Category: Module C. Emerging Genres of Teaching, Learning and Digital Technologies

Like other mobile technology, Apps also found acceptance amongst many. Marc (March, 26) asked some thought provoking questions about whether the effectiveness of apps results from it single use, its ability to allow touch and mobility. I agree that I found students more raptly involved in apps than computer activities. It could be the novelty factor and the way you can hold an Ipad closer – like a book. It is definitely more intimate.

The wow factor of such technologies is an added bonus. David, Steph, and I agreed that while it is the initial hook, it also allows for play –which can be very productive and promote higher level thinking.

I think Apps are making huge inroads into education as we see more Ipads at schools.  There are many educational apps available for a variety of topics and different age groups of learners. The bottom line though is still the same – for the tool to be effective it needs to be a part of a meaningful learning process.

A question I  have is – does this learning style work for all? 

 

How would you customize any of the mobile technologies discussed in this lesson to facilitate embodied learning or mobile learning for math or science? Explain your choices.

I am fascinated by the prospects of using Apps in the classroom to teach science and math. Apps like other simulations, applets and sites provide learners with experiences that they would otherwise have to imagine. Apps can provide multisensory experiences about how the natural world operates by mirroring it.

My school has acquired three Ipads in the last little while and I have seen positive results of embodied learning when we have used Apps to teach in small groups or with individual students. My Learning Assistant teacher, the parents of the students involved, and I have noticed and discussed that the level of student involvement and motivation is very high. It is much different and intense compared to use of applets /sites on the computer or doing interactive activities on the Smart board.

Embodied learning theorists /scientists believe that all our experiences are grounded in our body (Winn, 2003). Hence cognition gets enhanced when learning involves multimodality, kinesthetic, and collaboration. So when we create a learning environment with activities that involve the above and interact with that environment, cognition happens [Winn, 2003]. I can see this happen with the use of Apps in the classroom. Using Apps involves touching and maneuvering. Apps are also multimodal as they involve visuals, sound, touch, and spatial interactions. For example, if we use the App shared by Valerie [Solids Elementary HD] in the math class where students can examine shapes by touching them, moving them, and opening them in their nets [which could not happen with a solid, real manipulative] their understanding of geometric shapes will be enhanced.

Winn also says that we have different perceptions and views depend on our different experiences of the environment (2003). There are often misconceptions that can be formed due to many reasons. Also students may get distracted by the other affordances of the Apps. For example I do mention that the wow factor in the app I recommended [Solar Walk] can be very distracting.

Since students will perceive the app contents in their own individual way, collaboration and discussions will allow students to check their mental models and modify them if needed. I found discussions helpful even when using the very structured and directive Apps like Mitosis. As my daughter and I went through it – discussing and rehashing what we had just seen and done- it helped making sense of the next stage.

This clearly suggestion the need to embed the use of Apps in the constructivist learning processes like T-GEM (Khan, 2007) and the LfU (Edelson, 2001). We know that no technology is effective till embedded in proper pedagogy. By creating a learning environment where the students can interact with content in multisensory and multimodal fashion to create mental models and then collaborate with others to assess, evaluate, and modify their mental models will complete the embodied learning experience. The role of the teacher becomes that of a guide or an expert who can help students through their ZPD’s by providing some guiding information. I so believe that Apps are pervasive technology whose use can shift the class towards a more student centred and self-directed learning (Zhang et.al, 2011).

Resources:

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. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2736%28200103%2938:3%3C355::AID-TEA1010%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2004, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

Zhang, B., Looi, C-K, Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L-H, Chen, W, So, H-J, Soloway, E. & Norris, C. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education, 55,

I shake my head in amazement at the educational content present on the Web. I look back at my barren education – limited to text books, libraries, and the “word” of the teacher. I wonder if I would have better understanding of science and math concepts if these multimodal online resources and networked communities were available then.

 However there is a strong consensus among education pundits that affordance to support meaningful learning is not inherent in content but the pedagogical processes applied. Therefore the challenge is, as Siemens (2003) puts it, to select the media type [sites] that most effectively presents the learning material in order to achieve intended learning outcomes.”

 This emphasizes the need to customize online activities and embed networked communities in sound pedagogical processes to facilitate construction and diffusion of knowledge.  So as I examine the Exploratorium and the VFT, two of the suggested online resources with awe and excitement, I realize that the fabulous resources present there needs to be implanted in sound pedagogical practice, or the learning will be lost.

 The Exploratorium successfully attempts to provide real experiences to its online audiences. Falk (2010) establishes in his study that learning and entertainment are complimentary and not conflicting goals. Online museums like Exploratorium present content in a visually appealing and entertaining manner.  It broadcasts live video and audio from the museum or from locations. It provides multimodal presentations of special events and museum resources. Its digital library provides for hundreds of webcasts, video clips, podcasts, and slideshows. Hsi states that such digital libraries provide multiple views of the structure of a domain, an approach that has been found to be important for learning (2008).

Virtual field trips is a powerful source for education. Bitner et al. (1999, as cited by Spicer & Stratford, 2001) found that use of VFT increased the ability of students to solve ‘real world problems’. In the same study it was established that VFT strengthened the learning that happens at a real field trip. Students also stated that VFTs were more effective when a discussion with classmates and experts was involved. This definitely suggests that the VFT is an effective tool when embedded within a community of learning which include novices and experts.

 Examining the affordances of both tools, I believe both can be effectively embedded in an inquiry based learning model in which students are actively involved in their learning through questioning, discussing, and investigating to build new knowledge. Content from Exploratorium can be used to allow students to examine authentic science issues if examined collaboratively with not just teacher facilitation but modeling as well. Sugar & Bonk (1998) found that students had difficulty transferring skills and synthesizes even after a collaborative learning process, probably, in the absence of teacher modeling. Exploratorium itself promotes inquiry based learning on its site.

 I believe activities and content of Exploratorium and VTF can be embedded easily within constructivist learning models like the LfU and T-GEM. In T-GEM ,activities could be used in the evaluation stage to help students examine their generated ideas and modify them.  In the LfU model they could be used for refinement of knowledge constructed. T-GEM where the activities could be used in the evaluation stage to help students examine their generated ideas and modify them. Mindful engagement with electronic collaboration – might lead students into cognitive processes of writing & communicating that they would not have done independently and also challenge them to new levels of growth and understanding (Sugar & Bonk, 1998).

 

Reference:

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20319/abstract

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, 20(9), 891-899.http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/l7991616266n77jq/

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.

Sugar, W. A., & Bonk, C.J. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse (pp. 131-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

 

As a class we have built a very comprehensive collection of virtual simulations for science and virtual math manipulatives. Now does having a good collection make me a better math /science teacher? I have a large library in my class filled with multitudes of fiction and non-fiction books. Does that make me a good Language Arts teacher?

I digress. The point is – we teachers hoard resources /tools but often are unable to help that child get the concept. Often teachers use the virtual tools as a glorified show and tell on the class smart board where students see the tools function but do not get to work with them.  Since students barely interact with these tools, how are they going to find them beneficial?

There needs to be a realization amongst teachers that the affordance to support meaningful learning is not inherent in digital manipulatives. These manipulatives needs to be supported by good pedagogy to be effective. It is critical for teachers to choose technology based resources that can be employed in a constructivist learning process – that facilitate learning beyond drill and practice – that heightens critical thinking and is student centered. The tools need to be used in a process which will allow students to “get their hands dirty” in a multimodal ways.

 
The second issue regarding using virtual manipulatives is that are these tools effective or just a glamorous activity with no pedagogical value.
Srinivasan, Palmer, Brooks, and Fowler (2006) suggest that for novices anything other than the real system is perceived as fake. I can see their rational when I think of the stages of development suggested by Piaget. Can young learners make the connection between the math concept and the manipulative they are using or does it make the concept more confusing for them?  I have on many occasions put away manipulatives when I see the students getting more confused.

One wonders, then about the applicability and effectiveness of virtual math manipulatives. Are they of pedagogical value, should they be used sparingly, only in the absence of the real thing, or in combination with them?  

Research shows increased engagement, motivation, and conceptual understanding can be achieved through the use of virtual math manipulatives (Crawford and Brown, (2003), Reimer and Moyer, (2005)).  Most importantly, using such manipulatives reduces the cognitive load for the learner and allows them to focus on the process (Suh and Moyer-Packenham, 2007).

Denise and I examined WisWeb and Illuminations because we found it more applicable to elementary math concepts but went ahead and used the Virtual Manipulative Web site as we wanted to share the wide scope of this tool with our class and experiment with it ourselves.  We used grade 3 math and science outcomes to plan a lesson using the T-GEM model. In all honesty, it was not a hard feat –probably because we believe in the constructivist learning. To examine and interact with virtual manipulatives, to be able to discuss these processes to build knowledge is what makes using these manipulatives most effective. I guess all discussions always come down to the needs and effect of having a strong foundation!

Lesson attached below the references

References:

Crawford, C. & Brown, E. (2003). Integrating Internet-based Mathematical Manipulatives Within a Learning Environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 22(2), 169-180.

Reimer, K., & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-Graders Learn About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 24(1), 5-25.

 

Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006).  Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 1-5.   

 

Suh, J.,& Moyer-Packenham, P. (2007) The application of dual coding theory in multi-representational virtual mathematics enviroments. Retrieved March 9th, 2012 from http://www.emis.de/proceedings/PME31/4/208.pdf

 

Grade/Subject: Grade 3Math		Unit Topic/Theme: Geometry	Lesson #: 1 [ 45 min]
IRP Reference	Geometry
	Targeted PLO(s) for this lesson:       Describe 3‐D objects according to the shape of the faces, and the number of edges and vertices

 

Student Learning Objective(s):

Students will be able to ….   Examine and compare attributes of 3 dimensional objects   Work with classmates Generate, evaluate, and modify mental models

 

Teacher Preparation:

Materials/Resources:

1 computer between 2 students Website:  Virtual Manipulative    Two sided worksheet with the same layout as the web tool on both sides and a line at the bottom saying ” We sorted this way because………”

 

Lesson Structure & Development:

Lesson Element	Focus	Time (min)	Instructional Strategies & Learning Activities
Orientation	Activation  of Prior knowledge ( 3D shapes have vertices and surfaces)	10	Students will examine the 3D shapes on the Virtual Manipulative site. They will examine the face shapes, the number of vertices, number of surfaces, and number of edges.Setting on Virtual Manipulative: Manipulative: Geometric Solids Background :  Blank
Generating idea	Students work with partners to develop  ideas( about how they can solve this question)	10	“Now sort the 3D objects into two columns” “You have to come up with your own criteria for sorting. Remember there are many ways to sort.”   Teacher will go from group to group and encourage brainstorming about different possible criteria – number of vertices, number of surfaces, and shape of faces… Setting on Virtual Manipulative Manipulative: Geometric Solids Background :  Work mat : Two Columns “                 “Now draw your sort on side A of the given worksheet and explain the reason of your sort.”
Evaluating idea	Help students evaluate their ideas further through sharing with two other groups	10	“Share your sort with another group.”“Discuss the similarities and differences between your sorts.”“Examine their criteria for the sort and explain your own criteria for the sort.” “Repeat the same process with another group.” Supplies needed: Worksheet with side A completed.
Modifying  idea:	Students apply their new knowledge to reexamine their idea	10	Students go back to their computer to apply this new knowledge. [ 5 min] “Redo your sort if you think the sort needs to be adjusted.” “Draw your new sort on side B of the worksheet and explain your reason. We changed / did not change our sort because……”  Setting: Manipulative: Geometric Solids Background :  Work mat : Two Columns Worksheet
Math Congress	Class discussion	5	Invite a group to show their new sort to the entire class on the Smart board using Virtual Manipulative and to explain their rationale.  Then invite another group who did it differently.   Conclusion: 3D shapes can be sorted on basis of their different attributes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science Extension

 

Grade/Subject: Grade 3 Science		Unit Topic/Theme: Structures	Lesson #: 1 [45min.]
IRP Reference	Curriculum OrganizerPhysical Science
	Targeted PLO(s) for this lesson: ·         Compare the effects of different materials, shapes, and forces on the strength and stability of different structures

 

Student Learning Objective(s):

Students will be able to …. ·       Reactivate their prior knowledge about 3D geometric shapes ·         Work with classmates ·         Recognize where shapes are used in structures for stability

 

Teacher Preparation:

Materials/Resources:

·         1 computer between 2 students Website:  Virtual Manipulative ·         Website:  http://speckyboy.com/2009/10/11/around-the-world-with-35-famous-lego-monuments-and-buildings/ ·         Worksheet: A three column chart to show which shape is used where in a structure and why.

 Lesson Structure & Development:

Lesson Element	Focus	Time (min)	Instructional Strategies & Learning Activities
Orientation	Activation  of Prior knowledge that 3D objects are used in structures	5	Students will identify the type of 3D objects [prisms, pyramids, spheres, cylinders, cones, domes] and identify them within structures. In pairs they will examine the school building, pictures provided on the website and identify them.[ Students may use school Ipads  and camera to take pictures of these shapes and identify them]
Generating idea	Students will work with a partner to identify where certain 3D objects get used in structures	10	“Where in the structures on the website, pictures, and school building do you find different 3D objects being used?”http://speckyboy.com/2009/10/11/around-the-world-with-35-famous-lego-monuments-and-buildings/                   “Do you see a pattern emerging? Are certain objects used only in specific parts of a structure?” Why do you think so?  “Make entries on your worksheet and also write why you think the shapes are being used in that position.”
Evaluating idea	Students will check their idea	15	Students will get together with another group and discuss and compare their finding.They will also share their reasoning.Students will repeat the same activity with another group.
Modifying idea	Students apply their new knowledge to modify their original idea	10	Students will go back and re-examine the object shapes on the given resources and reevaluate their reasoning.They will modify their original idea if needed and provide an explanation as to why they are changing their idea.
Class Discussion		5	Teacher will show the same images on the smart board and invite groups to share their observation about where certain 3D objects are used in structures and why. Conclusion: Certain shapes get used in certain parts of structure depending on how strong they are.