Categories
e-folio Interesting things

Exploratorium vs WISE

People normally visit museums as leisure activities where they engage in informal learning (Falk & Storksdieck, 2007). Falk & Storksdieck (2007) distinguish between compulsory learning and free-choice learning, noting the majority of people visiting a museum are engaged in the latter. However, museums are able to present information electronically, like time lapses and zooming in or zooming out, which is not possible otherwise (His, 2008). Hsi (2008) acknowledges most visitors to museums are free-choice learners, but students are often compulsory learners in museums.  Technology has great promise to enhance and expand on the traditional museum experience to enhance informal learning (Hsi, 2008).

The Exploratorium, a museum in San Francisco, has an electronic extension in an effort to maximize its educational coverage of science. The Exploratorium’s web site contains many content rich areas in which students can explore many topics. As well as content, the web site contains many demonstrations and instructions for hands-on activities, which would allow students to work together to develop knowledge.

I found The Exploratorium to be rather content heavy and rather non-interactive. There is much rich content, but it is presented in much the same manner as many museum exhibits: factual and information rich. There is a little interaction for students, but this mainly consists of choosing an area to read about, view a video or view images. Some images or pages display information dependent upon the location of the mouse. I saw little to aid student’s collaboration; if using this resource the teacher would have to provide another avenue for collaboration.

The Exploratorium, differing from WISE, does not have planned sequences of lessons forming units of study. Wise contains ways and means for educators to create or customize units, whereas I noticed no method for a teacher to create or even access a unit of study in The Exploratorium. Wise and The Exploratorium are similar in that neither has built the ability for students to collaborate over space and time. The affordance of the technology in The Exploratorium is in expanding on the traditional static museum display in order to meet a particular content presentation goal. The affordance of the technology in WISE is in creating a sequence of activities to meet a particular educational goal.

The Exploratorium has potential to become a great educational resource. Right now I feel it is just a good content area resource. In needs to be more interactive, it needs more on-line activities, it needs a collaborative aspect, and it needs a way for students to access content area experts. Milne (2007) wrote we are moving into the interaction age, where students interact with content and with each other. Students can create their own content easier than ever before, and resources such as The Exploratorium need to consider making available resources for students to make use of when creating their own content.

Right now, if I were to include The Exploratorium in my science classes, I would be more inclined to offer it as a possible content area for students to visit in pursuit of their learning goals.

Interestingly enough, as I write this I am returning from escorting students to Seattle, (which partially explains the drop in quality of this post) where one stop was at EMP, Seattle’s museum of Rock and Roll and Science Fiction. EMP is heavily technologically enhanced, with many interactive displays and many opportunities for visitors to be creative. One of the highlights for the students was to participate in a rock band experience complete with bright lights and roaring crowds. EMP definitely has made use of the affordances of technology for the in-person experience!

 

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.

His, S. (2008). Information technologies for informal learning in museums and out-of-school settings. In J. Voogt, G. Knezek (eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 20(9), 891-899. Springer

Milne, A. (2007). Entering the interaction age today. Educause, 42(1), 12-31.

Categories
Interesting things

Programming and Chemistry

In MA’s blog, he says “Unlike chemistry, where the students have a hard time conceptualizing at the molecular level, CS students have a hard time understanding how the code is executed by the computer.” This struck me as not completely correct. In both chemistry and CS (programming) students are not able to directly observe what is going on down at the most basic, the quantum, level. In both cases what can be observed are the outcomes, in programming by what is visually seen as output, and in chemistry by the characteristics of the products of experiments. In chemistry the technology involved may be an instrument used to measure characteristics, but in programming, the technology is not just the tool to read output, but it is what students are manipulating and what students are creating, all at the same time.

This is not to say the same thought processes are involved in programming as in chemistry, but that there is an analogous relationship between the two. As well, I do not mean to imply a student who excels at one will excel at another, but rather a student who can visualize what is happening at the molecular level is no doing anything different than a student visualizing what is happening inside a compiler

Perhaps this is evidence of science thinking and computer programming being closer linked than we may realize. Math and programming have always been held as being similar, so why not science and programming?

References

Aubanel, M. (2012, Feb ). Pass by value and pass by reference [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://marcaubanel.com/?page_id=373

Categories
e-folio Interesting things

Video Case Studies

As I was watching some video case studies of technology use in some instructional settings a couple of things struck me as interesting. The first was the amount of background noise present in many of the videos. Some of the noise was PA announcements, some was equipment noise and some was noise by the learners.

This made me think about the learning environment and how noise can be a distraction or it can be seen as a regular part of the working and learning environment. As I work at a location where announcements are kept to a minimum (email and a phone in every room helps reduce the need for announcements), constant announcements would be very distracting to me. However, I work in a room full of computers, with fans whirring, keyboards rattling and mice clicking, all which I pretty much do not even hear. During an “electronic” exam session in June, a student was unable to get past the first page of questions because the sound of the fans, keyboards and mice made it impossible for the student to comprehend what was being read. We did find a solution for that student (ear plugs) but I was left wondering about the effects of the unplanned and unexpected technological side effect on the student’s performance on the exam.

Technology often has unexpected side effects, one we do not think about because the teachers, the technology implementers, the course designers did not think about things like the noise level from 30 cooling fans, or 30 keyboards clicking. This is not to say ergonomic concerns are ignored, but that we do not always extrapolate from one piece of equipment to 10 or 20 or 30.

As well as ensuring technology is appropriate for the task, is financially efficient, and integrates with existing equipment, we must also put in some due diligence into examining potential side effects of the technology before we finalize purchasing it.

maurice

Spam prevention powered by Akismet