Anchored Instruction Symposium
I found that the discussion surrounding the Jasper series supported my ideas about it. For example, Mel highlighted that it was created to challenged traditional mathematics practices — to push beyond simply rote learning and learning out of context. The activities connect well to actual human experience and the types of problems we would have to solve. By putting the activities within a real-world context, students will better understand the purpose of math. Traditional math teaching is transmission oriented and teacher directed while the Jasper problems turn the learning over to the students. The teacher is still there to provide as needed content and intervention or possibly to teach a math skill that is needed, for example, how to calculate gas mileage. The activities are definitely constructivist in nature and should be in the zone of proximal development for the students using the materials. High school problem-based learning should deal with more complicated material or math processes than the elementary school problems. The multiple solutions approach is realistic because we all make choices based on applicable criteria. The presentation of how they solved the problem and their ability to critique each others solutions is valuable because they see those multiple view points. Student-centered learning is always going to be more engaging that transmission teaching, but without well-crafted materials it’s easy to not deliver such learning well. When only parts of the learning system are used, the learning may not be student-centered, so it’s best when the materials are used as designed (Mel and Jenelle). I ended this lesson thinking that the materials are somewhat dated, but I would like to see a web environment that contains the learning constructed in a manner that involved as needed content areas and tutorials.
Gillian brought up a meaningful question regarding student-centered learning research (Hickey, Moore & Pellegrin, 2001) and the idea that they are better for learning because the researchers who advocate these methods are doing the research and they desire that end result. I still side with student-centered, hands on learning being the most engaging for students and having the most potential for deep understanding.
Stephanie questioned pairing the students and how that affects the results. For instance, if you pair a strong and weak student, it’s likely that the weak student will over-rely on the strong student and/or the strong student will dominate the work. I think it’s best to pair students of similar ability so that they can equally challenge each other.
Jhodi and Ross discussed the teaching of concepts through having students create instructional videos or demonstrations. They have to understand the concept well to teach it to others.
Khan Academy is a great source for supporting learning of basics and often dive into the background knowledge within challenging math and science concepts; however, they are not in themselves a complete solution to learning, and do not construct knowledge in an “anchored instruction” delivery model like the Jasper series. A typical Khan Academy video simply attempts to “fill the vessel” (ie. learner) with knowledge by demonstrating how to work through a problem in a way that is similar to working through a textbook question (Mel Burgess).
Reference:
Hickey, D.T., Moore, A. L. & Pellegrin, J.W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611-652.
Media Credit:
Ambro. (2012). Teenagers Studying Together Stock Photo. Freedigitalphotos.net. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Learning_g376-Teenagers_Studying_Together_p103855.html.