Category Archives: Module B

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.

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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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

I’ve been struggling with creating a T-GEM lesson because I’ve been hung up on the Generate phase. I can’t get over the need for a large data set to observe and generate a relationship! I’ve settled for periodic trends, but have some rough drafts for:

• intermolecular forces and changes of state
• real gas behaviour
• different ways to fill/inflate a balloon
• solubility (compound in a solvent vs. temperature)

Background: Periodic trends are a challenge for students.

When I marked my undergraduate chemistry students’ quizzes on periodic trends (e.g., defining the trend, explaining it, applying it) there were often challenges with explaining why the trend was as is and how to apply them in novel concepts. In particular, students memorize the trends to apply them to questions. When they are given elements to compare, they can easily use the trend without really understanding what’s happening. However, this misconception becomes clear when students are asked to rank information about isoelectronic species. What I’ve realized from teaching periodic trends to students is that they do not understand what these atoms look like nor do they recognize the importance of Coulombic attractions (re: charge and distance between charged particles).

Periodic Trends T-GEM Lesson

Generate

Using atomic radius data, the teacher will model how to explain the trend for atomic radius going down a periodic table:

Screen shot from periodic trends simulator. (American Association of Chemistry Teachers)

Students will identify that the trend going down the periodic table is that the atomic size increases. The Bohr Rutherford diagrams from H, Li, Na, and K will be drawn and connections to Coulomb’s law will be explained. It’s important for students to recognize the importance of:

• protons attracting electrons
• electrons repelling electrons
• impact of distance between charged particles

With the Bohr Rutherford diagrams, the teacher must be very careful to explain that the circles where electrons are drawn represent energy levels, not orbits. The energy levels represent the distance from the nucleus to where the electrons can most likely be found; electrons in higher energy levels are further away from the nucleus.

Visually, students will see that the elements going down this group are increasing in size. This helps them follow along when the teacher models an explanation using Coulomb’s law.

Evaluate

To put their explanation skills to the test, students will predict the trends for atomic radius going left to right and ionic size as compared to the atom an ion was formed from. They are expected to explain this using Coulomb’s law (PhET simulation on Coulomb’s law.) and can compare their responses to this periodic trends simulator. The prediction and explanation for the atomic radius should be checked before students can move on to make predictions about ions.

Outside of the classic size ranking questions, they will arrange the following isoelectronic species in order of decreasing size: Na⁺, Mg²⁺, Ne, F^–, O^2-, N^3-

Using Coulomb’s law, students should examine the number of protons and electrons to make their prediction.

Modify

As an extension and application of their understanding of atomic size, students will predict and explain the trends for ionization energy (going down the periodic table, going left to right). They will be provided with the definition of ionization energy (the energy required to remove 1 mol of the most loosely bound electron from 1 mol of an isolated neutral gaseous atom).

Students will examine the discrepancy in ionization energy in the oxygen family and explain why it exists. In this case, students will use their trend to make a prediction, and then compare their prediction to data (periodic trends simulator). Students will need to use the quantum mechanic model with an electron configuration diagram to figure this out. This will highlight that the Bohr model is useful in explaining the general trends, but another model is required for explaining discrepancies and developing a more nuanced understanding of the trends.

Another discrepancy to explain is the ionization energy of boron as compared to beryllium. Again, this requires a quantum mechanic model.

A note on technology and simulations

Although the periodic trends simulator. I’ve selected is useful, I don’t like some of the language it uses with respect to only being able to remove valence electrons to make an ion stable. Naked ions are NOT stable. Naked ions are not found in nature.

The simulator, along with instructional methods that talk about ionic stability, are missing the point that ions do not readily form in nature. We need to have a conversation about lattice stabilization energy. I remember this being a really confusing point in 2nd year inorganic chemistry. My professor commented that everyone thinks that sodium readily donates its valence electron to chlorine and chlorine willingly accepts to form chloride. This isn’t true as is. My professor specifically showed us the ionization energy of sodium and the electron affinity of chlorine and showed that it would be an endothermic reaction. This contradicts what we had all learned in high school! Then he commented that the missing picture was the lattice stabilization energy. Essentially, elements do not readily become ions!

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.