Author Archives: Linda Duong

I might be ahead of the current discussions and am waiting to see what is discussed in the LfU forum, but I’m finding that I’m having difficulty separating LfU and T-GEM from SKI.

My sample lesson for LfU reminds me of SKI because it does scaffold learning while using a constructivist cycle of motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement. For SKI, I used disequilibrium to introduce motivation (although this may have been more to engage in preconceptions rather than to get students goal oriented). I’m currently working on my T-GEM post and find that it’s like an in-person version of SKI. Maybe these models are more similar than they are different?

Perhaps the other challenge that’s hanging over this is that all the methods are constructivist and since they are all from the same learning theory, there is significant overlap with the strategies.

As I read what my peers have written, I hope to get better insights into how these models are different and how they are similar. Moving towards the synthesis discussion will also help me consolidate my learning.

In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

LfU is a constructivist framework that engages in motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001). This framework strongly parallels with Piaget’s concepts of schema construction where disequilibrium (as a source of motivation) leads to the adjustment or non-adjustment of schema. By constructing schema is meaningful scenarios for application, this facilitates the recall and use of information. From looking at LfU, I’ve been having difficulty understanding how it’s different from SKI (other than all the examples being tied to GIS).

I’ve chosen to create an LfU-based activity in organic nomenclature. However, selecting this topic made me wonder if I’m just falling into the traditional format the Edelson (2001) mentions where teachers separate content and process. The whole point of LfU is a framework for merging these together. In attempts to address this, I’ve decided to consolidate organic nomenclature as a motivation for a larger task. The organic nomenclature section will also engage in an LfU cycle. My greatest concern with this is if I’m actually using SKI for this design, rather than LfU.

A Forensic whodunit with chemicals

The end goal of the unit will be to determine the culprit based on chemicals (could be a mix of the organic chemistry unit, or a re-visit with a variety of types of compounds).

In this case, we’ll do a specific whodunit with organic compounds. However, to determine which chemical is present, students need to identify it. This will require an understanding of:

• organic nomenclature
• properties of an organic compound (as determined by its structure)
• reactivity for follow up qualitative and quantitative analysis (rationale for organic synthesis)

Thus, organic nomenclature, as a topic, links into motivation. Students form a goal of naming and drawing these compounds.

Organic nomenclature

In Ontario, organic nomenclature is taught in Grade 12 Chemistry, previously students learn how to name compounds in Grade 9/10 science. For covalent compounds, the naming conventions that students learned are not useful for organic compounds. This needs to be made obvious to students through an activity:

Task 1

Name and draw the following chemicals:

• CH₄
• C₂H₆
• C₃H₈
• C₄H₁₀

it’s hoped that students recognize that there are different isomers for C₄H₁₀. If not, there is a follow up task.

Task 2

This game can be played either as a matching game or as a pairing game like Dude. The idea here is that in both cases, students will experience cognitive dissonance when they realize that the chemical name and structure are sometimes different.

Examples need to be picked to highlight the different possibilities (Since this is just an entry point for organic nomenclature, we would just start naming with alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, and cycloalkanes):

• different arrangement of atoms (e.g., butane vs. methylpropane)
• unsaturated compounds
  • different types of bonds (e.g., double, triple bonds; different locations of these bonds)
  • rings

Through these tasks, the motivation to learn organic nomenclature will manifest. Students will recognize that that the covalent compound naming they’ve previously learned has its limitations and they need to learn how to name such that the structure of the compound is clear.

We would then cycle through direct instruction and practice. To help students construct and refine their knowledge, another game can be used. Similar to the polygraph activities in teacher desmos, a drawing and naming game can be made. Student must create questions to either draw or name the compound their partner has. When they are certain of the compound, they will ask (e.g., is this your molecule [show a picture]?; is your molecule [name]?). Through questioning, students will practice the sequence for naming organic compounds (longest carbon chain, functional groups, substitutents, location).

Another task they can use is based on imposters. Incorrectly named organic compounds (e.g., incorrect numbering, not using the longest carbon chain) and correctly named organic compounds need to be identified and corrected as needed.

As the students work on these tasks, the teacher facilitates and offers follow up activities based on how students are performing. Some areas I predict could come up include:

• why common names still exist: get students to name a straight chain glucose, then show students that the name that is commonly used is glucose (gloss over the L, D)
• naming with multiple functional groups: link to why there’s a priority of functional groups and how that links to finding the longest continuous carbon chain with the highest priority functionality group

To continue with the cycle of motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement, students could investigate the physical properties of organic compounds. The Dumas method could also be used to determine the molar mass of the compounds (if liquid). Depending on which organic compounds are selected and investigated, students may notice that it’s really hard to find out the identity of the molecule. This will lead to the motivation to investigate chemical properties and how these arise. To keep with the game-based learning, an ending task that could be used is a modification of retrosynthetic rummy, a card game used for 2nd year organic chemistry students (Carney, 2015). Although Grade 12 students will not have the same content knowledge as 2nd year organic chemistry students, the concepts and practice of functional group interchange is still valuable. The modification could be A > B, how did this happen, students throw down the reaction card type.

References

Carney, J. M. (2015). Retrosynthetic rummy: A synthetic organic chemistry card game. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(2), 328-331. doi:10.1021/ed500657u

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.

What was the motivation to create WISE?

WISE was created to provide high quality accessible science education material on the web. Although having content available doesn’t mean that people will learn, the WISE modules allow for re-mixing which can help teachers personalize them for their students and curriculum. Each WISE module is intended to facilitate making learning visible and engage students in collaboration.

In what ways does SKI promote knowledge integration through its technological and curriculum design? Describe a typical process for developing a WISE project.

By scaffolding the inquiry in meaningful case examples (e.g., tire recycling, genetic modification, cancer), students engage in the inquiry process by first developing a basic vocabulary, generating responses, and later reflecting upon their responses.

The typical process for developing a WISE project involves:

• Selecting an interesting curricular topic for students to explore
• Identifying the different skills and concepts that students would need to develop
• Sequencing the module content
• Populating assessment and activity throughout the module (e.g., prediction, practice, reflection)
• Adding resources to the module to support the activities (e.g., websites, simulations)
• Hosting the project online and encouraging re-mix and re-use

WISE projects facilitate curiousity through the case example selected while the assessment tasks help students build the background knowledge and skills to predict, explain, and then explore and iterate.

How does this design process compare with the Jasper Adventures?

In contrast, the Jasper adventures are primarily video based and are scenarios where problem solving is situated. In WISE, the scenario is what students work on.

I imagine that the Jasper adventures were much more expensive to create and design given the medium. In contrast to the WISE design process, the Jasper adventures likely undergo:

• Selecting a real-world scenario
• Creating multi layered and complex problems
• Scripting the scenario with the problem in mind; provide enough context and then transition students into collaborative or individual problem solving

Overall, I find the design process for both WISE and Jasper. While WISE examines a scenario/case, Jasper has students working on math problems within the scenario. The anchor for Jasper helps students recognize that math has real life applications. The scaffolding in WISE helps make science more accessible and facilitates inquiry in meaningful contexts.

How could you use a WISE project in your school or another learning environment?

Since WISE reminds me of the e-modules I create using Articulate Rise (except with native authoring for more constructivist activities), I imagine it as a useful classroom tool for:

• Guided homework and preparatory tasks – especially in cases where you want to do a flipped classroom or begin an actual inquiry in the classroom, this could be done to target some of the lower order thinking skills from Bloom’s taxonomy before students progress to higher order thinking skills. The challenge with the home use is that it doesn’t make use of peer-to-peer and collaboration. As a preparatory task, it would also be great to use as a larger class discussion.

  In my own context, I would like to see high quality modules created as pre-lecture tasks. Especially in a post-secondary institution, the re-mix and re-use element of WISE modules makes it great for others to use. Open access and connecting to other units is also helpful.

• Meaningful work to do when the teacher is away – instead of giving students busy work when a supply teacher is present, a WISE module’s feedback can provide guidance to the learner. As well, it can be designed to include resources and interactivity to support learners.

What about WISE would you customize?

I think the native authoring of WISE offers users a lot to work with. I especially like that there’s interactivity that can help students carry a digital notebook with them and then re-visit it later. These reflective tasks are important because it helps students confront their naive conceptions and correct them with new evidence to create a new theory.

Given that WISE is based in the USA, most of the content is based on American curriculum. There is a lot of overlap in the concepts, but as was pointed out in our discussions, it would be good to have Canadian examples. From working at an ed tech start up to create video lessons, I know how difficult it is to create a quality web based experience. Since WISE aims to create a good starting point for re-mixing, it is still difficult to engage in TPACK since our students may interact with the module differently than we expect. When I was working at the start up, I would return to literature to identify common misconceptions and try to address those through assessments, examples, and non-examples. I suppose in a classroom perspective, a high quality WISE module would target the majority of students based on literature and other data. Through assessment, conversation, and making learning visible, teacher-student and student-student interactions could shift to address what is relevant to their specific class. In this sense, WISE provides an accessible platform for learning while the assessments/activities and collaboration encourage lifelong learning.

The challenge I’m currently seeing with the WISE authoring system is that it is complex. Although a lot can be done, there is a steep learning curve.

First thoughts:

I really liked the Cancer Medication and Mitosis module. The graph and medication activities were well thought out.

View re-design

I chose to attempt a re-design of the Grade 8 Genetic Inheritance module, but the WISE authoring tool was intimidating. I chose to instead do a fast authoring through Articulate Rise and have realized how the default interface/options of a medium impact teaching and learning. Rise uses pre-set blocks and the in-house options for activities and, at first glance, support a more behaviourist and cognitivist approach. If you use Rise in more depth and think about the affordances you want to leverage, you might incorporate constructivist approaches with a Google Form, Padlet, or H5P. In contrast, WISE offers much more choice with free response assessments. This open ended questioning is more helpful in leveraging constructivism. Overall, I’m starting to see how the medium influences the user in what affordances can be used. With more exploration and critical thought, the barriers to other affordances and pedagogy can be broken.

In contrast to the Cancer Medication and Mitosis module, I found the Genetic Inheritance module to have some out of place assessments and missing some of the key ideas about genetics (e.g., DNA and inheritance, genes and alleles, phenotypes, factors impacting phenotypes, types of inheritance). I chose to re-design/modify the section on pedigrees. Specifically, I thought it would be useful for students to explore phenotypes and emphasize the idea that multiple genes can impact phenotype.

It was intended that the students go through the module within the original WISE module. I attempted to have students address:

a) misconceptions about phenotype – it is often thought that a genotype always dictates phenotype, but there are other factors that can impact phenotype​ (e.g., multiple gene interaction, environmental factors, incomplete penetrance).

b) constructivism – building on WISE’s ideas of making learning visible and collaboration, I wanted students to work with each other as the teacher facilitates.

c) PCK – a little more difficult for me since I’m not a Biology teacher, but I do remember some of the big ideas of genetics. I want students to leave this segment of the module realizing that genetics is complex and what may be unexpected can actually happen and can be explained in multiple ways.

d) inquiry – I wanted students to go through gradual cycles of disequilibrium where they think they know what they are doing, but then get a specific task that challenges those conceptions.

e) instructional feedback – This wasn’t as prevalent in this module. However, it’s intended that students would engage in conversations in the class and the teacher would check in and chat with the students as needed.

I really like the PCK and TPACK frameworks. It’s important to take into consideration the context in which each of these elements are framed and applied.

Thinking back to teacher’s college, I had general education courses that linked to pedagogy knowledge and in the final year of my concurrent program, we had curriculum/instruction/assessment courses in our teachables that link to the PCK intersection. Within just the PCK realm, I notice there are many inherent assumptions around how a subject should be taught. For example, in STEM courses at the secondary level, we often assess through tests although we may have other products (e.g., reports, assignments, presentations). Other courses, like visual arts, lean less towards written tests. In the last high school I was teaching in, PCK was not always respected and there was a general push from the administration and department heads from other departments saying that there shouldn’t be written exams (e.g., phys ed, special ed, arts) when these individuals either do not do exams in general, or do not teach science.

In terms of technology, it’s important to consider how it’s used for learning. These needs to be addressed with the general challenges involving pedagogy and the discipline specific needs (e.g., conventions, preconceptions, skills). Without the context, the specific technology becomes a stand alone software/hardware that will likely be replaced through technological turn over and its affordances skimmed over.

Example of PCK

Chemistry nomenclature of binary ionic compounds

As part of a different course, I created an e-module to illustrate the need for constructivism when learning how to name binary ionic compounds. This was based on my experience as a student teacher when I worked with an English Language Learner. There’s a scenario block included that lets you talk to a student and you can work on using constructivist methods like probing. It also highlights the importance of assessment.

Using the usual naming method of keep the name of the metal and use the name of the non-metal, drop its ending, and add -ide, there are misconceptions that arise from the instructional method if it’s left just like this.

Strategy to overcome this:

• Introduce the strategy and have students try naming something
  • Start with success strategy: build the momentum by highlighting that students are doing well already, praise them (e.g., magnesium bromide)
  • It would be helpful to also explain why we’re doing this (i.e., naming the ions that the compound is formed from)
• Repeat with another example (e.g., lithium iodide)
• Introduce disequilibrium with a targeted question (e.g., aluminum nitride; the idea is to use something that is not a halide)
  • Depending on the population of learners, people may think that the ending of a non-metal is the last three letters. This is observed with the halogens, but it’s not the case for all non-metals. It’s more based on the sound of the word rather than an actual pattern
  • Take up the answer and highlight that the ending of a non-metal isn’t always the last three letters of the word
• Iterate with more assessment, introduce another targeted question (e.g., some oxide)
  • Students will likely be confused at this point and frustrated that there really isn’t a pattern
• Have students create a word wall for the non-metal to non-metal ions
  • Transition to practice
  • With technology, I’ve used Kahoot! to get students to name compounds. The distractors are based on common misconceptions (e.g., just using the names of the elements with no change, not using the periodic table and picking a similar sounding element like Mn vs. Mg, incorrect non-metal endings, and adding -ide to the metal name) As students progress with the concepts of nomenclature, the distractors will mix with the naming methods for covalent compounds, multivalent ionic compounds, and polyatomic ions.

Each Jasper episode is a narrative adventure situated in a real life context. Students learn a bit about the context and then are presented with a complex multi-step problem to solve. Jasper is responding to the needs to increase student motivation in learning math and to help students solve complex problems (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992b). These are currently issues given math anxiety and the challenges with seeing how abstract concepts can be applied in the real world. The materials have a constructivist design that leverage:

• generative thinking: students apply their current knowledge and skills to problem solve a more complex challenge
• anchored instruction: situated in a specific context, students identify subproblems and work towards solving them. The real context allows students to connect to additional resources to solve their problems.
• cooperative learning: working in groups, students for communities or inquiry to solve the problems (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992b)

Compared to other video lessons (e.g., Khan Academy, Crash Course, BBC Learn, Academic Earth), Jasper is more about assessment rather than instruction. Making videos is expensive so if the same material could be captured in a .pdf, then it should be done through this method. Although these videos can be engaging due to the incorporation of multimedia, in the end, many are just lecture captures. Direct instruction is not necessarily bad, but the affordances of video should be leveraged. The closest thing I’ve seen to Jasper is the TED-Ed math videos. In these videos, students are presented with a riddle and told to pause the video before they get the full solution. If teachers are looking to create interactive videos with embedded assessment, H5P and EDpuzzle are options. With the TED-Ed videos, there is the opportunity for assessment but this depends on the user to pause the video and try on their own.

I think what makes Jasper successful is its assessment and community centred approach. The assessments are rich and can connect students to real life problems. However, video is not necessarily required to do this. For example, around this time last year, the Chuck E. Cheese pizza recycling controversy arose. One of my math teacher friends took this as an opportunity to explore the controversy using proportional reasoning. However, it’s difficult to connect higher level math (e.g., calculus) to real world contexts. In cases like this, it’s useful to link to resources like Jasper and CEMC. Connecting math to everyday life makes me think of creating math trails and creating more project based assessments.

Overall, I think Jasper can definitely be useful, although teachers will need to address the challenges connected to language that will arise. In terms of teachers creating their own DIY Jasper adventures, I think we will need to re-think our current approach to assessment and evaluation before we make such an expensive commitment.

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.