encourage cooperative learning in which students have opportunities to discuss and explain which can assist in solidifying understanding. It is also interestingly noted that working in these cooperative groups allows the students to monitor one another and thus keep one another on track. This would definitely allow the teacher to take on a facilitation role more naturally.

The videos align with the goals of the NCTM as well. These include an emphasis on complex, open-ended problem solving, communication, and reasoning. In addition, connecting mathematics to other subjects and to the world outside the classroom is encouraged. The Jasper videos seem to fit the bill.

Within the article it explains that educators allow the students as much time and room to work on these problems without teacher interaction. Some may see this as foolhardy and may contest that certain skill sets need to be taught before complex problem solving can occur. The Jasper Experiment believes that engaging students in real-world problems that are inherently interesting and important helps students understand why it is important to learn various sub skills and when they are useful. The Jasper adventures are purposely created to reflect the complexity of real world problems.

Within the article it is also noted that Jasper developers are continuing to work with teachers in order to collect “scaffolding” or “guidance” information to include  with the videos. So although the goal of anchored instruction is situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers, some purposeful scaffolding and guidance can assist the problem solving process in some situations.

The Jasper Experiment: An Exploration of Issues in Learning and Instructional Design Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt Educational Technology Research and Development Vol. 40, No. 1 (1992), pp. 65-80