February 14, 2017 · 12:18 pm

Thinking Out Loud – A Conversation on Anchored Instruction

Alongside the writing on The Jasper Series by Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992) , Shyu’s (2000) research on implementing video-based anchored instruction in Taiwan, and Vye, Goldman, Voss, Hmelo and Williams’ (1997) research on middle school students and college students working through The Big Splash, are considered in the following response.

**********

Anchored instruction is based on the theories of situated learning, cognitive apprenticeship and cooperative learning with the aim to enhance student problem-solving skills (Shyu, 2000). Anchored instruction largely involves generative learning. CTGV (1992) describes generative learning, by quoting Resnick and Resnick, as necessary for effective learning. Concepts and principles “have to be called upon over and over again as ways to link, interpret, and explain new information” (p.67). Anchored instruction situates “the instruction in meaningful problem-solving contexts that allow one to simulate in the classroom some of the advantages of apprenticeship learning (CTGV, 1992, p.67).  As well, anchored instruction focuses on cooperative learning which allows for the construction of ‘communities of inquiry’ – a space for students to grow understanding through discussion, explaining, and reasoning or argumentation (CTGV, 1992; Vye et al., 1997).

One of the important nuances of anchored instruction specifically evident in the research of Vye et al. (1997) is the effectiveness of thinking out loud. In their research, two experiments were completed, the first with individual students and the second with dyads or partner groupings. In both experiments, the students were asked to perform their thinking out loud. In the first experiment, the student did not participate in any dialogue with another student, instead verbalizing ideas in monologue style. In the second experiment, the students participated in reasoning, or arguments, to reach a solution, consisting of both agreements and disagreement. The success of problem-solving through reasoning in a dyad setting is attributed speculatively to the active expressing of ideas and thinking verbally, and the monitoring of reasoning and problem solving ideas by the partner. Furthermore, the data showing goal and argument linkages indicates that “goals tend to be followed by arguments and argumentation often leads to new goals” (p.472). Interestingly, the data related to the types of arguments indicated that 33% of the arguments were positive in agreement, while 67% were negative, or disagreements, both of which often lead to a new goal (Vye et al., 1997). Considering this thinking out loud aspect of anchored instruction is transformational for math instruction in general, as math problem solving traditionally is completed visually on paper, on a technology screen, or mentally – in silence.  One math resource by Sherry Parrish (2014) that I have recently acquired is entitled Number Talks: Helping Children Build Mental Math and Computation Strategies. Although digital technology is not a component of this K-5 curriculum {except for a CD-Rom with number talk sessions to instruct teachers on how to implement number talks), the physical act of talking, communicating ideas, reasoning and recognizing that there are many ways to solve a problem are premised throughout. A similar resource for grades 4-10 by Cathy Humphreys and Ruth Parker (2015) is entitled Making Number Talks Matter. Both of these resources do incorporate problem solving, but not in the same way as the video-based anchored instruction highlighted in the readings – problem solving is very much computational, rather than real-life scenarios and these math talk conversations and problem solving are dependent on access to previous knowledge, rather than generating knowledge through the problem solving. However, both math talks and anchored instruction do include ‘talking about math’, allowing for misconceptions to come to light and for students to better understand the why, when and how of mathematics. When a student is able to speak their understanding, that understanding becomes theirs to own, and becomes a tool through which they are now learning.

In closing, Vye et al. (1997) mention other problem solving enrichments that have been established by others. Following is a collected list of further inquiry readings. These readings are referenced on p.479.

Problem Solving Reading List

References

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

Humphries, C. & Parker, R. (2015). Making number talks matter: Developing mathematical practices and deepening understanding, grades 4-10. United States of America: Stenhouse Publishers.

Parrish, S. (2014). Number talks: Helping Children Build Mental Math and Computation Strategies. Sausalito, California: Math Solutions.

Shyu, H.-Y. C. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31: 57–69. doi:10.1111/1467-8535.00135

Vye, N., Goldman, S., Voss, J., Hmelo, C., Williams, S., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Complex Mathematical Problem Solving by Individuals and Dyads. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 435-484. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233775

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

February 13, 2017 · 7:35 am

Reshaping Instructional Design: A Tale of Jasper Series Inspiration

Upon initially exploring the video-based anchored instructional tool entitled The Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series, skepticism on the necessity and the effectiveness of this resource as an enhancer of student learning through problem solving presented itself: Couldn’t effective complex problem solving exist without the use of contrived video-based scenarios? Even after recognizing the intricate seven design features highlighted in the article by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992), the effectiveness of the Jasper series wasn’t convincing. It was only through the actual viewing of video samples from the series, as well as reading through a storyboard version in the Vye, Goldman, Voss, Hmelo and Williams study (1997) that the ingenuity of this anchored instructional design tool became pronounced. CTGV (1992) defines anchored instruction as situated learning that occurs in an “engaging, problem-rich environment that allow[s] sustained exploration by students and teachers” (p.65). The Jasper Series is a problem-rich environment as problem-solving is initiated with a proposed challenge, and the proposed challenge can only be solved through a minimum of fourteen steps, thus requiring a prolonged inquiry and exploration period. In order to solve the problems, the initial problem and the problems posed along the way, the student is required to find embedded clues, pose new problems, and seek alternative solutions (CTGV, 1992). The complexity of the problem solving within the problem solving is unfounded in traditional math curriculums, ensuring that the Jasper Series is an instructional design tool worthy of consideration.

Through the ETEC 533 discussion, one posting has inspired me to move forward with the learning acquired through the Jasper series related viewings and readings. Allison Kostiuk, an elementary teacher, began designing and writing complex problems reflecting realistic and relevant narrative for her students. Kostiuk chose to complete this type of narrative by “incorporating the names of … students throughout the problems, investigating daily issues that arise for … students, and further personalizing the problem by using pictures of… students encountering the problem” (Kostiuk, 2017). This idea of designing personalized problems for students resonates with me as the thought had previously crossed my mind while working through the readings and viewings on the Jasper Series. However, I had not taken time to act upon it. Although designing complex video-based instruction is not plausible at this time, a dramatized audio story or simple dramatic retelling could be viable in presenting students with many of the similar design features as evident through the Jasper Series. Incorporated design features would include video-based or audio-based formatting to increase motivation, narrative with realistic problems, generative formatting, embedded data design, and links across the curriculum (CTGV, 1992). A designed storytelling video-based problem solving scenario is planned to be shared with students at the beginning of this upcoming month. Once completed, it will be available within this posting.

Originally, my TELE design was founded on the concept of reciprocal interaction involving direct input from the student and reciprocal output from the technology. To read the definition of my initial TELE design, please visit here: Reciprocal Interaction: A TELE Design.  Through the readings, viewings, discussions, and considerations related to the Jasper Series, it has become evident that the video-based anchored learning does not fit my original TELE design. Within the Jasper Series, the technology was outputting information while the learner acted as a recipient, inputting information into the mind and then outputting learning into the surrounding environment to work towards solving problems. Following is an altered version of a reciprocal interaction design model with the option for the student to interact through input and output with the surroundings, rather than solely inputting back into the technology. Although the concept of reciprocal interaction continues to be an important feature in my TELE design, interaction with the surrounding environment is essential in bringing relevance to the learning as well as offering the opportunity for collaborative learning and reasoning.

 

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

 

Kostiuk, A. (2017, February 10). Problem solving with anchored instruction [Weblog message]. Retrieved from  https://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/02/10/problem-solving-with-anchored-instruction/
Citation in text (Kostiuk, 2017)
Vye, N., Goldman, S., Voss, J., Hmelo, C., Williams, S., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 435-484. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233775

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

February 10, 2017 · 8:39 pm

Transforming Teaching and Learning Through Pro-D

During Module A discussion, the need for educational technology related professional development for teachers was highlighted as necessary in equipping teachers for technology use in their classroom. The specifications of professional development were not thoroughly described in the discussions, which welcomes Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) detailed explanation of effective professional development using a “learning-technology-by-approach design” (p.1035). This approach incorporates TPCK and focuses “on learning by doing, and less so on overt lecturing and traditional teaching. Design is learned by becoming a practitioner, albeit for the duration of the course, not merely by learning about practice (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p.1035). TPCK encourages professional development in an alternative process than is typical through workshops; professional development needs to be an integration of learning about the technology (content) and learning to use the technology in an authentic learning context (pedagogy). “Standard techniques of teacher professional development or faculty development, such as workshops or stand-alone technology courses, are based on the view that technology is self-contained and emphasize this divide between how and where skills are learned (e.g., workshops) and where they are to be applied (e.g., class- rooms)” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 31). Also key to TPCK, is the learning not of specific programs – software or hardware, but of the underlying principles of technology use. This is essential as “newer technologies often disrupt the status quo, requiring teachers to reconfigure not just their understanding of technology but of all three components [i.e. content, knowledge, pedagogy]” (Mishra & Koehler, 2016, p.1030). Developing a repertoire as described by Wasley, Hampel and Clark (1997) and quoted by Mishra and Koehler (2006) as ‘‘a variety of techniques, skills, and approaches in all dimensions of education that teachers have at their fingertips’’ (p. 45) helps to equip teachers to move from a professional development experience into their classrooms and choose the technology tools that will best meet the needs of their students. This supports Petrie’s (1986) extension of Schulman’s aphorism, “those who can, do; those who understand, teach” (Shulman, 1986b, p. 14) as he describes understanding as needing to be “linked to judgment and action, to the proper uses of understanding in the forg­ing of wise pedagogical decisions” (as quoted in Schulman, 1987, p.14).

The term “transformation” that Schulman (1987) uses to refer to the experience that occurs as content knowledge is passed from teacher to student provides an effective visual image. He describes this transformation as “the capacity of a teacher to transform the content knowledge he or she possesses into forms that are pedagogically power­ful and yet adaptive to the variations in ability and background presented by the students (p.15). This transformation offers opportunity for individualized learning, teaching for the student rather than at the student, and aligns well with my teaching experience at present:

One example of incorporating PCK in my own teaching is in constructing individualized student learning plans for each of my students. As a distance learning teacher, I work with each student individually rather than offering a standard course or program. Conversations are held prior to the start of the learning year to design a student learning plan that consists of curriculum, resources, activities, etc. that cover the content area prescribed for the student’s grade level, but also adheres to the student’s interests, abilities, learning environment and effective ways of learning. Throughout the year, the student learning plan evolves as necessary, but again with the individual student’s needs guiding the changes. As students share their learning with me throughout the year, I provide specific feedback often suggesting areas that they can grow in their representation of ideas, as well as designing or recommending specific assignments to further their learning experiences. Although the forms of transformation may look different in a distance learning context, the process of moving from “personal comprehension to preparing for the comprehension of others” (Schulman, 1987, p.16) still occurs through preparation, representation, instructional selections, adaptations and tailoring (Schulman, 1987).

 

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.
Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , , ,

· 8:20 pm

Reciprocal Interaction

Aligning closely with my personal definition of technology as interactive affordances, is Jonassen’s (2000) thinking on technology as “cognitive affordances”. Jonassen supports constructivist methods of learning and suggests that technology use requires students to think purposefully about how and why they are using technology while inquiring, knowledge building, problem solving, collaborating and self assessing. In addition to Jonassen’s perspective, technology defined as interactive affordances requires students to actively participate with technology through an actual relationship established through processes of input and reciprocal output. Generally within the interaction, the student is required to provide input while the technology responds with output. This type of interaction augments the learning experience for the student, creating a reciprocal environment; the student and technology participate in a dialogue experience, rather than the student passively receiving a technological monologue. 

In designing a TELE (technology enhanced learning environment), incorporating the following five areas of learning is ideal: planning, collaborating, creating, sharing and reflecting. Each of these five areas requires an interactive approach with technology, along with an engaging relationship with varied digital tool possibilities. Designing spaces that allow for individual and collaborative learning provides opportunity for students to synthesize and articulate their own ideas, and then join together with others to receive feedback and new ideas. Collaboration and feedback also include teacher scaffolding through questioning, comments and formative assessment. Interactive affordances and the reciprocal nature of learning within this TELE occurs because of relationship with both the technology and other individuals

 

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

January 27, 2017 · 12:23 am

Exploring Technology in Math and Science Learning Spaces – Interviews

Abstract:

Teacher L is a distance learning teacher working for an independent school in British Columbia. In the past, she has taught high school math and science courses in both public and private brick and mortar schools. She has also spent two years teaching overseas. Teacher L is presently working with students from grades eight to twelve, facilitating math, science, physics and chemistry courses. She has been working as a distance learning teacher for the past eleven years and through her job has the opportunity to work from home.

This interview was conducted through a synchronous Zoom meeting session, using video and audio features. Teacher L was situated during the interview at her home work space in the Lower Mainland in British Columbia, while I was in a quiet conference room at a nearby library in Edmonton, Alberta. 

When considering three keywords that could summarize Teacher L’s teaching experience intersected with the implementation of technology, the following words and phrases surfaced: isolated, stretched-thin, and low-risk. All three of these descriptors have a tinge of negativity associated with them, but through the interview with Teacher L, the negativity is balanced with a positive outlook towards future possibilities.

************************

As a distance learning teacher, Teacher L faces some issues of isolation. Throughout the interview there is little indication of collaboration efforts with colleagues or professional development in the area of technology. When asked how she has learned to incorporate referenced types of technology into her learning space, she admits that it is largely “through trial and error” and that “you just need to jump in”. When prodded to share if colleagues have been a useful resource in helping learn new technologies, she seemed unsure and responded with “I guess” and then mentioned that she has “emailed the Zoom people to see how to make things work” when initially setting up a Zoom conference room for her students. Although Teacher L does not seem to have much collaboration with other teachers, she is self motivated to learn new technologies, but feels that her teaching assignment is too broad and is too demanding of her time and energy. She states, “I think there are definitely programs, and like I said these labs and stuff out there, that could enhance it [student learning experience], but this is my own shortcoming that I need to find, or spend time researching and getting those programs, or finding those websites that would do more. When I think of technology enhancing learning, I think of those things that you can send the student to help them in a more practical way. Ultimately that is what I would love to add more of to the courses.” From an earlier portion of the interview she shares some hopes and frustrations: “One thing that I haven’t used, but I would like to use but it’s challenging, and to be honest because I have so many courses I haven’t been able to look into it as much, but there are online labs that are for chemistry and physics, but I haven’t implemented them as much as I would like. I feel like I haven’t implemented a lot.” 

Teacher L has implemented some use of technology within her teaching, course delivery and student learning requirements, however this implementation of technology is mainly used to instruct students through a delivery system. For communication with students, Teacher L mainly uses email, Skype and Zoom meetings. Her preference is now Zoom as she can “have a face-to-face and … hold up a diagram, but there is also the whiteboard option”. She describes the whiteboard option as one of the most beneficial technology teaching tools that she uses “because the ones [students] who are struggling need that more visual back and forth … that we can actually do with the whiteboard to go through the problems”. As well, Teacher L is using a Learning Management System called Canvas which allows her to set up courses for students to access content and assignments and then submit assignments, complete tests and receive feedback. As described in the interview, the younger grade eight and nine students require some teaching time to learn how to use Canvas, whereas the grades ten to twelve students were able to use it more intuitively. In response to challenges of use by the grade eight and nine she states, “Initially with Canvas, a lot of them were having issues putting the right thing in the right place and knowing how to use it. Next year, I need to start out differently with the students. Let’s take some time to learn to use this well.”

At this time in Teacher L’s career, ease of use of technology for both herself and her students is the key to a successful learning space. Perhaps our interview may spur her on to incorporating more complex uses of technology into her course design, but for now she asserts that a new technology must be “easy for them [the students] to open …, and see what they need to do, and easy for me to implement.”

The following Interview Analysis document includes portions of the interview transcript aligned with analysis. The analysis connects patterns and ideas from other teacher interviews presented through the ETEC 533 lesson.

Interview Analysis

A Poetic Reflection:

There can be a lot of talk about lack of accessibility,

a lot of complaining about unpredictable connections.

There can be the fear of the unknown,

of not knowing where to start,

or knowing what it means.

Fearing failure

 from the lack of control.

There can be the giving up and the giving in,

or there can be the G0-getter that keeps on giving

and persevering

and struggling

and reconnecting

and disconnecting

and redirecting. 

The onus is put on whom?

Who will accept the responsibility?

Who is willing to move beyond ease and the conventional

And take a risk beyond what is now? 

What is placed in this learning space?

Not rows of pupils facing front – 

with a sage on the stage  

and a static page at hand.

There’s integration and intersection

of mind and machine, 

of hand and tool, 

of sight and sound,

There’s learning the rules

of not right and wrong,

but of how and why.

There’s discourse and recourse

and collaboration and cooperation.

There’s inquiry and error

and trying again.

And assessment is not so quantified, as qualified

not needing to be scored,

but needing to be shared. 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Interview

Tagged as

January 17, 2017 · 11:05 pm

Video Cases – A Synthesis

It is Teacher E (Case 8), the science instructor of teacher candidates, who summarizes well educational technology as it weaves itself through many of the case video samples. He asserts that technology use within the classroom should be used to enhance student learning and should be integrated with other subject content. These goals of technology use can be seen throughout the case videos, as both students and teachers share that their experience with technology enables students to understand content more easily and more in depth. Although ideally, technology should be integrated with other subject areas, students and teachers admit that there is a significant learning curve that occurs in order to efficiently and meaningfully use the technology. In Case 2, Teacher M communicates that he introduces the graphing calculator to students in grade eight. By the time the students are enrolled in grade eleven, they are able to use the technology to learn content, rather than use time to learn the technology. In Case 3, a grade 12 Physics student admits that it took her a year to move through the frustration of learning the new technology. However, now that she has developed the necessary skills to implement the technology, she is able to complete the learning more easily and with a deeper understanding. This understanding is evident through her engagement and problem solving abilities within the video.

In Case 1, a reference is made to the New BC Curriculum that is beginning to be implemented in 2016/17 for grades 10-12. One of the teachers mentions that the Content of the new curriculum is the topics through which to practice the Competencies. As the Physics 12 teacher (Case 3) describes technology as evolving his teaching from being transmissive to transactive, this idea of practicing the competencies through using technology, while gaining a deeper understanding of content is highly evident. Students are collaborating with peers who are not necessarily their friends, managing their time and resources, problem solving and integrating technology appropriately – all of these activities are considered both competencies and important life skills!

A final observation is that of the educators who are implementing technology within their learning spaces. There is almost a tangible enthusiasm expressed through the screen as they share about the activity occurring among their students. All of these educators are experienced educators with at least a decade of teaching experience, and all of them have been willing to invest in learning meaningful technology either on their own, through collaboration with other teachers, or through professional development opportunities. These educators were willing to take risks and challenge the status quo of a traditional learning space. They faced challenges, but were willing to work through the challenges, viewing them as part of the learning process and keeping a positive perspective. Conversely, most of the preservice teachers and new teachers shared hesitant or even negative perspectives on using technology in significant ways in their classroom. The two most common reasons for hesitancy were lack of knowledge regarding the technology – how to implement and how to problem solve, and the amount of time necessary to teach students how to use the technology efficiently and effectively. I found this interesting because I would have assumed that the newer, and typically younger, teachers would be more capable and confident in exploring new technology than older teachers, but this is not evident within the videos, overall.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as

January 14, 2017 · 8:19 am

Unpacking Assumptions – Theory and Design Intersecting Technology

When considering student misconceptions and conceptual challenges in science and mathematics, the use of digital technology can offer educators a tool through which to challenge previously acquired misconceptions. Initially, educators may choose to take an approach based on Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development by developing an online multiple choice test consisting of specific questions designed to reveal the common misconceptions that students bring to the learning environment. Once misconceptions are determined, technology may be used to reshape students’ conceptual ideas through varied presentation and inquiry tools. Keeping in mind Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, varied digital technology approaches to exploring a concept can be chosen that focus on oral, auditory, visual, interactive and constructive ways of learning.

WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) is an online science space that was explored from a constructivist perspective in ETEC 510: Design of Technology Supported Learning Environments. This digital technology tool is a space that students are required to be critical thinkers, problem solvers and role players. As students work through their relevant inquiry, they are encouraged to collaborate through problem solving and anonymous critiquing. Frequent feedback is available from the teacher as the students move through interactive activities to construct their final solution. Although I have not used this site as an educator, I continue to hold it in the back of my mind as an “ideal” in design for effective use of digital technology due to its collaborative, critical thinking and constructivist focus.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Unpacking Assumptions, WISE

Tagged as ,

January 13, 2017 · 10:53 pm

A Private Universe – A Synthesis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrXaQu_qGeo

Although my posting this week has been delayed slightly beyond the target date, I have spent some time thinking on Heather and the responses of the randomly selected students and faculty at Harvard. Although some of Heather’s explanations seems quite “out there” i.e. orbit of the Earth and definition of indirect rays from the sun, I realized that no long ago I would have fit in with the twenty-three incorrect Harvard respondents quite comfortably. I can attest that the only reason I have an understanding of the reason for seasons, moon phases and sun ray activity is because I have homeschooled my own children through the elementary school grades. When teaching them about the seasons and moon phases, an orange with a skewer stuck through it, a ping pong ball and a lamp were brought out to physically model how the sun’s light strikes the earth during its yearly orbit, and the moon during its monthly phases. In Heather’s experience, it would seem that no such modelling experience had been a part of her learning. Surprisingly, even when the science teacher presented learning with a model, the sun didn’t seem to contain a light source, so students didn’t get to physically see the light shining on various sections of the earth and moon spheres. The other day I asked my grade eight daughter, whom I am presently homeschooling, to explain the seasons, the moon phases and the difference between indirect and direct light. She confidently did so, accurately without any prompting. All of these concepts were explored during her mid-elementary home learning years, so I find it intriguing that they have stayed with her – we must have done something right!

The article that I chose to explore this past week is entitled “Children’s Ideas About Weather: A Review of the Literature” (Henriques, 2002) from Social Science and Mathematics. This article reviews literature and studies connected to student misconceptions on topics of weather mainly on the water cycle, properties of water, movement of air, climates versus weather and the greenhouse effect. The Appendices include charts with topics related to weather and scientist perspectives aside student perspectives and potentials reasons for student misconceptions. One of the key purposes of the review is to provide teachers with a comprehensive list of common misconceptions in order to help them plan effectively in how to present their instruction. As well, individualized assessment of student understanding, or lack of understanding, is critical as supported by Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien (1985) call for teachers to take into consideration the prior knowledge of students when planning concepts, experience and presentations to included within their lessons. Relating back to Heather, one of her large misconceptions was her figure eight version of the earth’s orbit around the sun. When probed, she said that she must have confused a diagram from another textbook with the diagram of the earth’s orbits. Similarly, in Henriques review, diagrams of the water cycle showing the ocean as the sole source from where water evaporates seemingly led students to believe that water only evaporates from oceans and not from any other water bodies or sources of water i.e. plants on earth. These examples related to misconceptions emphasize the importance of accuracy in visual representations for young students. This is an area in which digital technology can help students visually see or design representations of science concepts through videos and interactive websites.

To close, a comment worth considering that Henriques offers is that often what is considered a “misconception” can actually be an incomplete or limited conception, or simply unknown information (2002). Again, individual assessment and further probing is necessary in order to define what is known and what is unknown, and to help guide future learning. This, I believe, is a key aspect in effective education in all areas, yet is often neglected due to time demands and assumptions. As educators, there is room for improvement.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A.  (1985).  Children’s ideas and the learning of science.  Children’s Ideas in Science (pp. 1-9).  Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Producer).  (1987).  A Private Universe [online video].  Retrieved 6 January, 2017, from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

Henriques, L.  (2002, May). Children’s misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature. Social Science and Mathematics, 102 (5), 202-214.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Misconceptions, Unpacking Assumptions

Tagged as