Monthly Archives: April 2012

Science teaching has been undergoing changes as technology and new teaching methods are being implemented in the classroom. Resnick & Wilensky (1999) suggest that incorporating the notion of levels into teaching will help to instill a greater, deeper understanding of the material in students. By levels they mean “the levels of description that can be used to characterize a system with lots of interacting parts” (p. 3). Resnick & Wilensky (1999) recognize the complexity of science and the difficulty that it presents for students in grasping the full, true meaning of it. Technology can help to create “levels” and to allow students to move back and forth between them.

Winn (2003) writes about embodied and embedded learning in artificial environments. Embodiment (of cognition), he describes, as the physical activity involved in learning. Embeddedness is the involvement of the student in the learning environment. The final component to Winn’s framework is the idea that the student and the environment are ever changing.

The pharmacology app that I investigated lacked either “levels” or embodiment and embeddedness, aside from a simple touch of an icon here and there. The environment did not change nor did I have to change anything to make it “work.” Maybe pharmacology is a science that cannot incorporate the ideas of Resnick & Wilensky or Winn? Perhaps it is destined to a life of rote-learning.

Not so, say Joshi &Trivedi (2010) who studied an undergraduate pharmacology course in which the learning environment was changed by incorporating active learning techniques. They assert that a deeper understanding of the material resulted.

It is going to take a lot of thinking to come up with an idea of how to use technology to incorporate the ideas above to teach pharmacology. At this point I think it will be something that involves “levels” where students must interact physically to change the environment. As they change the environment, they too will be changed. (It almost sounds like a video game…Angry Birds Spaced out on Drugs?) But I do know that it will result in more competent students who understand the material “better.”

References
Joshi, A., & Trivedi, M. (2010). Innovations in pharmacology teaching. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research, 1(2), 62-64.

Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.

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

Image Retrieved from Google Images

I checked out a few sites like the WildCam in Africa, the Panama Canal Webcam, and the Panda Cam at the San Diego Zoo. Unfortunately, there was no wildlife to be found in Africa, the ships were not moving in the canal and the panda bear was super sleepy. I can understand that this may be a bit frustrating to some students – it was VERY frustrating to me! Some of the sites offered detailed maps of the area, varying amounts of background information and an area (forum) for discussion.

Virtual field trips (VFT) are a great idea if they are used in addition to real ones or instead of them when it is “not possible or safe to take students” (Spicer & Stratford, 2001 p.353). Spicer & Stratford (2001) discovered that students value VFT in preparing them for actual field work. Winn et al. (2006) give us some insight into why students may feel this way; they say “Authentic activity does not, on its own, teach general principles. Likewise, simulations that strive primarily to re-create real world experiences often do not directly help students discover general principles” (p. 2). Providing a simplified (not simplistic) virtual environment can help students to grasp the overall concept.

In addition to this, the collaborative nature of many of the websites allows students to pose questions to the actual researcher. This can provide a rich learning environment. However, we are reminded once again of the importance of professional development for teachers (Moss, 2003; Sugar & Bonk, 1998). Students must be guided or mentored in order to reach the “new social cognitive heights and possibilities” envisioned by Sugar & Bonk (1998, p. 152). And teachers could benefit greatly from guidance on how to get the most out of VFT – something that I felt was lacking in many of the sites.

References

Moss, D.M. (2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON Project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 21-30.

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.

Sugar, W. A., & Bonk, C.J. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse (pp. 131-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Winn, W., Stahr, F. Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y-L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25-42.

Geometer’s Sketchpad (a Dynamic Geometry Software) is available to download for a twenty-minute test period or to purchase for a fee.

This software can be used to create an active learning environment in which students can learn various math concepts involving geometry and algebra.

Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) employs visualizations (images) to create an environment that “foster(s) engagement with a mathematical concept that is often explained superficially” in a traditional classroom (Knuth & Hartmann, 2005 p. 163). Knuth et al. (2005) describe this engagement as a “conceptual conversation” which allows for a deeper understanding of mathematical ideas. DGS allows for more frequent and thoughtful manipulations of the equations and graphs than the former paper and pencil methods. DGS also allows for multiple ways to view math concepts, for example geometrical shapes, charts, and graphs. In addition, the images created using the technology are more complex and detailed giving the student a better sense of how the numbers truly affect change in the image.

Laborde (2000) and Hadas et al. (2000) each support the claim that the constructive nature of DGS helps students to find the correct answer and then to verify its accuracy. Hadas et al. (2000) argue for the importance of students being able to engage in “true mathematical activity” which they describe as the ability to construct and evaluate proofs (p. 149). Geometer’s Sketchpad allows students to do just that. Students can use the tools available through the software to explore, practice, and create relatively easily and quickly. Attempts can be changed or altered at the click of a mouse or the input of new data.

We must be aware that the role of the teacher and the design of the activity are still very important when using DGS. Geometer’s Sketchpad does offer professional development at a price as well as a FREE online forum (Sketch Exchange) where educators can share their ideas.

References
Hadas, N., Schwarz, B., & Hershkowitz, R. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics,44 (1-2), 127-150.

Knuth, E. J. & Hartmann, C.E. (2005). Using technology to foster students’ mathematical understandings and intuitions. In Masalaski, W.J, & Elliott, P.C. (Eds.). (2005). Technology-supported mathematics learning environments, (pp. 151-165). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a source of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44 (1-2), 151-61