Category: ETEC 533

My ETEC 533 journey has been similar to climbing a mountain. The further along I’ve made it through the modules, the higher I’ve gotten on the mountain. The higher I am, the clearer the view I have of the tributary rivers (technology, pedagogy and content) and how they intersect and collect to form larger streams and pools of knowledge. There were times when visibility was hazy due to the clouds, but using the knowledge of others and online sources I was able to determine which times the winds would come to clear the clouds, which is similar to how the discussion posts worked. I received valuable feedback and insight from my classmates. I couldn’t have made it as far as I did these last thirteen weeks without them.

The following themes emerged in my e-folio entries: role of technology, visualization of phenomena and cross-curricular planning.

Role of Technology

In Module A, I prized my ability to plan creative, “hands-on” learning experiences. Digital experiences were viewed as

a) a way to increase engagement,

b) a replacement for those times when real experiences were not possible.

When I defined technology in Module A, Jonassen’s (2000) analogy that technology is a tool that carpenters wield to manifest their vision was the definition that resonated the most with me. To use technology the user’s knowledge, efforts and creativity must be combined. I considered what knowledge I was bringing into the process and how my efforts would be applied along with how much time I would put into my efforts. I chose to focus on engagement with a previously used tool, blooket.com. I feel my post lacked creativity because I did not push any boundaries surrounding technology use. Blooket.com could make mental math drills more fun for students, but it is not a tool akin to a carpenter’s tool.

In Module B, a study by Finklestein et al. (2005) found that “properly designed simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment, both in developing student facility with real equipment and at fostering student conceptual understanding” (p. 2). Anchored learning appealed to me because it was familiar, it reminded me of the immersive storytelling approach I’ve used to teach phonics, but my understanding of technology and its potential remained untapped because I was still viewing it on a superficial level, just a tool to increase engagement and participation–maths drills has been a part of math classes for generations, gamifying it was also something that teachers had implemented through charts and stickers long before blooket.com existed. My post on WISE and SKI was a turning point. At the end of the post, I wrote, “I would integrate technology into the unit as a means to record the plants’ growth through line graphs using excel to record growth, water given and temperature” again, technology was used to replace the traditional notebook and pencil and it was tagged on as an afterthought to fit the requirements of the course. My primary focus was to adjust the lesson context to one my students would find relevant rather than using technology to augment the learning. To give my students such a narrow view of science is a disservice. Even if they do not know or care about a topic, the topic will still affect them, so it is my job to augment a lesson and concept so they can understand both how it works and its significance on their lives. Despite all of this, I greatly benefited from reading other people’s posts and seeing how they incorporated technology into their lesson.

Visualization of Phenomena

The role of technology in my lesson planning was gradually being whittled and transformed into an augmentation tool. The T-GEM cycle prioritizes understanding relationships and their effects on each other (Khan, 2010). Computer simulations are used to enhance the learning process by assisting students to visualize scientific phenomena and the processes behind them (Khan, 2010). I feel this is the activity where I first became a carpenter purposely using her tools. Explaining my vision was still shaky and developing. The feedback I received was mixed. Some people like Wynn (2022) felt that the simulation was too simple, “I found it quite boring that it was only a few metals and waters with no really manipulation of these objects in their respective states. Do you think more objects such as maybe food or liquid items that could be manipulated (maybe poured or thrown or a fan maybe?) would help with student understanding of these concepts?” and Justin (2022) felt that the simulation was too advanced for my students, “[i]t seems very advanced for grade 3.. the relationship between pressure and temperature, the use of kelvin, and the fluid nature of the molecular change introduces a level of complexity that seems like it would confound, rather than help, students that age”. Ironically, when I shifted my focus from engagement to conceptual understandings, I received the most queries about how engaging students would find the simulation. In response to comments that it was too simple, I stated that the simulation was chosen to support students’ abilities to visualize the particle structure of different materials in different states without overwhelming them. In response to comments that it was too difficult for 8-year olds, I noted the importance of the teacher: “While this simulation introduces variables that can be confusing, I think with teacher guidance and direction, students can focus on the key learning points of the lesson”. Besides these comments, I was asked about what questions I would use to guide and challenge my students’ focus. From these exchanges, I realized that while I was better at utilizing technology, I was not utilizing my own knowledge and experiences. The carpenter’s tools won’t move if the carpenter doesn’t hold and direct them.

Simulation link: https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/states-of-matter/latest/states-of-matter_en.html

Moving onto Module C, I wanted to continue implementing technology as augmentation tools and improve on my own role in assisting students to visualize scientific and mathematical phenomena. Winn’s (2013) embodied learning connects visuals of phenomena that can be readily seen in everyday life with the hidden processes behind the phenomena. Rogers et al. (2004) highlighted the importance of carefully selecting all augmentation tools and specifying their type, mode and initiator (student, environment or hybrid) to get a big picture of how they would complement each other. Taking the feedback from my T-GEM post and what I learnt from Rogers et al. (2004), I created another T-GEM cycle on diffusion. Teacher strategies were written in more detail, involving questions to support students’ visualization abilities and to better convey my intention to fellow teachers who may read it.

Cross-curricular Planning

During my Module A interview with Ms L, I felt sympathy for her dilemma (and I still do) about giving students enough time to cover the ICT curriculum during the school year. In response to my post, Neill (2022) wondered if Ms L had considered cross-curricular opportunities. This made me wonder why I had not asked her this question myself during the interview. It was then that I realized I was letting “time” become this insurmountable barrier. I did not ask because I felt I understood the answer and the constraints that make cross-curricular lesson planning daunting so well that it was impossible to make significant change.

During Module B, I made it a goal to look for solutions instead of moaning about the restrictions common place to teachers in any situation. Understanding the context as Mishra (2019) pointed out, is crucial for teachers to create change, but fixating on context causes teachers to miss opportunities to provide students with authentic and meaningful learning experiences. I listed units from the most recent school year that I felt were lacking in the depth and robustness that Edelsen (2001) advocates for conceptual understanding. Looking at these units, I looked for cross-curricular opportunities to transform myself into a STEM rather than simply a science teacher and/or math teacher. Using the Learning for Use model, I envisioned a Food Stall Unit which combined mathematics, English and science. Students would create their own businesses, manage budgets, write persuasively and learn about health and nutrition. Then in Module C, I applied the T-GEM cycle to create a science lesson on diffusion to complement an art unit on Australian aboriginal patterns. I feel my shift in thinking allowed me to embed the T-GEM cycle within Edelsen’s (2001) LfU model by connecting ideas from different content areas to give students “deep” and “robust” learning experiences (p. 351) which will benefit the students’ understanding and application of concepts.

Conclusion

In my introductory post to my inquiry e-folio, I noted my tendency to focus on contextual issues of the school system such as time, and my goal to inquire beyond these issues and into TPACK. While I did not delve into TPACK straightaway, my e-folio’s three recurring themes demonstrate the progress I made in furthering my knowledge about TPACK; however, this is still an area in development. I will continue to build on the role of technology and my own role in supporting students’ visualization capabilities by using the tools shared in the modules and comments and finding new tools to explore.

Going over my learning journey this term, I see a preference for T-GEM. To continue making progress, I should revisit the other frameworks from module B and look over my list of units to consider which frameworks could best complement those units. A carpenter can’t forget about the other tools she has and allow them to rust with disuse. I think the next step to taking cross-curricular planning further would be to collaborate with other teachers.

When I think back to my cross-curricular lesson plan on diffusion, it should have been an obvious and logical decision to collaborate with the art teacher, but the idea was never expressed by either of us. Collaboration did not originally happen due to time constraints; the art teacher was using her prep time to teach my students about homemade dyes and although I read her lesson plans for the unit, I was unable to clearly visualize and understand the learning experiences she had planned. This harkens back to Mishra’s (2019) upgraded TPACK diagram where Contextual Knowledge encompasses TPACK and teachers are seen as “intrapreneurs” who not only function as curriculum designers but as makers of “sustainable” change (Mishra, 2019, p. 78). Now that I am entering my second year at my current school, I can use my contextual knowledge to identify areas I can initiate “sustainable” collaboration through sit-down co-planning and/or through asking for feedback on individually completed planning.

Sustainable change brings about new questions. Can sustainable change happen in one or two years? Could this be a goal for myself that changes my pattern of changing schools every 2-3 years? Can I do this if I am not in a leadership position?

To seriously consider the last two questions, I need to continue inquiring into TPACK. How am I arranging and developing my own knowledge to strengthen and adjust my students’ science and mathematics foundations? This is one of the questions I posed at the start of this e-folio. It stemmed from Shulman’s (1986) statement that knowledge is not carved onto a blank slate, it is “reorganizing the understanding of learners” (p. 10). I have been a teacher for over a decade, so my own understanding needs “reogranizing” and as seen from the publication date ranges for the course readings, while older publications can still be relevant, new discoveries in learning are continuously being made and approaches updated.

Perhaps the Mount Everest metaphor can be updated: Just as Mount Everest continues to grow in height, TPACK grows, yet this is not an issue for the carpenter-mountaineer who is up-to-date with the latest technology and approaches, so they can add to the path going upwards with the proper tools.

References

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.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools (2nd Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.

 

 

There’s an Art lesson where students learn to use Australian aboriginal patterns to create a batik cloth. Part of that unit involves creating homemade dyes. Due to lack of time, last school year the homemade dyes were created by the Art teacher and the final product was brought to class for discussion, however, like Friedrichsen and Pallant (2007) noted, students tend to memorize rules without understanding why. I have noticed this tendency for students to memorize without understanding, perhaps this is exacerbated by language barriers–almost all of my students are English Language Learners. If the learning environment doesn’t require students to apply or synthesize their learning, memorizing is the easiest and safest way to progress through the science curriculum. Friedrichsen and Pallant (2007) believe that students need to visualize the movement of particles and to predict the effect at a cellular level. Most of the lessons I saw online were targeted towards middle school and secondary students, but I think it could be accessible to Grade 3 students if we focus on a few key words: diffusion, high/low concentration, particles (Friedrichsen & Pallant, 2007).

Link to modified T-GEM chart: G3Diffusion-T-GEM.mod

I used the T-GEM cycle and added two phases from Friedrichsen and Pallant (2007, p. 23):

Engagement

“(a) to elicit students’ prior understandings and misconceptions,

(b) to focus the students’ attention on the new concept and

(c) to provide motivation for the lessons that follow.”

Exploration

T-GEM is great because not all classrooms will have the resources or time to do a proper physical, hands-on activity, but when possible I think this should be part of the cycle.

I think this could be incorporated into the homeroom teacher’s (my) science class. This could fall into the Land, Sea and Sky portion of science when we discuss water habitats and the importance of taking care of our environment.

References

Friedrichsen, P. M., & Pallant, A. (2007). French fries, dialysis tubing & computer models: Teaching diffusion & osmosis through inquiry & modeling. The American Biology Teacher, 69(2), 22-27.

The beauty of Virtual Field Trips (VFTs) and virtual/augmented reality are they can engage a wider community beyond the usual teacher-students interactions. Driver et al. (1994) note that in a constructivist science classroom knowledge and understanding is a dialogic process that happens when learners discuss shared problems and activities. A wider community could better facilitate this dialogic process, but Falk and Storsdieck (2010) found the self-perceived roles and identities of adults played an important role in how they participated in the learning community. In their interview with four different parents, they discovered that there were various motivations for them to complete science-related activities during their leisure time: to be a good parent, to satisfy their own curiosity or to reinforce their persona as smart because they are “closer to a scientist than a regular person” (Falk & Storsdieck, 2010, p. 200). Parents who visit the museum to learn along with their children are more likely to engage in discussion about what they see and do than others. One of the parents interviewed was unsure if his children had learnt anything, which could mean that he did not ask questions to check their understanding (Falk & Storsdieck, 2010). Despite their role, parents may not know how to start the dialogic process with their children and this is their leisure time, so they may not have the time to prepare for the outing as a teacher would be expected to. Teachers must visit the exhibit beforehand, prepare students by previewing keywords and perhaps engaging in relevant experiments and prepare a post-visit activity based on student discussion. There are times when field trips cannot happen and must be replaced with VFTs or other technology, but do they have a function outside of being a replacement? Rintala (1998) states that technology should be treated as a way for students to experiment, rather than as replacement for a real field trip (Spicer & Stratford, 2001). Spicer and Stratford (2001) suggest that VFTs be used alongside real field trips, for example, as preparation for field work.Questions:

1. What kind of preparations do you make for in-person field trips?
2. For those of you who have used VFTs, could you share your experience? What would you repeat? What adjustments (if any) would you make?
3. If you used a VFT when your school was in virtual learning mode (no in-person classes), how did you engage your students in discussion? I’m especially interested in hearing from lower primary teachers because online discussions for the younger students often require assistance from an adult or parent at home.

While I enjoyed the video and explanations the presenter gave to the learners’ queries, I wonder how engaging a 40-minute video would be to most students? What are they doing to make those connections between their mind, body and learning? This connection would have to be made after the video, but unless people take the time to find activities to make these connections, the actions are not embedded into the video environment. I find Exploratorium to be more accessible and engaging because it provides demo videos, questions, activities and explanations so interested parents could step in and interact with their children in such a way to promote the dialogic learning process.

References

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

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

Role playing activities are often not included in science and mathematics classrooms because they are often characterized as activities to understand a historical character’s feelings or intentions (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998). Science and mathematics on the other hand, usually encourage students to take on a “detached” manner of observation and analysis (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998, p. 154). Because of this, role plays in science are usually relegated to replicating a scientific phenonmen such as the structure of an atom or the movement of planets in the solar system (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998). These phenomena can be  visualized through the use of computer modeling, but despite the interactivity of computer modeling activities, Resnick and Wilensky (1998) note there is often a “lack of connection to deeper ideas” (p. 158). The cognitive growth missing here is the inability to “dance between diving-in and stepping-out” (Ackermann, 1991 cited in Resnick & Wilensky, 1998, p. 155). The article states this fluidity can be achieved through a combination of role playing and computer modeling activities, where computer modeling is used to emphasize key patterns of the phenonmen being studied and role plays to examine the “dynamics and process of pattern formations” (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998, p. 168).  Through their role play, students can “dive” into complex science processes and gain a deeper understanding that could not be achieved through “distanced analysis” (Resnick & Wilensky, 1998, p. 159). Visualization role plays and computer modeling activities restrict students but the interactive role plays presented by Resnick and Wilensky (1998) give students feedback within the complex system they are exploring which “enabl[es] them to try and test out their theories” (p. 167).

Two processes were explained through role plays by Resnick and Wilensky. The first one, the interactions of ants, I could imagine replicating in my own Grade 3 primary class because the rules students operate in are straightforward. Everyone has the same goal, to form groups with the same number. The number is arbitrary and the rules center around how to interact. The second role play about atom interactions, was compared to a cocktail party–this type of role play could easily turn into a class on Social-Emotional Learning if students are unable to separate their personal feelings from the goal of the role play. The rules encompassing the second role play do not regulate how students should interact, but with whom they should interact, so I would be hesitant about using this in a classroom because of the social dynamics already at play amongst students which I may or may not be aware of. I am concerned that such a role play would exacerbate or ignite existing and potential discrimination/bullying behaviours. This is the age where children are developing empathy and there is a real possibility that this could test students’ tolerance. Resnick and Wilensky (1998) report that teachers may hesitate to use role play activities in science and maths classes because there is the danger that students will confuse social dynamics with “scientific ways of thinking and knowing” (p. 168). The possibility that students will ignore scientific thinking and focus on their feelings and prejudices is real due to their age and experience. The second role play would be more appropriate for a mature class, a class who are capable of detaching themselves enough from their own feelings so they can remember the goals of the their role.

Resnick and Wilensky (1998) mention one of the obstacles these role plays face is lack of participants and suggested using the Internet as a way to involve enough learners. Perhaps the Internet could be used to create a shield so students forget their biases and focus on uncovering patterns in processes. According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998), “practicing scientists often make use of their own personal experiences in making sense of the natural world” (p. 169). When teachers incorporate role play activities into science and maths lessons, they must be aware of their students’ experiences and maturity levels and take these into account to have students successfully immerse themselves into their new roles.

Reference
Resnick, M. & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probalistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 153-172.

Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation

Winn (2003) created a conceptual framework for learning in artificial environments. This framework shifts from the constructivist approach that was prioritized in previous frameworks/approaches of module B to cognitive neuroscience. In this framework artificial environments are supported by computer simulations that create natural environments, such as VR technologies (Winn, 2003).

The three components of Winn’s (2003) framework are:

Embodiment: how our thought processes are externalized through the body, this connection between the cognitive and physical leads to learners making inferences from observations.

Embeddedness: how the environment influences the action (embodiment). The environment can do this by encouraging instinctive or learned tendencies or through planned affective and cognitive strategies. Affective strategies affect how much the learners believe they are actually in the environment. Learning happens by presenting knowledge that the learners could not predict or explain with their current understanding. The knowledge has to be tangible in that it is both understandable and believable. Learners have to actively find the knowledge so it can be used to solve current and future problems.

Adaptation: The learner and environment are seen as an evolving system instead of two separate interacting entities. In this system, learners’ understanding of concepts evolves which leads to changes in learners’ interactions with the environment and vice versa.

Some might argue that this could be putting students who do not enjoy physical activity or who feel awkward in their bodies at a disadvantage, but the limitations of our bodies “force students to deal with the world in ways ‘real’ scientists must—by making inferences from indirect, instrumented observations of phenomena” (Winn & Windscliitl, 2000, cited in Winn, 2003, p. 94). I can see this as a way to engage different parts of the brain, thus reinforcing the learning. I especially think this would be easy to adapt to the lower primary years because they already do this in a lot of activities. This would be good for the upper years as well; some learning/teaching practises are dropped as students progress through the school system because they are seen as juvenile or childish, but movement is important for all ages.

Ambient wood: designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors

Rogers et al. (2004) argue that e-learning has focused on making learning possible anywhere, but little focus has been placed on augmenting the process of learning. While students can observe the “here and now” of the outdoors, students can access relevant information through digital wireless technologies so they can zoom out and examine the processes behind what they observe.

The framework was created to support students’ outdoor exploration and it consists of four parts.

Taken from Rogers, Y., Price, S, Fitzpatrick, F., Fleck, R., Smith, H., Randell, D., Muller, H., O’Malley, C., Stanton,D., Thompson, M., & Weal, M. (2004). Ambient Wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. Proceedings of Interaction, Design and Children, Maryland, US, 3-11.

1. Type: the purpose is to give students access to ecological processes and organisms that might not be visible during the day or to the naked eye

a) pre-recorded data (e.g. YouTube video)

b) live data that is probed (e.g. readings from Google Lens)

2. Mode: the interactions between the learners and the environment

a) student-initiated mode: students control their interactions through digital technology. For example, they decide the direction of their investigation by choosing what to scan and/or which digital tool to use.

b) environmentally-initiated mode: the environment decides when and what information to send to students. It can be a location triggered piece of information such as a sound clip for students to explore.

c) hybrid-initiated mode: a combination of student and environmentally initiated modes.

* All of these can be directed through a remote facilitator so students can express their findings and be prompted to take their explorations further.

3. Media: to encourage students to make connections between the media and the process it represents. They should not overwhelm students or overpower the environment. The types of media used by Rogers et al. (2004) are:

a) videoclips showing seasonal changes

b) images with voice-over descriptions

c) non-speech sounds such as the sound of a root growing

d) diagrams depicting different processes that occur in the woods

4. Devices: to present the media. Rogers et al. (2004) used store-bought and home-made devices such as PDAs, wireless speakers, a probe tool, a periscope, and an ambient horn.

Taken from Rogers, Y., Price, S, Fitzpatrick, F., Fleck, R., Smith, H., Randell, D., Muller, H., O’Malley, C., Stanton,D., Thompson, M., & Weal, M. (2004). Ambient Wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. Proceedings of Interaction, Design and Children, Maryland, US, 3-11.

Of particular interest was the infrastructure built to trigger location-based information, and track the students’ positions as well as the information they collected. Rogers et al. (2004) explained how to build the infrastructure, but I know that I would need support from my school’s IT team. Perhaps the infrastructure wouldn’t be necessary if environmentally-initiated modes are not used. Rogers et al. (2004) found that student-initiated modes were best at creating opportunities for collaboration, reflection and hypothesizing.

From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math

I’ve used hand gestures in English class to reinforce punctuation and with EAL learners for different words, and I’ve seen many people teach their babies sign language so my interest was piqued when I saw this article title. While I was reading I couldn’t help but wonder whether verbal language was more or less abstract than gestures. Novack et al. (2014) rank the following from most abstract to least abstract:

1. verbal language
2. gesture
3. action

and conclude that gesture’s placement in the middle has to do with its ability to promote learning in math. For gestures to be successful, Novack et al. (2014) state that they must

• gestures are not tied to objects, thus it makes it easier for learners to generalize the knowledge
• focus on procedural aspects that are conducive to problem solving
• should be scaffolded using action-based instruction
• the action-based instruction’s procedure is too specific, it will be difficult for learners to generalize and apply the action to other problems

Acting was used in the study, but it was not found to be effective. The age of learners and abstractness of the concepts have to be considered.

Questions:

1. I think some forms of embodiment will be more easily accepted in different settings. For those of you who teach secondary or adult learners, would you use hand learning in your maths or science classes? How would you overcome any reluctance towards hand learning?
2. I thought it was interesting that Rogers et al. (2004) used hand-made tools along with digital tools. Are there any hand-made tools that your students use alongside digital tools?
3. I’m a big fan of Google Lens, but in China it requires a VPN. Any suggestions for a similar digital tool that doesn’t require a VPN?
4. Outdoor learning has so many benefits because it is a tangible learning environment. Besides recording devices, can you share some digital tools your class used to explore their environment?
5. I thought that the environmentally-initiated method described in Rogers et al. (2004) had potential to challenge students thinking and connecting-making processes but it sounds difficult to implement. What do you think of using AR? Are there other technologies that could be used?

References

Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Hemani-Lopez, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science, 25(4), 903-910. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984351/

Rogers, Y., Price, S, Fitzpatrick, F., Fleck, R., Smith, H., Randell, D., Muller, H., O’Malley, C., Stanton,D., Thompson, M., & Weal, M. (2004). Ambient Wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. Proceedings of Interaction, Design and Children, Maryland, US, 3-11.

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

 

The purpose of WISE is to make learning visible to not only teachers but to students as well so they can “restructure, rethink, compare, critique, and analyze both the new ideas and their established views” (Linn et al., 2002). Linn et al. (2002) note that this involves more than designing science content, it also includes testing the curriculum to make sure it is relevant to the students. Currently, Linn et al. (2002) find that most textbook creators focus on simplifying the vocabulary when they should focus on changing instructions to better develop knowledge integration. By changing instructions, students’ thoughts can be redirected in such a way to make their conceptual knowledge accessible to the teacher. When teachers know what ideas their students have, they can nudge them to develop their critical thinking skills.

To determine the knowledge base students have coming into the unit, this can be done through embedded prompts that reveal students’ prior knowledge and current conceptual understanding which gives teachers a chance to rewrite lessons to fit learning needs. Learning can be directed with carefully constructed instructions. Linn et al. (2002) give an example where a broad question leads to generalizations but being specific can lead to a deeper understanding of the content. When planning instructions, teachers must ask themselves what conceptual knowledge students should take from these instructions and consider the SKI—what knowledge can they add to the discussion.  Learning needs can be met through embedded links from WISE that are relevant to student context.

This differs from the Jasper Adventures because WISE customizes lessons for students based on what students add to the lesson whereas Jasper Adventures, while using anchored instruction and using evidence based pedagogy, it is pre-planned and does not change to fit the learning needs of the classroom.

Looking at the WISE lesson involving earth and space plants, I would adjust it to my (G3) students’ backgrounds, which are primarily Mainland Chinese, so I would ask students classify plants (wheat/barley and rice) as either northern or southern plants. Prompts to discover what knowledge they have would be to have them plan a meal for people from all over China or a meal that they feel represents Chinese cuisine.

The learning objective for the unit is to know that different living beings (humans, animals and plants) have different needs to survive. The inquiry question to support this learning objective would be which regions of the country could best grow the staple crops (barley, wheat, rice). From here they would be given real estate ads for farmland to select and bid for, they should choose two to three lots to grow the different crops. The bids can be made through an auction to encourage students to carefully research the land conditions.

I would pair students up because Linn and Hsi (2000) found that students’ discussion is more productive in pairs than it is in larger groups (Linn et al., 2002) and I would do my best to pair a Chinese-native speaker with a non-native speaker so students can use both Chinese and English online resources. Once they’ve been given their plots of land, they would be asked to choose which crops they should grow. They would be given links about the weather and geography along with links to farming guides to help them decide which crops would be best for their land. Then we would replicate the light, temperature and soil conditions through diy greenhouses. They would also be asked to choose which crop would be native to the school area to be grown outside.

I would integrate technology into the unit as a means to record the plants growth through line graphs using excel to record growth, water given and temperature.

 

 

 

 

What evidence exists regarding anchored instruction and its effectiveness as a pedagogical design?

Vanderbilt (1992), Zydney et al (2014) and Bottge et al. (2018) found that anchored instruction can improve knowledge transfer and problem solving skills when paired with appropriate teacher instruction. For example, Bottge et al. (2018) reported that students with disabilities’ successes were tied with the level of involvement special ed teachers played in giving instructions.

What are some important nuances of the research that are pertinent to your practice?

Parent involvement, in the Vanderbilt (1992) study they mentioned that children are the “best salesmen” (p. 308) mentioning not only children’s increased interest in problem solving, but their ability to guide visiting parents through the problems. At my school giving verbal feedback is supported over written feedback, stating it is more meaningful and more likely to be remembered, yet when reports are still the primary mode of communicating child progress. I have students whose parents supplement their learning with extra worksheets so the children can complete calculations above their year-level expectations, but word problems, an often used measure of mathematical understanding is completed carelessly or incomplete. Inviting parents in so they can take part in the learning process seems to be necessary for them to appreciate the learning process.

This is a necessary part of anchored instruction, as seen from the Vamderbilt (1992) article, children’s attitudes towards learning is a leading factor in whether they continue learning maths or if they end their learning as soon as possible. What happens at home not only affects learning retention, but learning attitudes.

What further inquiries or questions does the research reported in the articles raise for you (e.g. regarding evaluation, professional development, disabilities and/or the content area you teach or would like to promote etc)?

The Zydney et al. (2014) study addressed issues noticed in a previous study, such as providing text to voice software so learning is accessible to students with lower reading abilities. With today’s technology, couldn’t voice to text and text to voice softwares be more widely incorporated into the maths and science curricula? Next year I have students whose maths and reading abilities are two year-levels behind expectations. Students who need additional support, students who need extra challenges and students at year-level expectations, they deserve more than a supplemental worksheet at the same time they should be empowered to solve calculations independently. How can I use voice to text apps to increase learner independence/agency?

Different online maths programs/apps often have a text to voice feature, but like Zydney et al.(2014) discovered, student engagement may increase at the expense of concrete understanding—student responses on apps were correct after some guesses, which did not translate to improved test outcomes. What options are there for gamification that encourages students to review the material rather than relying on guesswork? Perhaps google forms to make an escape room (specific answer must be typed rather than multiple choice options)

Finally, in what ways might a current technology for math (Eg. IXL Math, Dragonbox, Math Genius or others) relate to this question?

It’d be relevant to see if students use of voice to text features increases when multiple choice questions are eliminated or if students are limited to one or two attempts.

References

Bottge, B. A., Cohen, A. S., & Choi, H. J. (2018). Comparisons of mathematics intervention effects in resource and inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 197-212.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

Zydney, J. M., Bathke, A., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2014). Finding the optimal guidance for enhancing anchored instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(5), 668-683.

David Jonassen’s definition of technology is the one that resonated most with me. I believe a good deal of life is about cooperating and collaborating with our environment, which includes technology. This dynamic of collaboration is enriching and more fulfilling than some of the sci-fi or gloomy forecasts that worry about technology  taking over the world.  As a teacher I work to enrich my students’ learning experiences, so Jonassen’s (2000) definition and analogy of mind tools or intellectual tools was meaningful.