• 11 years ago
• Posted in:eFolio Requirement, Reflection
• 0
• Author: Kim Wagner
• Tags: misconceptions, scientific inquiry, SKI, TELE, WISE

What broader questions about learning and technology have provoked WISE research and the development of SKI?

• How can students engage in more meaningful inquiry that is not teacher controlled or purposely leads to a set, right answer?
• How can teachers more effectively address student questions in ways that do not involve lying to students, creating a cycle of frustration, or expecting them to get to a certain right answer?
• Where is a balance between traditional, direct instruction and open-ended inquiry?
• How can inquiry be better utilized to address the issues of teachers’ lack of time, teachers’ weak understanding of science, curriculum that is too prescribed to allow for inquiry, and lack of pedagogical skill?
• How can technology be better utilized in the science classroom to support scientific inquiry?
• How can students develop a better understanding of science concepts through hands on inquiry and active learning?

Describe the authors’ pedagogical design considerations that shaped the development of “What’s on your Plate?” How and where was WISE integrated into a larger sequence of activities?

The “What’s on Your Plate?” unit was designed according to SKI tenants and WISE principles. The project unit made the learning accessible by engaging student in problems personally relevant as their environments are affected by plate tectonics and by providing materials with appropriate level of analysis and explanation to capture their interest. Thinking was made visible to facilitate students’ knowledge and to scaffold the learning process; students engaged in drawing tasks to make their models, used those models as artifacts for model revision and collaborative discourse; and students were provided with dynamic, runnable models of plate tectonics to visualize processes and to test, critique, and revise their own models. There were social supports in place as they considered their own and others’ ideas—to learn from their own models and others’ critiquing of their models. Life-long learning and autonomy in learning is supported as the students engage in sustained reasoning, develop science process skills and are encouraged to revisit their own understanding. WISE design principles are incorporated:

1. collaboration – students work in pairs and with another pair on the opposite coast
2. content areas – students access well-planned content (links to website, dynamic models)
3. dialogue with peers—students evaluate and critique their learning partners’ models
4. scientific inquiry—students engaging in it; assessing, critiquing, revising, justifying
5. individual reflection—student reflect on their content learning

There was a larger sequence of activities for learning about plate tectonics as there were content activities that framed the modeling lessons, but the WISE environment was used to coordinate all the learning as it can contain the links and resources that the students access for their learning.

Analyze the evidence and author’s conclusions. Are the conclusions justified?

The author concluded that students achieved a deeper understanding of causality based on the following evidence: “In all five WISE periods, students scored higher on the models survey after the unit then they did before the unit” (Gobert, Snyder & Houghton, 2002, pg. 8). In addition to the students performing better on the pencil paper pre-test and post-test, the students’ revised models were also more meaningful. The student examples included in the report were to demonstrate the trends discovered in the revising of models: students added detail to their diagram or explanation, corrected misconceptions, showed greater detail of what occurs below the earth’s surface, and reflected a greater understanding of causality. If the examples used to show the trends in the study are actually representative of the trends in the study, these conclusions are justified. I wonder if there should have been a quantitative method to categorize the changes made by students, to give a numerical value to the types of changes in understanding. Otherwise, they few examples can be questioned as actually being representative of such a large data set (involving 1110 students).

In what ways does WISE support the processes commonly associated with  “inquiry” in science?

According to Inquiry and National Science Education Standards (2000), inquiry in science involves the following steps:

1. Exhibits curiosity, defines questions, form knowledge background
2. Gathers evidence using technology and mathematics
3. Uses previous research
4. Propose a possible explanation
5. Publishes explanation based on evidence
6. Considers new evidence
7. Adds to explanation
8. Explanation informs public policy

WISE projects begin with an inquiry question that frames the learning. The question can be given by the unit or it could be developed with the students after developing questions about a particular phenomenon. Content included is designed to give background knowledge about the given topic. Next, students would gather evidence that is relevant to the inquiry question whether it actually involves calculations and primary data collection or drawing on reputable sources to gather known information about the question topic. After the data collection, the students propose explanations, for example, the students developed models of plate tectonics. They published their explanations based on their learning and current understanding for their other pair to review and critique, while they did the same for that other pair. They were asked to consider changes to their models based on the critique. Then they added to or modified their initial explanation. Only the last step is not satisfied because public policy is not involved.

The Problem with Answers (Furtak, 2006) presents the problem with inquiry learning that is teacher directed because students will always start to ask for answers, and the teacher is then put in the position of deciding what to do in those instances. In this study, the three teachers fell into negative practices of lying to students, making a game of the learning (without a payoff), and justifying their pedagogy. The WISE system moves away from situations like these because the student access the content areas as needed as they work through the inquiry problem. Although we are still bringing students to an understanding of a science concept, they build on their starting knowledge and develop their understanding as they proceed through the learning activities.

How might these processes be used to support math instruction?

The main point of the WISE project system is to confront students’ misconceptions and result in deeper, lasting understanding (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2003), so it definitely could be applied to Mathematics instruction (and other subject areas as well). Finance mathematics could be taught using a WISE project. For example, the student could have to analyse budgets to determine if the person has appropriate earnings for what they spend. They could learn about budgeting, financing, mortgages, calculating interest, etc. Apply that learning to budget analysis, and even then create a budget for a particular purpose. Student could work in pairs, access well-built content areas, have their budget peer reviewed, make improvements, and publish or present their findings in class. The principles of the system lend themselves to any subject really.

What might be the cognitive and social affordances of the WISE TELE for students? 

References:

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.

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.

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

US Board of Science Education. (2000).  Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press: Washington, DC. Retrieved February 16, 2014, from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9596&page=R1.

Media Credit:

suwatpo. (2013).  Bromo Vocano [sic] Mountain Stock Photo.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved February 17, 2014, from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/bromo-vocano-mountain-photo-p198548.