Author Archives: jonathan weber

Final eFolio Analysis Post

Leave a reply

The writing of an eFolio was a partially new experience for me, but fully unknown. In my younger years, I was an incredibly reflective and passionate journal writer. I would end every day by writing in my journal all the thoughts and feelings that I had experienced that day. From this, my love of writing sprung up naturally and I started a long relationship with words and weaving them in ways that people would find ingenious and entertaining. Upon entering the MET program (which I will hopefully graduate from after completion of this course), I was slightly taken aback at the difference between academic writing and accessing the content that was being examined. For me, many times, the tasks seemed strictly constrained and as someone who thinks more creatively and less logically, I felt hindered. Even this reflection at first threw me for a loop, as I was struggling with how to adequately analyze the entire process of writing an eFolio yet still weave it together into an academic theme.

Yet, when I take a step back and look at my journey through this course and also the MET program as a whole, it has been an experience that has asked me to push through the discomfort and even to be comfortable with the feeling of not being fully comfortable. As an ELA teacher, I am not routinely used to the ideas that come along with Math and Science, yet I have enjoyed looking at how all the subjects can be integrated together and pushing through the unknown to arrive at a deeper understanding that can help benefit my students and my classroom.

With that said, I have chosen more of a framework and less of an analogy to analyze my eFolio, as the process makes much more sense to me by looking at how my focus shifted throughout the learning. The framework that I am going to be using comes from the college readiness program AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination). My current school is an AVID certified school and I recently attended a training about how to help prepare students already in Kindergarten for college readiness. One of the strategies for teachers that they advocate for is called WICOR. WICOR stands for Writing to Learn, Inquiry, Collaboration, Organization, and Reading to Learn (Drumright, Pengra-Anderson, & Potts, 2016, p. 8).

Picture used with permission as an AVID trained teacher. (2018)

Writing to Learn is concerned with the process of writing down thought patterns and reflections in order to lead the learner to deeper knowledge and to help aid the processing of information. Inquiry is the process of asking questions and searching for answers to solve problems. Collaboration is just as it sounds, with the focus being on learning in community and adding to each other’s learning. Organization refers to having a set way of constructing and categorizing time, information, and materials to make them accessible. Finally, Reading to learn is analyzing and gleaning information through reading strategies from scholarly texts. Through the use of each of these categories in a lesson, teachers are actively putting the focus on college readiness for students. As I sat in the training room listening to the presenters advocate for this program, it struck me how easily these ideas fall into the different processes and theories that were examined this semester. I also realized that depending on the lesson, I applied more or fewer of these strategies into my learning and my responses. As the semester progressed, my posts gained more and more aspects of WICOR in authentic ways that would benefit students. For this reason, I will be examining each module based on the different aspects of WICOR that were utilized to show my progression through the course and to demonstrate the depth of knowledge addressed throughout my eFolio.

At the very beginning of the course, the emphasis was all on Writing to Learn and Organization for me. The first thing that I always want to do with each course is to get a lay of the land, and the creation of an eFolio was part of that process for me. This was the first blog that I had created for the MET program, though not my first blog ever. Setting up my eFolio and going through the course material took up my time in those early days. I will be honest that I was very unsure about this course, as I struggled to understand the organization of the different components (i.e. Canvas, Blogs, eFolio, and finding all the readings and resources that we needed to access and use throughout the semester.) However, through emails with the professor and with a few of my classmates, I was able to begin to understand how the course was organized and hit the ground running. With that said, confusion over organization will continue to remain a struggle throughout this course. Through the penning of the Auto e-Graphy, I was able to reflect on my past experiences with technology and start to get a feel for how the course would be run. Writing the auto e-graphy allowed me chance to really settle in to the course and to get to know each other and connect with them in a more relaxed way. It is worth saying that this auto e-graphy was probably one of my favorite pieces to write, as it was more creative, narrative focused and less academic focused.

As Module A moved on, and we moved into the Conceptual Challenges and Unpacking Assumptions, Writing to Learn and Inquiry came to the forefront as addressing the inner thought of students became the focus. It strikes me that Inquiry and Writing to Learn are two of the biggest tools that can be used to help break through conceptual challenges and misconceptions. Through looking at videos and reading articles about the conceptual challenges that are common, as well as reflecting on our own personal experiences of having misconceptions, I was lead to think in different ways about the students in my classroom. Many times, when I am feeling frustrated that students are not grasping simple concepts, it could possibly be that they have internalized the wrong information. One salient idea that sticks with me was from Gooding & Metz (2011) who classified misconceptions into five different categories: preconceived notions, no scientific beliefs, conceptual misunderstandings, vernacular misconceptions, and factual misconceptions. These categories would be great to have on a sticky note when tutoring students to help remind myself what they may be struggling with. The way to help prevent this are the same methods that can be used to combat this phenomenon. Writing to learn, coupled together with verbalizing thoughts, can be a powerful tool in the classroom that will make something that is a completely hidden and internalized process and make it visible and external, as championed by Shapiro (1988). By writing about the conceptual challenges that students experience, I was also reflecting on my own practices of processing information and questioning what kinds of misconceptions I may have internalized. The process of questioning and writing responses to those questions could be used in the classroom the exact same way that it was used in my creation of these posts. Through writing, students would be able to see connections and explain their thinking in ways that the teacher could read and understand. Through this reading, the teacher would be able to identify areas of concern and confusion, ask more questions, and start the cycle over again. These baseline tools and ideas would continue to circle around and come back to shape later posts, and I found myself frequently thinking back to the misconceptions seen in the videos in later modules when theories were discussed.

Conducting the interview of a fellow educator hit almost every single aspect of WICOR, making it an activity that I am also considering implement in my yearly syllabus. I also found that this was one of the activities that hit closest to home for me and really inspired me to continue one. My framing issues paper was going to be all about robotic implementation, so I requested one of the robotics coaches at my school to be the subject for the interview.  Before the interview, through the group formation of the questions, the Collaboration and Inquiry piece had already been achieved. Reading to Learn also was beneficial to me, as some of my questions were inspired from the articles that I was already preparing for my Framing Issues paper. However, by talking with a fellow educator, further collaboration was done and our conversation was beneficial to both parties as we were able to discuss and talk more about how robotics implementation could benefit the students in our classrooms. The interview was Organized together into a salient abstract and then I was able to synthesize and analyze the interview in a piece that was Writing to Learn through reflection. This reflection piece I found was even more beneficial to me than the standard blog post that was posted for the class, as it allowed me the chance to think deeper about the responses and the implication that it has for my own personal profession.

By the time the Framing Issues paper came around, I was feeling fairly confident in the choice of topic that I was going to be examining. While it is not officially a part of the eFolio, I am still including it in this analysis, as it did shape many of my other posts as well. The paper focused initially on the Reading to Learn and Organization parts of WICOR as I was searching through databases, finding articles, making citations, and reading to learn what the authors were finding in their research. The Organization component continued to play a strong role through the processes of writing a proposal and then finally penning the paper.  Also, APA continued to be a struggle for mine in this program, much to the shame of my ELA teacher heart. Articulating my findings in a comprehensible way as I examined how robotics implementation could be achieved and progressed through a school was the crowning Writing to Learn of this course for me. When I had the read the articles, I felt like I had a fairly solid grasps of what the material was saying. However, it was not until I was able to synthesize it together into something tangible that I was able to see gaps in what I had understood and felt confident sharing it with others. The process of understanding and finding gaps through writing is a perfect example of Shapiro’s idea of verbalizing thinking to locate misconceptions (1988). This Framing Issues paper was passed on to my administrators and the robotics team at my school and we are currently working to make a solid articulation plan for robotics next year.

Reading and Writing to Learn was a strong focus of the Design of TELEs and PCK/TPCK pieces in the eFolio. The readings that were included went a long way to explain and to illuminate various ideas of planning a lesson that would include technology. Thinking about how a space/classroom would function effectively with technology really set up the following lessons where various TELEs were examined. One specific struggle that came to the forefront for me was the dates of the different articles that we were using. While much of the foundational ideas were unchanged in these articles, it did take some mental work and creativity (Inquiry) to update and envision how these same ideas may look in a modern classroom. This theme would continue throughout the next few lessons and be a mental block that I would have to continually push to the back of my mind in order to access the information and truly Read to Learn. With that said, my Teaching with TPCK post was highly beneficial to me as it forced me to deconstruct a lesson to see all the moving and interdependent parts of TPCK that go into every single lesson (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It also was a prime example of learning from experience and forming comprehensive knoweldge, not simply surface level understanding (Shulman, 1987).

The posts on Anchored Instruction, SKI/WISE, LfU, and T-GEM were pieces that strongly lent themselves towards inquiry in the classroom, and while they were all similar in many aspects, they each brought their own unique point of view to inquiry and learning in the classroom. My two personal favorites were T-GEM and LfU, as I found them the most intuitive to use and the ones that presented the most straightforward benefit to students. Both of these theories also took into account the ideas of Park & Park (2012) who cautioned against using a pure PBL program lest gaps in knowledge and understanding appear. The process of Anchored Instruction and WISE could be useful in the classroom, yet the tech connected to them in the lessons seemed too outdated to be feasible for ease of use in the classroom today. Furthermore, LfU and T-GEM easily can envelope the ideas of Anchored Instruction and SKI. Learning for Use is a perfect example of Inquiry and Reading to Learn, as it emphasizes real world application and using tech and knowledge together in authentic ways. The lessons that I created for this post is my personal favorite lesson that I designed in this course, and will definitely be included in my Creative Writing course next year. The lesson contains all the aspects of WICOR in a very authentic, accessible way through the use of the Google Suite, as is stated as one of the benefits by Perkins et al. (2010). T-GEM is also a brilliant framework to follow as it is Inquiry at its finest. Making guesses, evaluating them, and then changing them based on data is the process of inquiry merely stated in different ways. Collaboration is built into the these theories as student work together to ask and evaluate their learning. In fact, every aspect of WICOR is built into the frameworks of LfU and T-GEM, asking students to think deeply, work together, express their ideas in writing, and take in new information through reading and questioning (Edelson, 2001). It is of special note that my synthesis post received a lot of positive feedback as a visual representation of the different methods we had been learning. This was also a much more focused way of synthesizing information for me that allowed creativity back into the process.

The end of this course is where I feel it and I really hit our stride, which could be evidenced by the fact that I found the readings and responses more valuable in Module C. Module C was much more updated and seemed to be able to seamlessly be integrated into the classroom use. Embodied Learning, Knowledge Diffusion, and Information Visualization were great additions that could work hand in hand with T-GEM and LfU. They all would work tougher well to help support the active Inquiry of the students, Collaboration, and responding to what they have learned. Info-Vis, in particular, is a fresh take on Writing to Learn as it uses simulations to help express and bring to life concepts from which the students manipulate and learn. Embodied Learning is a great Organizational strategy as it helps students to organize information in their mind and to remember it through motion or internalizing information. Knowledge Diffusion focuses on Collaboration as the emphasis is on group learning and letting the learning of the group infiltrate and benefit each member. Through working with each of these in Module C, I could feel my mind starting to race with ideas of how to make each of my lessons WICORized and more impactful for the students.

Finally, the resource forum was a great chance to enact ideas of Knowledge Diffusion and Collaboration as we all shared ideas of resource that could enhance and embody the different theories and frameworks that we had been studying. The final entry of choosing one of the resources and analyzing it was surprisingly easier than the earlier posts, as I felt there was so many more ways to look at each resource to determine its validity and possible uses. This process of Writing to Learn was truly valuable as the process of writing forced me to think in a more critical way about a resource that I may have just implemented without a second thought normally.

This entire eFolio has been one giant activity of Writing to Learn, but it is a testament to the power of writing and putting into words your thoughts in order to process, inquire, and reflect. I could not be happier that I chose this option for the final assignment as it really gave me an authentic chance to reflect back on my own learning and to revisit the beginning to see how it all fits together and comes full circle. Through all the elements of these lessons, I feel more equipped to update what I have learned and WICORize more of my lessons, even if they area not necessarily in the math and science classrooms.

 

 

References

Drumright, M., Pengra-Anderson, K., & Potts, T. (2016). AVID elementary foundations: A schoolwide implementation resource. San Diego, CA: AVID Press.

Gooding, J., & Metz, B. (2011). From misconceptions to conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 78(4), 34.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://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.0.CO;2-M

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Park, K., & Park, S. (2012). Development of professional engineers’ authentic contexts in blended learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1).

Perkins, N., Hazelton, E., Erickson, J., & Allan, W. (2010). Place-based education and geographic information systems: Enhancing the spatial awareness of middle school students in Maine. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 213-218. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/00221341.2010.501457

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.

Info-Vis Revisited – Resource Evaluation

Leave a reply

 

For my resource sharing, I examined multiple versions of VR and AR that could be useful for the math or science classroom. In this post, I will be evaluating them to see how they match up with different affordances that info-vis has to offer.

  • Consider the cognitive affordances of the software examined.
    • Edens & Potter (2008) tell us that “an important process of the problem-solving cycle is the translation of the problem into a meaningful representation.” Since these are all VR and AR apps, it is very clear how these types of programs would lend positive cognitive affordances to any teacher or student using them. By being able to interact and see a life-size or immersive representation of the topics being discussed. VR and AR can take a student to places that they physically could not or that wouldn’t be feasible in the classroom like the body or outer space.
  • Speculate on how information visualization software (name the software) could be embedded in the design of authentic learning experiences
    • The ability to embed AR and VR into authentic learning experiences would match up with Info-Vis to create experiences that naturally transport students. Exploring a phenomenon and connecting it to the mechanisms is the basis for Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) as told by Xiang & Passmore (2015). Learning about the body or outer space and then having the chance to manipulate the simulations would let students test their own hypotheses against what reality to see how they hold up. “Schematic representations are associated with successful problem solving,” (Edens & Potter, 2008). By manipulating these schematics, students will be able to actively problem solve and take ownership of their learning. All of these working together make for an authentic learning opportunity.
  • Suggest active roles for the teacher and the students, as well as a suitable topic. Endeavour to make connections with your future personal practice in this entry.
    • By working with simulations in groups and explicitly communicating with each other to verbalize and denote their predictions and explanations, exercises like these further match the MBI model (Xiang & Passmore, 2015). In my classroom, it would be very easy to follow the T-GEM model to introduce a simple MBI anatomy lesson. A rough outline may look something like this:
      • Generate
        • Ask students to start to think about how they think a germ moves through the body to infect a person and make them feel sick.
        • Make a list of organs and processes in the body that students know.
        • Ask students to make a hypothesis about germs and sicknesses.
      • Evaluate
        • Give the students a place that the germ enters the body and use the VR anatomy website to allow them to travel down the corresponding pathway.
        • How does your hypothesis hold up?
      • Modify
        • Using the simulation, modify your hypothesis. When you think it is a working hypothesis, compare with another group or try a new entry point.
        • Where do germs need to reach to cause different sicknesses?

By doing all of these different explorations with the simulations, something that before was not as easily visualized or experienced is brought to life in a meaningful way that is focused on keeping the learner active and engaged in the learning process. For this reason, Info-Vis, T-GEM, MBI, and VR are all extremely compatible and useful in daily classroom practice.

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.

Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184-196.

Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 311-329.

Visualize the π and It Will Come!

Leave a reply

For my post about Information Visualization, I will be combining information visualization with the LfU laid out in Edelson (2001) in order to design a lesson that helps them explore and arrive at the proper calculation of π.

  • Motivation
    • Create a story for the students about how the classroom is going to be getting new carpet (or any other story that would actually work). But, the budget is pretty tight, so we need to order the best amount of carpet. What’s more, the warehouse is offering us a special incentive: if we can guess the exact area of the carpet we are trying to buy, then we get a huge discount.
  • Elicit Curiosity
    • There’s only one problem: the school board can’t approve carpet SQUARES or RECTANGLES. They can only get around the wording if we measure it using circles. (A long shot, I know, but hey, what’s written is written!)
  • Observe
    • Students would first need to visualize, measure, and draw on background knowledge of areas.
    • Measuring the room would allow students to arrive at the borders of the room. Also, students would be asked to use pictures to illustrate their ideas, as Edens & Potter (2008) tell us that “an important process of the problem-solving cycle is the translation of the problem into a meaningful representation.” Students could begin doing this on paper, drawing schematics, that is, illustrations that represent proportions, not details. Think, diagrams for problem-solving.
  • Communicate
    • Next, students would need to talk to each other about differing methods they have devised for measure the circle that is going to take up the middle of the room.
    • Using The Geometer’s Sketchpad, they would be able to graph and measure different polygons that fit into the circle, as shown below:
    • By using increasingly complex shapes, students would be able to explore and start to be able to deduce methods of finding the exact area of a circle.
    • This process of exploring a phenomenon and connecting it to the mechanisms is the basis for Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) as told by Xiang & Passmore (2015).
    • Throughout this process, students would be encouraged and required to explicitly communicate with each other to verbalize and denote their predictions and explanations, to further match the MBI model (Xiang & Passmore, 2015).
    • At some point, Xiang & Passmore (2015) would say that students may require further scaffolding. This could be provided in varying formats depending on how the students are progressing. For example, if students are drastically struggling, a bare-bones formula could be given to them A= ? ?^2 and allow them to fill in the blanks through more discovery. If they are progressing nicely, perhaps another way would be to instruct them to map out and figure the area of the spaces that are not taken up by the shapes as closely as they could.
    • At every point, students would be pointed back to the model being created on the Geometer’s Sketchpad, as “schematic representations are associated with successful problem solving,” (Edens & Potter, 2008).
  • Reflect
    • When most groups have come up with the solution or gotten close, students would be given a chance to now verbally express and represent the knowledge that they have earned through the geometric representation of A=πr^2.
    • A chance for reflection and correction of the process that they took to arrive at the equation would further enlighten them and cement the ideas in their mind.
  • Apply
    • At the very end, the equation could be used to then measure out the size of a circle that would fit in the room, or any other location that they wish to choose.
    • To extend the learning, they price per square foot of the carpet could be provided and further calculations with that data could be done to figure out how much it would cost to cover the circle or the room.

 

It may seem like quite the lofty goal for students to be able to arrive as the equation on their own, but with a visualization tool like the Geometer’s Sketchpad, the amount of tinkering that is easily possible is immense, therefore the potential for learning is also immense. The easy access of tools could scaffold students as they inquire, explore, and build. The ability to quickly construct multiple models and compare them would give students a chance to use further geometric knowledge and proportions to arrive at answers, all while the teacher is there as a support and fellow questioner, encouraging and spurring on further inquiry. In a worst-case scenario, a teacher could even design a model that students could then use to explore the measurements of and arrive at a deeper understanding than if they had designed the model themselves.

The combination of these different methods create a situation where both student and teacher are active, inquiring, and learning in authentic ways that are truly useful, with applications that extend far outside the classroom. Futhermore, with the technology enhancing the learning, students are not limited by their own drawing ability, a factor that was noted as a potential stumbling block to learning (Edens & Potter 2008).

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.

Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184-196.

Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 311-329.

Learning as a Megaphone

Leave a reply

Speculate on how such networked communities could be embedded in the design of authentic learning experiences in a math or science classroom setting or at home. Elaborate with an illustrative example of an activity, taking care to consider the off-line activities as well.

No matter which theory of learning we address, one commonality is that the learning is always situated in a certain context. This week, Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) ask us to consider this same idea, but in the context of a person’s perceived and taught procedures. They ask us to consider how a person’s natural problem solving can compare to the processes that we teach and learn in classrooms today. They say, “there are informal ways of doing mathematical calculations which have little to do with the procedures taught in school.” Of special note from their research was the fact that individuals who were capable of solving a problem in a natural situation failed to solve the same problem when taken out of context, possibly due to a difference in problem-solving techniques (Carraher et al. 1985). If the context that a problem is found in can be so vital to the learning that goes on, where does that leave us as educators when we try to introduce and teach topics that are “foreign” to the classroom and “authentic” in real life?

The conclusion that the researchers arrived at is that the mathematics that are taught in schools act as an amplifier of thought processes. With this idea in mind, we can move on to the ideas of various networked communities and see how they can benefit from the idea of having processes acting as amplification of natural thought processes.

 

The Exploratorium was one of the first places that I examined this week, trying to keep in mind what my students would theoretically be going into to the experience with and what kinds of skills/procedures they could be introduced to ahead of time to amplify their learning. The Exploratorium hails itself as a “21st Century Learning Learning Laboratory.” Before taking a group of students to experience the Exploratorium, first, a baseline of what they expect out of the experience would need to be established. Falk & Storksdieck (2010) conducted a survey of people who used their leisure time to visit museums and gauged what they gained from the experience. They concluded that it was beneficial to set intentions before going in, as “science centers and other informal science education settings are socio-cultural settings that the public perceives as affording a finite number of leisure-related outcomes.” To address the fact that museums afford a more informal type of learning, they suggest that visitors be “meaningfully segmented as a function of their identity-related needs.” Or, in other words, they should be given roles so that they can better absorb and enjoy the experience. Some key roles that students could be given would be those of facilitators, who lead the groups and help explain, and explorers, who are good at wonder and questioning. By assigning students to specific roles, learning outcomes are more apt to be met.

Furthermore, Hsi (2008) suggests augmenting visits with ICTs to better enhance the experience. Before attending the field trip, students could use the Exploratorium’s website to better understand what types of exhibits they would be seeing and to gain valuable background knowledge. Allowing students to engage with online, interactive field trips, RFID tagged data, social bookmarking, live webcams, online games, and the like, students will go into the experience with a wide variety of perspectives from various formats, all of which lend towards the assimilation of new knowledge. All of these can be compiled together in an offline format and through social learning and discussion to make a rich foundation on which to build the experiences.

With all the free and inexpensive resources that are available, it wouldn’t be unheard of for a school to simply indulge in all the online resources and skip the logistics of going to a physical museum. While I am not advocating for that, the affordances that are available online in the modern world go a long way to bring equality of opportunity through exposure to remote places that are not able to have all of the same experiences. Every new way of presenting and working with an idea gives a student a new way to perceive, learn, and amplify future ideas which then can also diffuse out to more and more people. As Hsi (2008) said, we have the “opportunity to work with schools to bridge the experiences of chidlren to provide a more coherent learning experience.”

Did you hear me in the back, or does this message need some amplification? 😉

-Jonathan-

 

Resources

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British journal of developmental psychology, 3(1), 21-29.

Falk, J. H., & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. In International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education(pp. 891-899). Springer, Boston, MA.

Virtual Learning in the Science Classroom

Leave a reply

I already wrote about InCell VR (Cardboard) in my Embodied Learning post, so for this one, I wanted to add another couple of VR resources that I came across while searching.

Anatomyou VR is a human anatomy VR experience that is free from the App Store for iOS.  By using this app, students are able to explore the inner workings of the human body and explore how they all work together. Inlays of information are available for student to access as they go through the body so that they can extend their learning at every twist and bend.

For those on Android Titans of Space is an immersive VR experience for exploring the solar system. It works with any Samsung VR set, including the Oculus Rift and Google Cardboard.

On any mobile device, you can explore the Space Shuttle Discovery just by navigating to this link. This free resource lets students experience what is like to be on a real live space shuttle. I have even used this resource in my creative writing class to allow students to try and bring their writing to life in a more authentic way. Something like this website coupled together with a guided Google Earth tour of a launch or even the ISS bring these far-reaching topics home for students in a more tangible way.

I could go on and on, but there are millions of resources out there with free VR experiences for students. (Just look at this!) What better way to let students have embodied experiences than with immersive technology. They’ll feel like they are there!

Embodied Learning in Virtual Spaces

Leave a reply

For my readings this week, I chose to look readings that were more focuses in on virtual and augmented reality. What really drew me to this was a quote in Winn (2003) that talked about how our cognition is really just a way of “embodying distinctions.” Winn (2003) posed  that learning follows this process:

  1. Declaring a break (in the environment)
  2. Drawing a distinction (between what the environment usually does and is currently doing)
  3. Ground the distinction (to make it compatible with is already known)
  4. Embodying the distinction (to apply it in other situations)

Looking at learning from this point of view would find countless situations to use virtual reality and augmented reality in the classroom, as it would allow students to experience and to draw distinctions in situations that they may not normally be able to (due to location or size).

For example, Zydney & Warner (2016) reviewed numerous mobile apps that could be used in the classroom. Looking at what they examined, I did my own search of the app store to see what else has been added since they wrote their review. Numerous apps exist that, in true Ms. Frizzle fashion, allow students to shrink down to microscopic sizes and really experience what is going on at that minuscule level. Experiences like these allow students to have that moment of a break, draw, ground, and embody a distinction so that learning can take place.

*One such app is called InCell VR for Cardboard. This free app allows students to explore a cell using the assistance of the Google Cardboard VR viewer. When in the app, students can explore a cell, try to save it from agents that may destroy it, and even try to survive a virus that takes attempts to take it over. This blending of VR, action, gamification, and science is sure to leave a lasting impression and give students a chance to truly embody the learning.

Previously, these types of role-playing activities may not have been done in the classroom as they would have been “too childish” or too inaccessible to try and recreate a human cell in a meaningful way. But nowadays, with the full computation power of the devices in the classroom, these experiences are able to come to life in full HD experiences. With the cost efficientness of Google Cardboard and other VR devices, students are now able to be transported into experiences that before would have been relegated to museums or field trips. These experiences are invaluable to students, as role-playing affords students the opportunities to be fully immersed in their own world when before, it would have simply been something that could only be illustrated in a textbook.

Yet with all of these experiences, it will take a particular set of TPCK in the teacher to be able to manage and develop these types of learning situations. Many of these apps are not aligned to standards and have varying levels of scientific accuracy. Added on top of that the level of technological knowledge that would be necessary to implement this in the classroom, and the pedagogical knowledge necessary to be able to manage and develop all the resources together into a way that will be beneficial to the students. However, when done correctly, the introduction of these resources poses a strong potential for bringing experiences and learning to life for the students.

 

Questions:

  1. Do you think that there is a difference, theoretically speaking, in an experience that is virtual as compared to one that is physical? Are they both able to bring that “break” in the environment that Winn (2003) would say is necessary for learning?
  2. What special considerations would a teacher need to have in order to implement a VR experience in their classroom with solid TPCK?

 

References:

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17.

 

(*For my final project, I am doing the ePortfolio option, so I am also combining this post with my posting for that, as I wish to keep them all together. A question that was addressed in my posting was: 

  • According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998), while role-playing activities have been commonly used in social studies classrooms, they have been infrequently used in science and mathematics classrooms.
    • Speculate on why role-playing activities may not be promoted in math and science and elaborate on your opinion on whether activities such as role-playing should be promoted.)

 

Blending Blended Learning – Synthesis Post

Leave a reply

 

To evaluate the four learning theories, I decided to use a framework that was developed by Vaughan et al. (2013). In this framework, blended learning environments are examined in terms of social presence, organization, and delivery. Social presence refers to the amount of interaction that students have with each other and the instructor, organization concerns how the materials are designed, presented, and the underlying theories behind them. Delivery then is all about how the interface with the students.

The reason that I chose this framework to aid in the comparison is that it takes into account both pedagogical ideas as well as the students’ user experience. As all of these systems are technology enhanced, it served as a great template to examine varying aspects of each.

Overall, after looking at the each of the different theories, a few key ideas stood out as ideas of what to integrate in any classroom:

  • Emphasize student interaction and problem-solving. Many times, teachers are too quick to give answers instead of allowing students a chance to work through problems and truly explore and learn in a safe environment.

 

  • Institute a system that works. Any one of these theories could have a solid effect in the classroom, but a teacher should choose one that works for the topics and students that they have.

 

  • Choosing a system does not need to tie you down to a platform (or even one system). Many of the theoretical underpinnings of these theories are flexible enough to be used in many different technologically enhanced ways or even in non-technologically enhanced situations. For example, SKI or WISE with its emphasis on scaffolded learning could very easily be blended into LfU lessons to aid and assist. T-GEM and Anchored Instruction share many of the same questioning aspects and could be seamlessly intertwined in many contexts.

Overall, the varying techniques highlight the fact that learning, even scientific and math learning, are arts, not science. With the diverse make-up of schools and classrooms, every tool that we can add to our arsenal of techniques only serve to benefit students.

 

-Jonathan-

 

Sources:

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. Edmonton, AB, CAN: Athabasca University Press.

Misconception Throwback with T-GEM

Leave a reply
For my posting today, I’m going with a classic throwback to the beginning of the course: Seasons and the phases of the moon. Since there are so many student misconceptions around these topics (it’s true! I asked my students the other day just randomly to explain it to me and they fumbled around and couldn’t quite explain it accurately), the added element of the simulation may give them the impetus that they need in order to finally grasp them.
I could envision this being worked together into a lesson about orbits, since both simulations involve looking at orbits to understand the concepts:
Simulations:

(Freezeray.com is a resource that contains many different simplistic, yet easily interacted with, simulations. Try the bouncing ball one (http://freezeray.com/flashFiles/bouncingBall.htm)! It’s strangely relaxing to play around with, yet could also be highly useful for students to learn about potential and kinetic energy.)

Generate:
In this phase of the process, students would be asked to diagram and to explain as best as they can what causes the seasons. I would ask them to do this before they ever saw the simulation to get a good baseline of knowledge and to give them more room to evaluate and modify. After they had all finished, I would project whichever simulation we are doing first, most likely the seasons. On the main screen, I would make sure that they understood how the simulation worked, the necessary vocabulary (orbit, axis, rotation, NESW, tilt, oblong, hemisphere), and that they had roles down for working together in teams. Teams would first write down their first hypothesis on how seasons worked and then interface with the simulation. This personal working with the simulation has been shown to have positive correlations with student achievement (Khan 2010).
Evaluate
In this phase, students would revisit their hypotheses after using the simulation to check for internal validity. If they notice problems, through questioning, they would be lead to discover which parts of their hypothesis needs to be changed. For groups that get it on the first try or early on, the second simulation of moon phases is available for them to move on to.
Modify
After identifying which parts of their hypothesis needs to be evaluated, students would be invited to change their hypothesis and then to start the process over.And the end, reflection journals could be written, along with new diagrams and explanations to show the growth. By putting them side by side with their original explanations, student growth would be evident to all the participants. This method of writing and reflection will also help to make visible mental models (Khan 2007).T-GEM seems to make a lot of sense, but to be honest, it is incredibly close to the traditional scientific method that we have been taught from early on (Hypothesis, experiment, analyze, modify, conclude), but with T-GEM, computer simulations replace the experimental phase and the teacher is hyper-aware of not giving students information that is not necessary. Rather, they are left to experiment and learn more independently, making it closely related to experiential learning and problem-based learning.
Sources
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.

Multi-Narrative Scavenger Hunt with LfU

Leave a reply

As you probably know by now, I am not a math or science teacher, but rather, an ELA teacher. However, as I was reading through the LfU materials and exploring the GIS tools, I was struck by how easy it would be to use these sorts of resources, and of course, the framework, in designing and enhancing a lesson for my Creative Writing classroom.

For example, in LfU, each lesson follows the path of 1) motivation, 2) knowledge construction, and 3) knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001). To further detail this process, there is 1) create demand, 2) elicit curiosity, 3) Observe, 4) Communicate, 5) Reflect, and 6) apply (Edelson, 2001). Using this more detailed look at LfU, an idea for an enhancement of a writing project quickly came to mind.

 

Motivation

The students could be informed that they are going to be writing a narrative story of a group of people in a race to get a cash prize (think Rat Race style). A sample type scavenger hunt could be made that would utilize the classroom or even the school campus. After students engage in the hunt, they could reflect on what kinds of things helped their team, and what kinds of things hindered them.

 

Elicit Curiosity

Perkins et al. (2010) noted that students need to develop more and more their special literacy. This writing project would use the tool of Google Map to help them not only improve their special literacy, but also bring an element of reality and logistical thinking to their writing. Each student would be given a certain amount of “money” and told that this is what their character would have at their disposal to make it across the country and get the cash prize. It would be up to them to budget and plan the trip using Google Maps and online information about fuel efficiency and other modes of transportation. The person whose character was able to make it to the prize (while still weaving these elements into their story and making it entertaining) would win the prize. Also, the clues that they found on the initial scavenger hunt would also contain special bonuses that were hidden on the map, using the MyMap function on Google Maps. When they would locate one of these “power-ups,” they would find a word that would give them bonus time or money.

 

Observe

Google Maps is a tool that most adults today use on a regular basis. It has powerful, up to date information not just about directions, but also traffic and alternate paths. There was a time that GIS were difficult to navigate and not readily accessible (Perkins et al. 2010), but those days are long gone. Students can quickly and easily access the GIS through their 1 to 1 Chromebooks and begin to actively participate in the process of plotting a path, using time, distance, money, accommodations, and modes of transportation. All of this information would be logged in a timeline.

 

Communicate

All of the students’ findings would be compiled together in a first-person narrative of a person involved in the race for the prize. Through the process of writing, they would be able to not only bring the information alive but also make their character come to life as they use what they find. All of the stories would be compiled together in a single book and the time, money, and distance traveled would be recorded, as well as a map of their journey.

 

Reflect

By reading through and discussing other people’s stories, students would have a chance to reflect on the decisions that they made and the process that they used to get there. They will have the chance to learn better methods from their classmates and adapt their method for the next time.

 

Apply

The applications for this are numerous, but the most obvious would be in trip planning. By thinking through the money, time, paths, food, fuel, accommodations, etc that are necessary for a road trip, students will have a better appreciate not only for the planning on trip, but also spacial awareness and narrative writing.

 

Sources:

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://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.0.CO;2-M

 

Perkins, N., Hazelton, E., Erickson, J., & Allan, W. (2010). Place-based education and geographic information systems: Enhancing the spatial awareness of middle school students in Maine. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 213-218. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/00221341.2010.501457

Let’s Be WISE about Climate Change

Leave a reply

For my project, I chose to update “Chemical Reactions: How Can We Slow Climate Change?” The reason that I chose this one is because the final project asks students to pen a letter to their congressman, yet leaves them a little bit unguided in the writing process. The science was all fairly strong, with engaging modules, but some of the information, videos, and especially the writing process needed a freshening up.

First of all, I added a KWL chart to the first module to help guide them in their questioning. (Sabrina, I promise I didn’t copy you! I read yours after had customized my WISE project! Great minds…) The KWL chart is a more guided and structured way for students to think about a topic and try to figure out exactly what they are working with. It also clearly follows the first WISE/SKI principle by making thinking visible (Linn et al. 2003).

Next, I changed the outdated video that was included in the introduction to a more kid-friendly video that is hosted on EdPuzzle. Hosting the video on EdPuzzle allows for the teacher to place commentary over the top of the video, input words to help explain ideas, or ask questions to check comprehension. These abilities will help the teacher to right away get a feel for the room and know what kind of background knowledge they are working with.

Next, I added in a link to a group vocabulary page to which all students can contribute. The spreadsheet was hosted on Google Docs, making it easily accessible to all the students in the classroom. Since I was customizing the lesson with my own students in mind, I know that their vocabulary is lack and they need extra support to help them understand the texts. This EL support is beneficial not only for the EL students, but also for the general populace.  The spreadsheet asks them to answer for every word 1) part of speech, 2) definition 3) use in context-rich sentence 4) a picture or link word to help with memory. The collaborative nature of this page is in keeping with the WISE principle of helping students learn from each other (Linn et al. 2003) and also helps to scaffold the writing task that is upcoming at the end (Kim & Hannafin, 2010). Furthermore, this running thread through the assignment is another way to keep the learning cohesive, coherent, and thoughtful, like WISE principles tout.

The final change that I made was including sentence frames and a bit more structure to the writing task to help scaffold that process, as many of the students probably haven’t written a formal letter before and would be unfamiliar with the process and format. While this isn’t necessarily making the “science” accessible, it does make the assignment more accessible for them, thereby meeting the second principle of WISE (Linn et al. 2003) of making science accessible. Also, the sentence frames focus on the effects they see in their own neighborhoods as well, thereby showing personal applications (Slotta & Linn, 2009).

I realize that most of the supports that I added in were language related, not necessarily science related, but again, the reason for that is that the scientific sections were already well made and providing adequate supports for students. Furthermore, with my current group of students in mind, the theories and inquiry would be less of an issue when compared with the writing tasks. Yet, it would require frequent updating to keep the resources up to date and accurate.

 

References:

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.

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

Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press.