Synthesis of TELEs
The four TELEs from Module B of ETEC 533 have several remarkable similarities that are grounded in Scientific Inquiry (Inquiry and National Science Education Standards, 2000) that is meant to mirror the process of actual scientists who exhibit curiosity about a phenomenon, define a research question, and form knowledge background; then gathers evidence, proposes a possible explanation, and reports those findings; at some point s/he will consider new evidence and add to the previous explanation. Since humans are innately curious, they are motivated to learn about their surroundings.
The Jasper series (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992), SKI (WISE) (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2001; Gobert, Snyder, & Houghton, 2002), LfU (Edelson, 2001; Edelson, 2002), and T-GEM (Khan, 2007; Khan, 2010) are inquiry-based TELEs with varying structures that involve knowledge construction, social learning, and meta-cognition through the use of technology. All are concerned with students learning concepts deeply (content and epistemological knowledge) – not to simply memorize content for a test and then forget it once a good grade is achieved. Not to simply give students experiments to which there is one expected outcome that measures their learning.
The Jasper series has students engage in a multi-step process to solve more elaborate problems that require several computational skills. The SKI framework as implemented in WISE involves complex project as a basis for learning about a variety of science and geography topics. The LfU model is goal-directed as the students are given experiences to construct, assimilate or revise knowledge. The T-GEM model is a three step cycle where the end often overlaps with the start of a new cycle as students add new understanding to their mental models.
In all four TELEs there is a philosophy of social learning and encourage the use of pairs to learn together in order to benefit from each other’s understanding. In the WISE environment, there is a basket where students collect, share and compare ideas. In the other three, there can be a larger classroom dialogue built into the process where pairs can interact with other pairs or the large group to critique and modify their understanding.
All these TELEs are rooted in constructivism. The creators of Jasper wanted their activities to be “generative rather than passive learning activities” (CTGV, 1992, pg. 67). The WISE environment has prompts, feedback and re-teaching as needed for learners to assimilate or revise their understanding, and the learning experiences in a LfU lesson set have the same knowledge revision goal. The T-GEM cycle has a similar purpose of changing one’s mental model but through the use of abductive reasoning. There is a process of experimentation with simulations and computer models to develop an understanding of a complex topic.
There is an element of meta-cognition in each. The Jasper series involves students in justifying their choices in solving the multi-step problem. SKI involves students in regularly criticizing, comparing, revising, rethinking and reviewing; however, it’s more focused on the content than meta-cognition. LfU actively involves students in reflection during the knowledge refinement step whle the T-GEM cycle has students revisit their knowledge by summarizing and revising their mental models.
SKI, LfU and T-GEM are more focused on life-long, ongoing learning, while Jasper is more narrowly focused being designed to address the problem of students not being able to transfer knowledge to new problem-solving situations. SKI focuses on developing and internalizing scientific inquiry skills; LfU promotes a method of dealing with our current knowledge and new knowledge; and the T-GEM cycle is a learning approach that could be applied to a wide variety of learning situations.
I believe that each of these TELEs have value in teaching math and science topics. I have already attempted the Jasper method by having some of my students engage in math projects that are financially-based, for example, planning a trip and buying a pet. They involved making choices and a justification process as they made decisions and created their cost sheets. The WISE environment has potential for creating meaningful learning activities which I would use in social science inquiry research. I have some students who need to take Chemistry while in my alternate education program, and they end up using independent learning booklet. The use of Chemland would greatly improve their Chemistry experience, but I don’t have a way of using the T-GEM model when only one or two students are taking the course at a time.
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), 65-80.
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.
Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002, April). Learning-for-Use in Earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.
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.
Peer responses:
Hi Kimberly,
You make a lot of good points here, but I like your encompassment of ‘social learning’ because this is such an emphasis of each of the frameworks presented to us. This process of knowledge construction combined with the ability to verify and discuss thinking processes and conclusions allows students to gain further perspectives and can help identify misconceptions by encouraging students to explain their thinking through connections. This is an important tactic in all forms of education. It is important to compare their thinking to others to better understand their own thinking process, but also identify alternative perspectives.
Hi Kimberly, its great to hear that you have attempted the Jasper method but I am wondering what age group your activity is aimed at? The reason I am asking is because I am currently teaching Math 9 and Math 11 and I was trying to figure out a way I could incorporate multiple learning outcomes into a situated learning activity.
I believe some concepts like you described can be successful and authentic but it seems harder to accomplish this with more difficult concepts. In my opinion, concepts like rational numbers, polynomials and exponent laws would be extremely difficult to incorporate into such an activity. Even a concept like fractions that has many real-world implications becomes difficult to use in this method when we want our students to learn about multiplying or dividing mixed numbers. Is my PCK accurate or do I need to think outside of the box?
Hi Kim,
You raise excellent points regarding how the TELEs reflect the behaviour of scientists and how they continuously return to their work, reflect, and refine processes working towards deeper understanding. In fact, you have managed to put together a very concise summary of all four TELEs we have been digging through the past month – I am impressed by how you express your ideas so clearly (and wish my post had been as succint as yours)!
Your last paragraph touches on a key concern I have been grappling with for a long time: how to deliver content to my adult students that helps build community (ie. facilitates social collaboration towards solving problems). My concerns revolve around two premises: 1. that students do not begin my courses all at the same time – they are spread across the calendar year, and 2. that many of my students verbally express angst / displeasure at having to work with others (many simply do not have the patience / skill set to work with others).
At times I feel that premise #2 is simply an excuse I make for myself to not try to work social learning into curricula; just because students say they don’t want to do something doesn’t mean that it isn’t a valid approach to learning or that they won’t appreciate the experience in the end (perhaps they balk at the idea because they are anxious at trying something new). Your point of having limited numbers of students taking a course at a time could definitely impact the “social learning” component of knowledge building; at the very least, I believe that the instructor would spend a great more deal of time working with each individual within a small group to help guide thinking than they would with a larger group.
I commend you on using the materials from this course with your own students! I intend to do the same and pick a course which is in need of an ‘overhaul’ and work many aspects from my MET experience into the delivery model.
Instructor Response to Class:
Dear class,
I have read each of your posts and thought provoking replies, realizations, and ideas to take forward into your teaching as discussed with your peers. In them, you undertook a comparative analysis of the four different TELEs of Module B, while folding in scholarship (such as the National Science Education Standards) and making extensions to your personal practice in lessons that you have already tried out or plan to teach. Bolded themes, mind maps, and tables appeared to also lend themselves to facilitating visual comparisons for readers.
A number of posts identified the constructivist nature of the pedagogies put forth in this Module, and indeed, they all stem from this epistemological standpoint. In this sense, the frameworks are a departure from pedagogies reflecting behaviourism (and content driven drill software) or technocentrism (and the limitations of AI and many CAI models) or pure discovery models (c.f Ross Driver’s guided discovery). Our discussions came to life when specific math or science topics, learner preconceptions and misconceptions, and possible activities with students were raised.
There are almost few digital technologies that can (and some would argue should) tutor the student independently on math and science concepts or inquiry. At the same time there are few guidelines or approaches to teaching math or science with technology. The four Module B TELEs, as many of your posts suggest, each in their own way provide more specified guidance for teachers and multi-step methods for teaching science and math with (or without) technology than the common terms such as facilitate and guide on the side would suggest.
It was excellent to hear how several posts reflected on this by raising the role of the teacher as being integral to the design of the entire learning experience. Some of you extended this by highlighting the importance of the level of guidance enacted by the teacher. Others pointed to a teacher role in designing and enhancing collaborative experiences as a means to supporting the goals of the lesson. Untethered from the software itself, the customizability of the TELE stretched beyond mere interfaces for many of you in your previous entries, to include other digital technologies (or selecting no digital technology in some phases), resources, interactive dialogue with the teacher, and an active role for students.
Our pedagogical frameworks in this Module offer rare evidence-based models to integrate a variety of digital technologies with teaching methods and strategies applicable to STEM. It was enlightening to read the multiple ways such pedagogical frameworks could inform the k-16 landscape of teaching and learning contexts herein, Samia