A comparison of TELEs
I’ve had the TELEs jumbled in my mind for a while, but creating this chart has been helpful in identifying how they are unique.
| TELE | What it looks like | Learning Theories | Needs Addressed | Key Affordances | Things to be aware of |
| Anchored Instruction | Jasper: video narratives with vignettes that contain relevant context to the scenario and a complex problem for students to solve. Students work on the problem with peers. They must consolidate multiple concepts and apply a variety of skills. | Constructivism:
Multiple connections and links to schema for learning Real context connects to sociocultural model |
Increase student motivation because the subject is contextualized in a real life case
Opportunities for complex problem solving. |
Peer-to-peer and collaboration
Video medium facilitates visualization and can be engaging Video examples can be directly applicable to students or opportunities for learning new things that may not be immediately relevant to them. |
Video is expensive given the needs of the three levels of production
Teachers still need to be aware of the assessment and support for students Language/context can be challenging for ELLs Still need frequent and varied assessment Potential for viral effect where students create their own video narratives and assessments More modern alternatives to video include VR, AR, and MR. |
| SKI | WISE: online modules that can support subject inquiry. Engage students through scaffolding and iteration. The scaffolding involves connecting to preconceptions, making predictions, and other resources. SKI is about chunking and sequencing the material. | Cognitivism: scaffolding and chunking content
Constructivism: peer-to-peer and collaboration, continuous reflection |
High quality online learning objects
Open access Re-mix and modification for individual teacher use |
Peer-to-peer and collaboration
Meant to replicate an inquiry process. This is modelled by reflection and re-visiting preconceptions |
Predicting pathways for learning and misconceptions: Look into literature and prior experiences
Need to revise for instructional based misconceptions Be careful of the default affordances of the medium and how they may limit assessment and interactivity Given the cognitivist influence, need to be aware of how students perceive fluency. Students prefer fluent learning experiences and may overestimate their learning (Deslauriers et al, 2019). Would use teacher.desmos as the platform for SKI math |
| LfU | Cycle of motivation, knowledge construction, knowledge refinement
Motivation: demand, curiosity Knowledge construction: Observe, communicate Knowledge refinement: Apply, reflect |
Constructivist
Skills are developed and concepts are learned based on the problem at hand Strong parallels with Piaget’s concept of schema construction (assimilation, tuning, accretion, accommodation) |
Harmonizing process and content
A cycle of motivation and engagement |
Looks a lot like problem/project based learning where skills and auxilliary concepts are learned as part of the larger learning objectives | Opportunities for differentiation
Need to remember that these are activity based and the activity can start the cycle of motivation |
| T-GEM | Generate: form a hypothesis based on a large data set
Evaluate: put the hypothesis to the test, examine anomalies Modify: revise hypothesis, examine new cases |
Constructivism
Appears to be more teacher-directed through the selection of activity GEM also parallels with disequilibrium given that evaluation allows students to engage in accretion, tuning, and accommodation |
Addresses conceptual understanding and inquiry
Students work on explaining a theory and applying it rather than memorizing findings |
Models how the scientific community behaves through hypothesizing, analyzing data, discussing with peers, and iterating | Generate and Evaluation phases are good places to use concept cartoons (for science) where students are engaged in disequilibrium and must address the strength of their schema’s connections
Students may incorrectly think that research and data collection is easy, given that simulations allow for rapid collection Need students to appreciate the challenges of the past and the advancements to today Technology and simulations need to be addressed, visualization and order can lead to misconceptions |
Ranking from teacher-centred to student centred
This ranking is based on the nature of the TELEs, how technology is used in the examples we had, and is based on the default features:
- SKI
Because the initial creation of a SKI module may arise from common misconceptions. The WISE modules were created to allow teachers to re-use/re-mix. Using the modules as is, is akin to using an interactive textbook with built in activities. SKI lends itself well to peer-to-peer collaboration, but the prediction of the learning path is determined by the creators. Face-to-face interactions and assessment can help teachers iterate upon existing SKI modules.SKI’s strategy for learning is scaffolding concepts. The locus of construction is at the teacher level.
- Anchored Instruction
If we only look at the original Jasper series and the nature of video, this can be more teacher-centred. However the utility of peer-to-peer collaboration and rich assessment tasks can allow students opportunities to further explore. If the viral effect option with anchored instruction is used (i.e., students create their own anchored instruction series), there is a greater link to student oriented learning. - T-GEM
T-GEM strongly parallels scientific inquiry. Based on the Generate phase with the mass of data, T-GEM could be more teacher-centred depending on the data’s origins. The teacher may also be selecting the anomaly data for students to analyze. However, T-GEM is useful in getting students to iterate upon their theories and learn how to communicate their understanding using academic language. A challenge with inquiry in science at the high school level is that we are trying to move our students towards known conclusions. We want them to diverge, but really everything should converge to the same point. T-GEM has a nice approach to deal with these challenges because it iterates upon what is “known” by shaping it with feedback and unusual cases.T-GEM’s strategy for learning involves construction based on observation. The locus of construction is at the student level with teacher’s providing data. - LfU
Given the nature of the LfU cycle (motivation, knowledge construction, knowledge refinement) and engaging students through activity, LfU appears to be more student-centred. Given the prompt/activity, students learn related concepts and develop supporting skills to achieve their goals. Like the WISE modules, this can support lifelong learning.LfU’s strategy for learning involves motivation for activity. The locus of construction is at the student level.
In my own context, I can see how a mix of the TELEs would be used to support active learning in engineering design. However, as a non-engineer, I don’t have the appropriate TPACK to flesh out the details of this:
- Pre-lecture tasks with SKI: Given that we have about 1000 students, it’s hard to provide one-on-one feedback. The classic pre-lecture task is to read a textbook, but I find that (at least in math, chemistry) textbooks aren’t written for novices and students don’t complete readings as we would expect them to. Given the nature of an active learning lecture, students would ideally apply their pre-lecture learning in lecture with facilitation from instructors and TAs. Using SKI for pre-lecture tasks would be helpful for students because they can complete activities and get feedback as they move along. These pre-lecture tasks would be housed within the LMS to track student progress.As well, students like fluent modules because they perceive that they are learning more in these cases (Deslauriers et al, 2019). The interspersing of assessment can be used to facilitate self assessment and metacognition.
- LfU and Anchored Instruction: Due to the nature of engineering design, the course is more project based. The client’s problem serves as a real life scenario and it needs to be solved. This also contextualizes the learning that students do and the skills they need to develop to move towards a conceptual design. However, I’m not sure where the technology will come into play here. With the Jasper Series, the scenarios were selected for students and they were useful to view given that they weren’t necessarily places where students could go/experience. In our case with real clients or at least real client statements with fictitious clients, technology doesn’t do much to enhance the experience. I read about Nephrotex used as a serious game and virtual intership for engineering design, but I don’t have the engineering design knowledge to critique the use of technology here. It is a useful virtual internship but I don’t foresee our course being modified to include something like it for the time being.
What I like most about the SKI, LfU, and T-GEM frameworks is that they are strongly linked with Piaget’s theory of schema construction and modification (Yilmaz, 2011):
Overall, I’m seeing that regardless of the technology used the overall structure of learning needs to be framed within how people learn and assessment/activity. The educational technology used does not teach. The human interactions between teacher, student, and content is where the teaching and learning occurs.
References
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(39), 19251-19257. doi:10.1073/pnas.1821936116
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204-212. doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.568989