Monthly Archives: March 2012

Dilution is a concept that students have difficulty understanding and applying correctly when taken out of the math classroom and placed in a lab environment. Questions like “Which formula do we use for this one?” indicate to me that students only have a “shallow understanding” of the material (Edelson, 2001). Also, students perform better on the quiz associated with dilution (i.e. Chapter 5) than an exam involving a larger part of the course and therefore more chapters. Even though the same wording is used as in the practice and quiz questions, still students struggle. The goal of our program is to graduate students who have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the job; they should be confident and “work-ready.” 

Instead, many of my students voice concerns about their ability (or lack of ability) to transfer their knowledge, of math in particular, to the workplace. I believe their motivation in learning the math in the first place was clearly achievement-based (“Whew, I passed the test”) versus content-focused that Edelson (2001) claims is needed to develop “robust” learning; the very learning that students need to take into a lab environment and perform well.

It turns out the “cookie-cutter” textbook is actually doing my students a disservice in some cases. Pellegrino et al (2008) says “(Undergraduates) must learn to deal with the ambiguity of dealing with novel situations and develop strategies and attributes for managing the dynamics of these situations” (p. 297). What my textbook does best is take away any ambiguity whatsoever. It says, in essence, “All of the practice questions at the end of this chapter will require you to use this formula”.  No wonder students have difficulty understanding the math needed in lab; the textbook is no longer the focus.

Using the T-GEM (Khan 2010) model to create a lesson on DILUTION, I would use WISE to create an exercise similar to those in ChemLand:

1. Introduce students to the concept by using a “real” example of a named medication solution (500 mL of a 25% solution with the addition of water makes 2500 mL of a 5% solution). Students would be asked much water was added? What happens to the concentration of the second solution with the addition of water?
2. Describe and practice with the various methods used (C1xV1 = C2xV2; multi-step proportional math). 
3. G –Ask students to predict what would happen to the Concentration (or Volume) of the second solution by manipulating the Concentration of the first (diagram).
4. E – Ask students to predict why adding water to a lower concentration solution cannot increase the concentration of the second solution. Create a simulation to demonstrate.
5. M – Ask students to summarize their understanding of the relationships in dilution and to create a new example using a different drug.

References

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.

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.

My World is an example of a Learning-For-Use (LfU) model which involves motivating students, having students construct their own knowledge, and allowing students to refine that knowledge. The goal of this inquiry-based, constructivist LfU model is to create a learning environment that recognizes that:

• Learning takes place through constructing and refining knowledge
• Knowledge construction is goal-directed
• The circumstances are important for knowledge construction and its future use
• The use of the knowledge must be understood before it is constructed and then applied

Edelson (2001) asserts that technology is important in “supporting knowledge application activities” (p. 380), particularly in the sciences. My World is an excellent example of a technology that allows and encourages students to learn the content (declarative knowledge) through the process of inquiry (procedural knowledge). Instead of inundating students with simple facts that lead to “inert knowledge” (Edelson, 2001, p. 356), they are presented with a scenario and questions (a meaningful task) to be answered through a semi-structured guided process and the use of My World.

My World allows students to visualize and analyze the data as they input it.

 Reference

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.

WISE projects are designed in part to encourage students to become autonomous learners. Compared to the Jasper Series very little support in the form of “guided inquiry” is needed from the teacher. The design of the WISE projects is such that most students can navigate through a lesson or project almost entirely on their own. This is not so with the Jasper Series. Without careful guidance from the teacher, I think the information presented in the video format of Jasper could be overwhelming for a typical student. Another difference is WISE projects move along according to the preference of the student; the student is in control. Also, the WISE projects are built so that information is presented in a logical, incremental way to build on the knowledge that the student has acquired previously. Finally, different activities are used strategically in WISE “to create inquiry projects that help students to develop a more cohesive, coherent and thoughtful account of scientific phenomena” (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2003, p. 521). In comparison, the Jasper Series makes use of SMART tools that require further explanation and guidance from the teacher.

Reference

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538

Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) is built on the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) framework. WISE offers a platform for curriculum designers to build a series of activities as well as a library of projects that can be taken and altered to suit the needs of the students or used as is. When it comes to scaffolding knowledge and creating a successful learning environment Linn et al. (2003) state that “If inquiry steps are too precise, resembling a recipe, then students will fail to engage in inquiry. If steps are too broad, then students will flounder and become distracted” (p. 522). The real concern then is finding the balance between the two. The benefit of WISE is that it is relatively flexible and adaptable and therefore it is possible to attain the right amount of “steps” given some time to practice in the classroom.

This might sound a bit too experimental for some but using any new approach in the classroom, be it technology or not, is a bit risky. Being open to refining something rather than throwing it out completely seems like a better idea. Professional development is a focus of WISE to ensure that teachers have the knowledge necessary to use the site and its tools effectively.

The goal of WISE, according to Linn et al. (2003), is to provide a learning environment that:

• Makes student thinking visible
• Makes science accessible
• Helps students learn from one another
• Promotes learning that continues throughout a student’s lifetime

WISE appears to be successful in achieving its goals and promoting “deep learning of subject-matter material” (Gobert, Snyder & Houghton, 2002, p. 17) through its constructivist design.

References

Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). 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 is based on the theory of “Anchored Instruction” whereby students are immersed in a story in which they have to solve a problem. “Anchored Instruction” is defined as “an approach within which teaching and learning are focused around the solution of complex problems or anchors” (Pellegrino & Brophy, 2008, p. 181). Meaningful, problem-based learning claims to have a motivating impact on students. Although some math textbooks employ word problems, they have been criticized for actually only providing “computational practice” since they are often presented under Chapter headings, e.g. addition or multiplication, giving students obvious clues and thus really only testing their math abilities not their problem-solving skills (CTGV, 1992b, p. 298).  

 Instead the Jasper Series provides students with a complex problem via video technology.

In addition to this, students are given access to SMART tools, technologies designed specifically to help solve the problems presented in the videos.

Although the Jasper Series begins with students passively viewing the videos, it quickly becomes an active, collaborative learning experience when they are challenged to solve a specific problem together using the information given in the video.
 
An important component of the Jasper Series is the Professional Development that is provided to teachers to help them achieve the most out of the technology. The goal of the Jasper Series, according to Pellegrino et al. (2008), is to provide a learning environment that is:
Knowledge-Centred (learning with understanding)
Learner-Centred (building on students’ strengths and prior knowledge)
Assessment-Centred (making student thinking visible through frequent formative assessment)
Community-Centred (connecting students in the classroom and to the outside world)

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

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.