Month: February 2012

We are using Gamemaker to introduce students to programming because a beginner programmer can create sophisticated and visually pleasing programs without having to learn a formal programming language. Intermediate or advanced students choosing to stay with Gamemaker are required to learn Gamemaker’s programming language, which is a specialized subset of C++. Students program by creating objects, placing the objects in rooms and then creating actions to deal with events (such as pressing a key, a timer expiring, or a collision between objects.) There are numerous possible events and dozens of premade actions, and students can create sequences of actions to create sophisticated outcomes. For example when 2 objects collide (a possible event) they can change the graphics to reflect damaged objects, they can play sounds, they can have one object bounce off the other object or they can display a different window, or all of the above.

I have found conceptualizing and implementing the movement of a non-player character around a maze to be a challenge for my beginner programmers. The second project I have them complete is to make their own PacMan game. Without fail, there are many questions about how to move ghosts around a maze, probably because the students have not put any in depth thought about the problem, and it is non-trivial.

The T-GEM method (Khan, 2007) be applied to this problem as follows:

Background information: Students have been exposed to collisions and moving a non-player character (NPC) in a simplistic fashion (back and forth) in a maze.

Generate: Students are asked to think about and then develop a solution to moving a NPC so it will go around a corner at the end of a path instead of just back and forth (on paper).

Evaluate: Students implement their solution on the computer and test and refine it on a given path.

Modify: Students are asked about turning to go through a doorway partway down a path instead of always going to the end. Students share their solutions with each other and modify as needed.

This is cyclic; initially the path needs to be very simple but in the end needs complexity, which would require additional cycles. As well changes to NPC behavior may be implemented if the player’s object is close by, also adding more cycles. By the end of the cycles, students should be knowledgeable about the logical steps needed to solve the problem of moving ghosts around their own mazes.

References

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

I was quite intrigued by Edelson et al.’s (2002) referral to a study that found pre-service teachers possessed many misconceptions about the cause of the seasons. After a little searching I found a more recent article (King, 2010), in which a broad survey of textbooks for Earth Science was performed with the purpose of identifying errors and oversimplifications. King reports over 400 such errors were found in only 29 textbooks/series. King also reports that web site information, often touted as more agile than text books, is also problematic, pointing out the well respected BBC web site also includes many misconceptions in the area of earth science. Since the main sources of information contain so many misconceptions there can be no wondering that students and indeed preservice teachers have problems with earth science.

I am not an earth science specialist, but I like to think my science knowledge is pretty good, especially in areas I have taught. However in King’s (2010) itemized list of the 15 most common errors found, I was surprised to see many concepts from BC’s Science 10 curriculum, which I have taught, on the list and problematic for myself. For example, according to King’s report, the relationships between the mantle, the crust and the plates are oversimplified in my mind, and perhaps even in the BC curriculum itself. King suggests at least some of the errors and misconceptions in the texts could be a result of the authors failing to keep current in earth science; the concepts misrepresented were often explained as they were accepted in the past, concepts that earth scientists have refined and improved upon over the years. I know my knowledge of earth science concepts has not been updated by keeping current other than checking textbooks, which I now know cannot be trusted to provide current knowledge to myself or my students.

This is, of course, a major challenge to students in building knowledge in earth science, and a major warning to educational technologists. The solution for students knowledge building is to ensure the teacher keeps their knowledge up to date. Educational technologists have multiple challenges – not only must the technology they choose offer affordances to students, but, more importantly, the resources developed for and used in technology enhanced learning environments must be conceptually and canonically correct, because if technology can assist in learning, in making learning more effective and efficient , it can also assist in mis-learning, making learning misconceptions more effective and efficient.

Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002). (Draft) Learning-for-Use in earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. retrieved from www.worldwatcher.northwestern.edu/userdownloads/pdf/LFU_PF_NARST02.v3.doc.

King, C. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), pp. 565-601. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com.

My World is an interesting tool originally developed for use by scientists, but usable in the classroom, to teach a variety of geography concepts. My initial feeling on reading about the technology was “this is cool”. My World comes with plenty of data, but best of all you can add your own data! The interface may be challenging for younger students, but older students would have no problem mastering it. I look forward to examining this tool more closely.

WISE, a  web-based science environment created by Berkley’s researchers Linn, Clark, and Slotta (2003), seeks to be a technology for educators to implement curriculum design patterns for student activities, but in my mind falls short in doing so. From today’s view, WISE is no more that an early attempt at a Learning Management System, even though the designers had lofty ambitions for WISE.

The WISE designers were seeking a solution to the challenge of fitting researched based instruction to the many standards and contexts that exist in teaching science, and framed thier technology design around three pedagogical considerations:

•     Supporting knowledge integration
•     Flexible adaptable curricula
•     Professional development

The original curricula were designed by teams of consisting of experts of content, pedagogy and technology, tested and refined a number of times, and created a spectrum of projects from the standpoint of how presciptive they were.

The biggest drawback of WISE is that it is was not designed with a constructivist classroom in mind. The problems are too well defined, the projects are not authentic enough, and there are too many perscribed lessons in the projects, and there are too many defined steps in each lesson.

Gobert, Snyder & Houghton (2002) used WISE to teach plate tectonics to grade 6 students, but were more concerned with how collaboration affected the use of WISE’s model making affordance.  Gobert et al. (2002) did demonstrate the WISE technology enhanced learning environment can does cause learning, but the amount of learning over other methods is suspect because there was no control group. As well, the WISE activity they reported on appeared to be bookends on a larger unit, and they did not specify how the rest of the unit was taught.

As an example project, Gobert et al.’s Whats on Your Plate failed to inspire me into wanting to use WISE, as the social affordance of sharing across time and space used can be accessed in other ways and other manners and the cognitive affordance is not aligned closely enough to constructivism and problem based learning. Perhaps WISE projects exist that are more closely aligned to problem based learning, but if so, I did not stumble on them.

Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002). 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.

The Jasper series was created to address a perceived lack of deep learning and a lack of complex problem solving skills in students in mathematics. One part of complex problem solving is breaking a large problem down into smaller parts, something few teachers expose their students to, even today. In creating Jasper Vanderbilt’s Cognition and Technology Group used purposefully ill-defined problems with multiple solutions to address these issues, from my perspective, quite handily.

The Jasper series is built on an anchored instruction framework, which has its roots in problem based learning. The video based series took advantage of the random access affordance of the video disk, so not only did students experience the scenario through video, but they also could easily move to any place in the video to review information. Video technology presents the cognitive advantage of students being able to enter into the scenario more fully over using text only, and because the pictures are moving, become more real to the students than static images. The social affordance of students being able to review sections easily allow them to discuss with each other immediately after all students in one group simultaneously view a section, presenting a more effective environment than text only would produce.

With today’s technology Jasper could be improved on. Splitting the video into smaller segments and viewing with a computer on or off line, supplying less information so students would have to research, creating online communities for students to share and compare and collaborate across space and time, and creating the opportunities for accessing experts to give advice and even participate in the problem solving process are all areas that our newer technologies afford us, which could be incorporated into an anchored instruction based unit. As well, students could offer and share their solutions in a variety of formats, such as videos, Prezis, slideshows, web pages or even that old technology called posters.

The Jasper Series, from Vanderbilt University’s Cognition and Technology Group (CTGV) is an excellent example of problem based learning. CTGV put together Jasper to test if a technology based program would “motivate students and help them learn to think and reason about complex problems” (CTGV, 1992, pg. 1). They designed the program, which consists of short video narratives about particular situations, each which end in a problem being posed, to be purposefully complex and challenging for students to solve, and to have multiple solutions, although one solution is optimal. I think the program is effective at doing what it set out to do: center, or anchor, to use their term, learning around real world problems that are complicated and complex, and force students who work to solve the problems to learn about mathematics and the problem solving process. The Jasper series is now a bit dated, but has been revised several times, adding software to allow students to collect data and plan and then test possible solutions, adding extensions to the original problems, and posing what-of scenarios to test student’s transference of their newly built knowledge.

I think the Jasper Series is an excellent example of using available technology (originally the video disk) in a unique manner (allowing students to repeatedly play sections of a video to gather data) to foster learning in a way that otherwise would possible have been less motivating to students. The uniqueness of the technology combined with the uniqueness of the tasks (in depth, real world problem solving) created a technology space and learning environment that fostered deep learning for students, learning which was much more than learning the facts, or learning about the mathematics and arithmetic involved, learning which involved solving problems that required discovering and solving multiple sub-problems.

I think we need to look to this particular project and the rich technology enhanced learning it provides as an exemplar for creation of technology enhanced learning spaces and environments using current technology. Constructivist principles, problem based learning, and technology can go hand in hand to create a richer and more meaningful learning experience for students, and the Jasper Series is evidence to support this.

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

For me, the ideal learning environment is one that is ergonomic, technological and collaborative in nature. This means there is good natural lighting, there is separate control over lighting in various areas, there are height adjustable chairs for table and computer use, there are comfortable spaces for students (and the teacher) to sit and work together in small groups. As well, technology is ubiquitous, with a robust wireless network connected to wired desktops, printers and other devices. There are handheld devices of various kinds (such as tablets and smart devices like the iPod), and there are specialized electronic devices to take and record a variety of data. There would be ample well proven pedagogical software available for things like concept mapping and access to collaborative groups spaces such as GLOBE and not just the standard office suite, browser and video/image manipulation software along with specialized software to interface with the data collection hardware. Additionally there would be “pods”, areas dedicated to experimental work, which would be stocked according to the current unit of study. A couple of large displays (big screen TV or projector) for presentations and collaboration would complete the room. These requirements are based on the pedagogical assumption of a constructivist approach involving cooperative groups involved in project based learning. The learning space needs to be comfortable, dynamic, and afford cooperative group learning, yet foster an excellent work ethic amongst the students.

My definition of Educational Technology is grounded by AECT’s definition that “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewshi & Molenda, 2008). I like this definition because 1) it encompasses both the practice of teaching and learning and the study of the same, and 2) it includes improving performance, a pivotal and central reason why we use technology as well as facilitating learning, which would include learning aids of various kinds. What I think it is missing is an acknowledgement that learning is a social activity, and therefore a definition of educational technology needs a social viewpoint to be complete (Luppicini, 2005). Therefore my definition of educational technology is that it is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources in the social context of schools and education.

Resources

Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Erlbaum. New York.

Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103-109.