5 Units of O-Negative…STAT! LfU in the ER Ward

Edelson (2001) provides a refreshing read on connecting content learning and science inquiry when in many science classrooms, the two are often isolated.  “In these classrooms, content is taught didactically…scientific practices are taught through structured laboratory experiments” (Edelson, 2001).  So in an attempt to unify the two structurally and temporally different practices, the LfU model was described and applied to the project WorldWatcher.

Edelson (2001) describes 4 principles of the LfU model:

1. Learning takes place incrementally and constructively.
2. Knowledge expands both consciously and unconsciously.
3. Content must be taught in the right context, so that the knowledge can be retrieved later in the future during a similar context.
4. Knowledge learned must be put to use right away so that when such knowledge is needed in a new situation in the future, it can be used to solve problems.

The three pillars of the LfU model are described as:

1. Motivation – students need motivation to learn.  Motivation is created when students perform an activity that highlights voids or gaps that might be present in their current knowledge, and the need to fill these voids.
2. Knowledge Construction – through scaffolding activities, knowledge is processed to fill the voids created by the motivation activity in step 1.
3. Knowledge Refinement – in this final step the knowledge learned is put to use in the correct context, so that it is readily available for future retrieval.

With these ideas in mind, I imagined it would be interesting to design a project of my own similar to WorldWatcher with the a balance of computer and non computer activities.

Project: Save Your Patient

Activity 1 (Motivation)

Students are shown a dramatic video of an ER ward where hospital staff requests for some units of a specific blood type.  The teacher opens up the discussion asking students about the different blood types students know.  During this brainstorming session, the different blood types are put on the whiteboard.  The teacher puts students in groups and instructs them to find out the blood types of their peers.  The teacher opens up a second class discussion on why we have the different blood types that we do, the reasons for them, and why blood types might be important leading back to the original video on why the hospital staff wanted that specific blood type for the incoming patient.  Ideas are listed and discussed on the board.  This activity is done so that students become curious about blood typing and blood transfusions.  Once enough discussion has been achieved, the teacher launches into activity 2.

Activity 2 (Knowledge Construction)

Edelson (2001) describes knowledge construction as “…the raw material from which a learner constructs new knowledge [that] can be firsthand experience, communication with others, or a combination of the two.  Activity 2 is a teacher-led discussion on the concepts of red blood cells, antigens, and antibodies using analogies like donuts and sprinkles, animations and videos for visualization purposes, as well as manipulative models using tools like Play-Doh so that different learning styles are touched upon during the activity.  This is a good chance for students to compare their hypotheses from activity 1 and understand how their initial thoughts matched with the knowledge of blood typing and blood transfusions.

Students are then taken to the computer lab where they all have access to the Blood Typing game (2017) presented by https://www.nobelprize.org that helps students practice blood transfusions on fictitious patients in attempt to save their lives.  This activity connects well with the initial dramatic video shown to students and it further puts this knowledge in the right context for students (Point 3 of the 4 LfU principles).

Activity 3 (Knowledge Refinement)

Knowledge Refinement must follow knowledge construction.  It is vital for students to take the declarative knowledge from activity 2 and turn it into procedural knowledge: a point well made by Edelson (2001) that “…to insure accessibility and applicability, refinement must follow construction” (p. 359).

In activity 3 students are put into pairs and each pair is asked to create their own alien beings that have their own set of blood types.   They are now free to name their own antigens, their own antibodies, and most importantly, create blood transfusion rules correctly as they learned them in activity 2.

In the second leg of activity 3 – each pair of students swaps the alien blood type and transfusion data with another pair and creates patient scenarios for the other pair’s alien hospital in which different patients are rushed into the hospital in dire need of alien blood transfusions.  Once patient scenarios are created, the original pairs then solve the problems of giving their new patients the right type of blood transfusions.

Thus in activity 3: students use their knowledge form activity 2, create problems that then must be solved using the rules correct rules of blood transfusion.

This paper was a very interesting read in allowing an intertwined pairing of learning content and then using that content to solve problems.  This is important as knowledge is learned in the right context, used in the right context, in hopes that it can be retrieved in those familiar contexts in the future.

Question for peers:

I may actually try out this project with students either online (with adjustments due to the nature of distance online learning) or in a brick-and-mortar classroom.  Suggestions, feedback, and critique would be very welcomed on this project.

Thanks,

Vibhu

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.

The Blood Typing Game (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/bloodtypinggame/