Category Archives: Module C

Given the current COVID-19, I’ve decided to make this lesson fully online. I’ve highlighted some of logistical questions that came to mind based on the design and how an online high school class would look like.

This activity goes over acids and bases and attempts to use LfU with SKI supports. It also tries to model scientific inquiry through PEOE (predict, explain, observe, explain) and how scientists engage in critiques while targeting misconceptions.

Step 1: Motivation through PEOE

We aren’t expecting students to come up with a “perfect” answer here, but many might immediately treat this as a double displacement reaction. They might experience disequilibrium when they realize that the states of matter are not both aqueous. Some may conclude no reaction occurs when using their solubility table.

We don’t necessarily expect them to recognize how the sulfuric acid behaves with chloride ion and if they apply the Bronsted Lowry theory. Some of this may also depend on the specific reaction conditions.

Step 2: Knowledge construction by showing an answer, reflecting on the prediction, and trying to explain that answer

A question that came to mind for this section was how students would work together and what the domains of an online class would be. Do students go to each class as per their rotary timetable? How long is each class? In this current situation, it’s more likely that your high school classes are in the same timezone, so this is a bit easier to work within. Steps 1 and 2 could be synchronous for the whole class or asynchronous. There may also be synchronous drop-ins available through conferencing software (e.g., Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Bb Collaborate, depending on what is available).

In terms of the chemistry, I want students explore how this answer may have been created and how that data was collected. Since this may have been an unexpected answer, I also want them to explore and explain what’s happening at the molecular level to see how students’ mental models are developing (Barke et al, 2009). It would be good for the teacher to check in with students to compare their predictions and new answers. It’s possible that students made assumptions about the reaction conditions that cause their answers to be different.

Step 3: Further knowledge construction and refinement through a synchronous class discussion

Depending on your class, you might also record the class discussion and upload. You would need the class’ permission for this. The idea here is that students who may have been unable to attend the synchronous discussion will be able to watch later on. The sharing through the discussion forum also allows for asynchronous participation.

Through this discussion, we’re interested in seeing if groups suggest using an indicator (e.g., litmus, pH paper) on the gaseous hydrogen chloride. The teacher should also probe students into discussing acids and acid theory (Bronsted Lowry).

Step 4: Watch a video of a set up for the reaction

Some possible videos:

Depending on the video, the teacher might highlight the observations as needed. This should be connected to the previous discussion in Step 3. They should also correct any mistakes that are made in the video, if any.

It’s helpful for students to see a live demonstration and see what the observations were expected to be. This part could be synchronous or asynchronous.

The teacher could also show their own set up an experiment and comment on what the observations would be. A set up and the expected observations are included in Barke et al (2009). From the molecular diagrams that students drew, the teacher can pick one that was correct and/or explicitly model the expectations. This is important in getting students how to visualize and problem solve schematically as per the discipline (Edens & Potter, 2008). The teacher should explain what’s happening with the solvent interactions and how the Bronsted Lowry theory is applied to come up with the answer.

Step 5: Motivate by comparison gaseous hydrogen chloride and aqueous hydrochloric acid

This is the second LfU cycle. It lives within the larger anchored example, that served to motivate students with an unexpected and interesting reaction. It’s important for students to recognize that gaseous hydrogen chloride is made of molecules while an aqueous hydrochloric acid solution contains ions.

Step 6: Knowledge construction and refinement by exploring a PhET simulation

After a lot of internal conflict about this particular PhET, I started to see that it was intended to scaffold student learning and some of the visualization choices were done for simplicity. The simplicity creates productive constraints for students to work within and develop their mental models through interaction (Finkelstein et al, 2005; PhET Simulations, 2013). Being able to interact with each variable and see the effects also supports embodied learning (Niebert et al, 2012). By reading Burke et al’s (2009) recommendations on teaching acids and bases, it’s better for students to develop an understanding of acid base behaviour through a static model before they examine dynamic equilibrium. When the students work on the PhET, it might be helpful to explicitly tell them that they are looking at snapshots of what’s happening at the molecular level. Drawing attention to what’s not shown by the PhET (e.g., solvent interactions, dynamic equilibrium) would be helpful in starting the next LfU cycle.

References

Barke, H., Hazari, A., Yitbarek, S., & SpringerLink ebooks – Chemistry and Materials Science. (2009;2008;). Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical educationLinks to an external site. (1. Aufl. ed.). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3

Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184-196.

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. doi: 10.1002/sce.21026

[PhET Simulations]. (2013, Jan 12). PhET: Research and Development [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/qdeHagIeyrc

I shared resources for remote chemistry teaching, like visualizations and simulations from the Open Science Laboratory. Given the current COVID-19 situation, I selected these resources without really thinking about their pedagogical value. In many ways, it feels like survival mode. If I were teaching in high school right now, my thought process would be to:

1. transition students to online learning as soon as possible, check in with students through the transition
2. design for safety and accessibility; we don’t know where our students are logging in from or if at all
3. design for asynchronous learning and supplement with optional synchronous sessions
4. re-design and re-think assessments for a fully online experience

You may have noticed that my order links to pedagogy and technology before examining content specific pedagogy. My approach hints at trying to defer addressing the chemistry content. I don’t think chemistry can be taught fully online and that simulations are poor substitutions and replacements for actual experiences. However, given the circumstances, simulations and technology are the best alternative for what we might normally do as a real classroom experience. I will examine the cognitive affordances of PhET and a virtual lab, make recommendations about the use of these tools in an online design, and make suggestions about the role of teachers and students.

Cognitive Affordances of PhET and virtual labs

As I was examining a PhET simulation for my discussion post, I was thinking to myself:

I don’t know if I would use this. It’s technically not realistic and it can introduce more misconceptions.

The specific PhET simulation I was looking at was on acids and bases. I liked that the simulation visualized the species in aqueous solution and showed the equilibrium concentrations. However, I couldn’t help but critique that:

• the simulation is inaccurate because the species are dynamic, students need to understand dynamic equilibrium
• although there’s a graph to show the the equilibrium concentrations, it has a logarithmic scale. I understand that this is for space saving, but if students do not read the scale and examine the graph solely on visuals, they will misunderstand the equilibrium concentrations
• solvent interactions are not shown

Going through the readings helped me recognize why these decisions were made and how they support the learning of acid and base solutions.

As Finkelstein et al (2005) explain, a simulation can be more effective than an actual lab because a simulation forces students into productive constraints. Given the nature and design of a simulation, students have a specific set of actions. Although this might not be realistic, the PhET video points out that this is aligned with cognitive science: we don’t want to cognitively overload the learner with information (PhET Simulations, 2013). Interestingly, it was denoted that having too much information at once makes learners become more passive; they begin to watch rather than interact (PhET Simulations, 2013). Hence the scaffolding provided from a simulation is in line with cognition and engages learners in constructing their learning based on the available variables. The simulations are not meant to be the only or primary example for students. Instead, they are an anchor point in the learning journey where students learn some part and when they develop an understanding, can proceed to the next layer of difficult.

This scaffolding and simplicity is in the acid base solution PhET. This particular simulation has an introduction and then a create your solution. In the introduction, learners begin to explore each of the key variables tied to type of species, strength, concentration, and pH. Explicitly learning the conventions for representation can help students unpack symbolic representations. Similar to how Edens & Potter (2008) examined visuals students created to unpack word problems, students may create graphical representations for acids and bases. Edens & Potter (2008) noted that schematic diagrams were more similar to what experts would create where the relevant data was mapped and expressed while pictorial diagrams were expressive and contained unnecessary information. From looking at the mental models for acids and bases in Barke et al (2009), this was similarly shown where students with lower understanding drew spheres without any semblance of what they represented in terms of the acid. In contrast, students with higher understanding used chemical formula (Barke et al, 2009).

In contrast to this PhET simulation, I didn’t find the Open Science Laboratory flame test lab as useful. I can understand that the simulation wanted students to understand the process of conducting a flame test, but it was a buggy set up. It could have been improved if there was more scaffolding, like an intro, to show the user the signals when a specific step was completed successfully. This could give better feedback and modelling about where the hottest part of the flame is and how to adjust the Bunsen burner. As is, the current flame test lab’s constraints are frustrating and not necessarily productive.

Recommendations for Classroom Use of PhET

Although PhET and other well designed simulations can be more effective than doing a physical lab, they cannot fully replace the learning of a real experience (Finkelstein et al, 2005). In terms of embodied learning, simulations should definitely be used in cases where the concepts cannot be experienced (Niebert et al, 2012). Like in the case of acids and bases, being able to change the parameters for key variables and observe what occurs at the molecular level is embodied.

Simulations can be used to help students visualize and interact with data. The conceptions they develop from this may be within the simulation’s constraints, but students should continue to engage in deeper learning once they have set up a foundational schema. In the acid and base PhET example, learning about the type of species, strength, concentration, and pH can address many misconceptions. There are purposeful constraints in the PhET design to force students to artificially examine these in a static environment. This manages the students’ cognitive load and facilitates their interaction with the variables. Once students have developed conceptions about these variables, dynamic equilibrium can be introduced.

Active Roles of the Teacher and Students

Based on the readings, I would suggest:

Teacher

• select a simulation based on misconceptions students commonly have about a the topic
• design a series of closed and open questions to stimulate student thinking
  • closed questions: test for understanding
  • open questions: encourage exploration, forming conclusions
• create opportunities for follow up after using the simulation
  • include tasks that will have students visibly show their thinking, critique and correct misconceptions
• create follow up activities to address some of the visual limitations in the simulation
  • highlight that scaffolding is being used
• model the visual conventions and schematic representations for the concepts

Students

• experiment with the simulation
  • try to come up with conclusions on the behaviours of each of the variables
• participate in group discussions about the simulation and how it works
• reflect upon past and current understanding and how/why it has changed

If I were to go back and teach high school chemistry, I would love to have students work on simulations in small groups. In line with a mixed LfU and T-GEM model, students would seek to solve a problem, and work on making conclusions through this simulation. The process of knowledge construction and refinement would be supported by group activities.

References

Barke, H., Hazari, A., Yitbarek, S., & SpringerLink ebooks – Chemistry and Materials Science. (2009;2008;). Misconceptions in chemistry: Addressing perceptions in chemical education (1. Aufl. ed.). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70989-3

Edens, K., & Potter, E. (2008). How students “unpack” the structure of a word problem: Graphic representations and problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 108(5), 184-196.

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. doi: 10.1002/sce.21026

[PhET Simulations]. (2013, Jan 12). PhET: Research and Development [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/qdeHagIeyrc

How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

Driver et al (1994) highlight the personal construction and social construction of learning science as a process that involves making sense of our everyday interactions with scientific phenomena and engaging in scientific discourse. These concepts parallel with Piagetian and Vygotskian theories. It is important for learners to engage in both personal and social construction because they should be able to engage in science in a variety of contexts. The commentary of Driver et al (1994) dismisses basic accretion and assimilation; their commentary parallels with Winn’s (2002) ideas of the umwelt. Essentially, as the umwelt (visualization of schema and connected schema) develops as students engage in cycles of equilibrium and disequilibrium. Through accretion, tuning, and accommodation, a more nuanced and vast umwelt develops and students will recognize and apply that some theories are more relevant in specific concepts. Depending on the scenario and context, students can switch between theories and recognize how they supplement each other.

For this module, I explored the Exploratorium and Virtual Field Trips. Both of these networked communities can be used to construct the learning of science. They allow students to develop their interests in greater depth and continue learning outside of the classroom. Depending on the resource used, students can join participatory cultures.

Exploratorium and similar open resources from museums

The Exploratorium’s online resources remind me of DIY activities. These could be starting points for deeper conversations. I really like how these activities are accessible and can encourage deeper learning. I did, however, find that the resources are more geared towards K-6, but I may also have this lens given the COVID-19 situation. When looking at resources from the Royal Ontario Museum, I couldn’t help but feel that things are better in the actual museum. I’ve always loved being able to go into the museum, wander through exhibits, play with the new tech experiences, and listen in to guided tours.

The online resources can bring the museum learning home. As Hsi (2008) mentions, museums and science centres are also supplementing visits with pre and post activities. I can see these online resources being used by students and their families to continue exploring topics. Although some resources appear to be more geared towards classroom teachers, they can be modified for family use. I really like how many of the activities can be project based so students are engaging in a variety of skills that are used by the scientific community (e.g., research, observation, communication) as well as other age-geared skills (e.g., fine motor, gross motor).

Virtual Field Trips

I watched the virtual field trip to Astra Zeneca. It was very similar to TV show episodes where you get an inside look into a workplace. The only main difference I noticed is that the host encouraged viewers to participate on Twitter with a specific hashtag.

Other modern equivalents of virtual field trips could include live streams, Instagram takeovers, and vlogs featuring things like a day in the life of _____ or an AMA (Ask Me Anything).

Virtual field trips allow users a selected glimpse into an environment they may not normally have access to. Since they are available on the internet, users can choose what they are interested in. In terms of what Driver et al (1994) mention about the engagement of scientific discourse, virtual field trips and conversations with the scientific community (research based and otherwise) humanizes and contextualizes what students have/will learn in the classroom. These virtual trips can also transcend what might normally be selected in the classroom curriculum.

References

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.

Hsi, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, 20(9), 891-899.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998), while role-playing activities have been commonly used in social studies classrooms, they have been infrequently used in science and mathematics classrooms. Speculate on why role playing activities may not be promoted in math and science and elaborate on your opinion on whether activities such as role playing should be promoted. Draw upon direct quotations from embodied learning theories and research in your response.

Why role play might not be used in science

Role play can be used to embody metaphors and analogies. Given that these have limitations where novices internalize similarities that are inaccurate or unintended, teachers would still have to explicitly explain the metaphor/analogy (Niebert et al , 2012). As well, experts might perceive the abstract concepts as concrete (e.g., chemicals are real) and just speak directly about them. As well, metaphors and analogies can fail. If the source is not embodied, the item is ambiguous due to differences in colloquial and academic use, or students are missing an experience, the metaphor can facilitate alternate conceptions (Niebert et al, 2012). The role plays that are used in a class may be constructed rather than embodied. Role plays have a script and are consequently constructed. However, the experience within a role play can be embodied depending on the script.

A teacher might spend a long time creating a great role play for their students. They construct the knowledge based on their experiences and map an abstract concept from their schema. However, when sharing this with students, the students may not understand or have difficulties because the role play is not embodied. It’s hard for the students to connect to the teacher’s knowledge construction and thus reject the teacher’s role play (Niebert et al, 2012). Due to the differences in the teacher’s and student’s knowledge landscapes, the meaning of the role play is not shared.

At the same time, role plays usually involve acting. If humans are representing particles, there are many human features that could be focussed upon rather than whatever the role play is attempting to highlight. I often find that the most common role play used is to representing bonding or forces of attraction. This is tricky because you can’t really model strength (the dating and love analogy might be used, but students might focus on the identity of their classmates instead) and the stochastic nature of the particles is not shown (students tend to stand stiffly).

The effort from constructing a role play and low return may make role plays undesirable in science classes. It might be “easier” if direct instruction or a simulation is used instead. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that role plays should not be used at all. There are good use cases for role plays.

Example of a good role play

In my Advanced Inorganic Chemistry course there was one specific role play/metaphor that really stuck with me. My professor was talking about the metathesis mechanism. I can’t remember who the scientists were, but they were able to dance their paper to show how the mechanism worked:

1. Two couples independently dance
2. The two couples join together to form a box
3. The group separates into two couples, different from the initial

This was a good role play because:

• mechanism and dance both embody movement: movement of atomic connections vs. movement of people
• dance focusses upon the dancer: using this schema, the focus is on how the dancers are interacting. Other information about them is dismissed
• having users dance focusses upon the before, transition, and after formations
• focussed analogy: we don’t examine the hand holding between dancers or the relationships between the dancers. Instead the pairing is connected to the linkage between atoms.

Potential of role play in science

I don’t think role plays should be dismissed as a tool in teaching science. Overall, I think if an experience can be embodied and experienced, this is how students should learn it. However, for abstract concepts, metaphors, analogies, and role plays can be useful. I would still prefer to use simulations if possible, but alternate expressions can be useful. I think they would be a good entry point to learning.

An example of a role play I might use is a human circuit to teach Grade 9 Science (electricity unit). This is a constructed role play but it does involve embodiment when the students start participating:

• have two students represent a battery (one positive end, one negative end)
• have students join the circuit by forming a closed loop
• the student representing the negative end of the battery sends high tens (high fives with two hands) in the direction towards the student representing the positive end of the battery
• high tens are passed from person to person
• add in a student to represent a light bulb
• if the high tens are successfully transferred from negative end to positive end, then the light bulb will light up
• removing students from the loop and breaking it opens the circuit
• can demonstrate parallel circuits by creating two branches from one student (the current is split, splitting is done by transferring just one high five into each of the branches)

I could also see myself having students create their own metaphors, analogies, and role plays to explain concepts. They would also be prompted to identify limitations and follow up assessments that should be used. Having students translate their learning into different forms can help them strengthen their schema.

References

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. doi: 10.1002/sce.21026

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Winn (2003) explains computational cognitive learning theory should not be dismissed over constructivism. Computational cognitive learning theory has continued to focus on cognition and learning. Current research links neural networks to mental representations, the computational analogy is useful to describe system behaviour, and the theory does not neglect biological adaptation. Winn proposes a framework for learning in e-environments; it emphasizes that our bodies externalize our brain activity by connecting cognition to the environment, we use our bodies to solve problems, and there is an interdependence between cognition and the environment. Importantly, Winn (2003) emphasizes that:

• our cognition works within our physiological constraints: although technology can be helpful in expanding our perception, incomplete understandings or the medium used can introduce misconceptions. The symbolic system or distortion/simplification of a concept can lead to different understandings
• embedded learning involves interaction with the learning landscape (umwelt): when students are learning, they are exploring what they already understand and discovering how these understandings connect/do not connect with new “views”. Challenge, curiousity, and fantasy are strategies to facilitate learning.
• learning involves physical, cognitive, and social development; at least conceptual change at the short term level

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. doi: 10.1002/sce.21026

Niebert et al (2012) comment on the role and quality of metaphors and analogies. Metaphors and analogies can help map a source schema to a target concept. Ideally, students should be able to develop embodiment with metaphors and analogies by experience. However, with abstract concepts, students must develop their imagination. Embodied metaphors are better than constructed metaphors because the latter requires students to re-construct their teacher’s metaphor. The differences here can lead to alternate conceptions and poor understanding. The students may completely reject the metaphor. In the examples given, metaphors can fail when the source schema is not embodied. Uncommon experiences, artificial experiences, lack of experience, and the differences between academic and colloquial language are all potential reasons why a metaphor may fail. In contrast, a good metaphor enables experience in the target domain, refers and reflects the embodied source.

I particularly liked the breaking a chocolate bar and cell division task. It was helpful in addressing the misconception that organisms grow through cell division only. After breaking the bar, students would realize that the bar isn’t any bigger and division makes smaller pieces. From this apparent discrepancy, students reach the conclusion that cell division also requires cell growth.

Adamo-Villani, N. & Wilbur, R. (2007). An immersive game for k-5 math and science. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Information Visualization, 921-924. doi: 10.1109/IV.2007.23

The VR game in this article highlights how this medium supports embodied learning. Given the use of a headset that forces uses to see only what’s in the game and tools to pick up hand movements, user experience is set within the game. SMILE also included commercial game elements which helps with motivation and engagement. In the game, the learning that users experience is self paced, allows repetition, and helps players see and feel in concrete terms.

Questions for Further Discussion

1. Have you used embodied learning in your class before? If yes, what did it look like? If no, do you see yourself using it in the future?
2. Do you have any specific go-to metaphors when you’re teaching? If you could not use this metaphor, how would you teach the same concept?
3. How do you envision VR being used in the future of the subject you teach? What are the challenges and opportunities with this?