Monthly Archives: February 2017

Learning with esri using ArcGis and The Living Atlas

Yesterday I took part in the webinar provided by the UBC Faculty of Education provided by esri a map database company using their tool Arcgis and The Living Atlas. While I will admit I found the first half of the session a bit too in-depth for what I would use in the elementary classroom I understand the power of the tool they have created. I did find the second half of the session on the Living Atlas to be totally applicable to my teaching.

The Living Atlas is a dynamic tool that can be used in almost any curriculum area. The material is accurate and in depth and while it is a type of open source program the material is vetted before it is allowed to be part of The Living Atlas site.

Below are some screen shots of the types of maps that are available.

Below is the link to the Living Atlas homepage.

The Living Atlas

If you did not get time to look at the esri or arcgis material last week I hope you take some time to discover it.

Catherine

When Will Change Actually Happen?

Since the beginning of ETEC 533, I have continually wondered about changes in education and the implementation of technology to support learning in the classroom. I have enjoyed reading about Jasper Woodley, WISE (SKI) and LfU but keep coming back to the same point, these are not new methods of teaching math and science or STEM material. It is being presented as new and novel and I will admit it is new and novel for me. I am excited about incorporating constructivist teaching in STEM classes and integrating cross-curricular activities with the material we have been reading about in module B. But, the ideas, research and case studies are not recent. Most were introduced in the late nineties and early two thousands, that makes them over 15 years old. Should this research not have already reached our classrooms? Should teachers not already be inserviced on these methods and confident about how to apply them in the K-12 classroom?

The bigger question that arises is Why does real change in education take so long? I have worked for two boards of education over my twenty-six years in the classroom and both sound very similar to school districts around the country, that being boards constantly jump on band wagons of the next best thing but have no real understanding that long-term changes are needed. Every year I am introduced to or asked to pilot a new language, math, science, arts, or technology program. Every year I take the time to learn and implement the new “format” or material only to have the board basically abandon it the next year for something else. As was mentioned in the WISE readings last week the case study involving the teacher “Alice” demonstrated that Alice was just getting comfortable with the different pedagogical techniques after the first year and it took two full years for her to say she felt competent. If this is the case with a teacher who was not only interested in a new teaching style and volunteered to learn about it and received specialized training how can we expect classroom teachers who have new programs thrust upon them with little to no in servicing to become comfortable and confident with any new material?

In my estimation programs like Jasper Woodley, WISE and LfU are needed in every classroom. We must teach our students the skills that are needed to survive today, not the skills that were necessary decades ago. How do we push these programs forward? How do we provide adequate training and most importantly get teachers to buy into these methods?

Catherine

Fatima, Mohammed, Alyazia and Saeed are in the Desert Club at School…

I took a closer look at the Graphing Stories (with motion probes) I decided to make this lesson more ELL friendly for students in the UAE, this could be used by students from grade 6 to 8 .  I changed the names of the students in the question to names that students here would be more familiar with, I also make the English significantly less wordy and easier to understand without taking away from what was being asked in the questions.

 

I would start a lesson on graphing by giving my students a choice of 4 chocolate bars and asking them which is their favorite.  I would then ask them how would they show this in a graph.  I would then show them various graphs and we would go over how to read them. Students that are stronger in English can be paired with students that are weaker to complete this activity. This WISE project would be an excellent way to promote critical thinking in students which is heavily promoted in UAE schools now and it would also help students with logistic manipulation of computer programs, a skill that many of my students need to work on. SKI learners are viewed as adding ideas to their repertoire of models and reorganizing their knowledge (pg. 189).  I think that this activity would be an excellent way to help my students interact with graphs and the questioning that accompanies them.

 

 

References

Learning to Teach Inquiry Science in a Technology-Based Environment: A Case Study Author(s): Michelle Williams, Marcia C. Linn, Paul Ammon and Maryl Gearhart Source: Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 189- 206

LfU in the UAE

In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

 

Learning-for-Use (LfU) activities offer students a deep and robust conceptual understanding of the topic at hand (pg. 355).

The model is based on four principles that are shared by many contemporary theories of learning:

  1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
  1. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals.
  1. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use.
  1. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied

Edelson (2001) describes four principles of the LfU model on page 357:

  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 used 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 used in the correct context, so that it is readily available for future retrieval.

 

Here in the United Arab Emirates using GIS is a rather new phenomenon. Never the less as Math and Science teachers we are taking baby steps to include these activities in our classrooms with the limited technology that we posses.  Since my students live in a remote area, their geographical knowledge is limited.  I often try to motivate my students even thought this can be hard when almost half of them with get married after graduation from high school and not pursue university.  Nevertheless, I remind them that the world is a large place that is fascinating and ready to be discovered, this at times is enough motivation to get students going.

One activity that is possible is taking a look at the houses in the community (since most times many family live on compounds together) and guessing the area of the compound.  We can get them look at GIS images and physically calculate the square footage of their houses or even other buildings such as our school.

This puts the information into context.  We can then expand and take a look at iconic building in the UAE such as Sheik Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi and the man-made Palm Jumairah and compare their square footage to their homes.

We can then take time to discuss and reflect on what we have learned.  In this way students can be engaged in what they are learning because it is relevant to their lives and the teacher can act as a facilitator, guiding them in whatever manner that they need.

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.

Life on the Descoast: My LfU Application in FPC Math 10

LfU: Learning for Use

The LfU framework seems fairly “user-friendly” in that different educators can adopt the framework, yet still allow their own pedagogical styles be honoured. Using combinations of high tech, low tech, modern and traditional, as long as educators create an environment that creates opportunities for learners to be “mcr-ed” (“motivated”, “constructive” and “refiney”) with their knowledge, they are towing the LfU line! The key take away for myself was that LfU focuses on the application of knowledge as opposed to specific inquiry or learning models. (Edelson, 2000)
For those of us who have drank, er guzzled, the EdTech Kool-aid, technology use in combination with the LfU framework is unquestionably going to be a good time. Although prior to ETEC 533, I was utilizing LfU principles unknowingly, what is distinctly different now, is that I am choosing activities with more purpose, as opposed to simple hunches. It is not the first week during my MET experience that I have read about the affordances of constructivism, situated learning and reflection, however, what the LfU framework does, is it packages these principles up in a clear, understandable way. (Similar to Newton’s Three Laws! At least for me…)
So, the topic that I would like to touch on is one that I have taught for my entire career of 18 years—linear equations. I haven’t taught it the same way in all of these years; as technology has evolved, my approach has definitely evolved! Once we have already reviewed the concept of Cartesian Coordinate System, graphing with a table of values, domain/range and a bit of slope, I then move towards equations of lines beginning with horizontal and vertical.

  1. Motivate — Experience Demand and Curiosity
    • Desmos Faces: Through an inquiry process, students eventually construct a simple face using horizontal and vertical lines. There is a collaborative component to the pre-made, online activity, as well.
  2. Construct — Observe and Receive Communication
    • Not gonna lie— I utilize “Direct Instruction” to introduce slope-Intercept Form. In combination with Desmos simulations, my students practice from textbook questions. I show them how to use Desmos to their advantage, when completing their work.
  3. Refine — Apply and Reflect
    • Desmos Art Project: Students recreate a graphic of their choice using a minimum of 75 equations. Students may choose to use higher order functions (curves), but linear equations can also be used entirely. 10% of their mark is based from their Reflection that is publicly posted on the Class Blog. I will say that the Reflections have been better quality when I have provided students with topics to discuss.
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.

Save the boxes! – Bridge building with LfU

Imagine how LfU principles might be applied to a topic you teach. Now switch out the My World technology. What other domain specific (and non-domain specific) software might help you achieve these principles while teaching this topic? By domain-specific, we mean software designed for STEM education, and by non-domain specific, we mean software or other forms of technology that could be used generally in multiple domains (eg. Wikis). Other GIS software can be selected for the switch.

 

Traditional images of education usually involve a teacher lecturing in front of a group of students, didactically transmitting knowledge to students.  There are also images of students in labs or activities, taking their learned content and engaging in activities that more often than not are designed primarily to confirm and reinforce said content.  This view that the teaching of content and engaging in process are opposed to each other is challenged by Edelson’s Learning for Use (LfU) theory (2001) which contends that inquiry can be means to help students understand content.  Edelson’s LfU is based on 4 main principles:

  1. Learning occurs through constructivist methods.
  2. Construction of knowledge is a goal-driven process that is guided by an understanding of the reasoning behind the goals.
  3. The constructed knowledge is used as a foundation for building subsequent knowledge.
  4. Knowledge must be constructed in a meaningful and useful way before it can be applied.

In doing do, Edelson argues, inquiry-based activities can be used as a means to both deliver content and reinforce concepts.  LfU theory also outlines how these learning processes should be designed and highlights three important areas of consideration: motivation, construction of knowledge, and refinement of knowledge (Edelson, 2001).  In this process, motivation first helps students recognize the need for more knowledge and serves to drive their engagement in the activity.  The construction of knowledge occurs when students develop an understanding and then use it as a basis for further knowledge construction.  Finally, the refinement of knowledge allows students to connect and reinforce learned ideas in order to make them useful.

One topic that I have taught that fits neatly with LfU theory is the bridge building unit in my Science & Tech 11 course.  The overall theme of the unit is to understand the shapes and structures commonly used in bridge building and culminates in a popsicle stick bridge building challenge.  To aid student understanding of basic bridge structures (namely, trusses), a domain specific bridge building simulator can be used to allow students to test and verify their ideas.

Reading Edelson’s description of the LfU process, I realised that my unit plan could be separated into the three stages discussed above.  With Edelson’s LfU process applied, the unit progressed as follows:

Stage 1: Motivation

  • The unit starts with showing students various bridges from the around the world with a discussion regarding how the different architectural and engineer designs set out to solve some problem.  The students are provided with some materials and challenged, as a class, to build a suspension bridge to see how much weight can be supported.
  • In the classes following the introduction, a discussion on structural shapes and force distribution is followed by taking the students to the computer lab where they can begin using the bridge simulator.  The cartoon-y design and gamified approach the simulator has helps to motivate and engage students.

Stage 2: Construction of knowledge

  • The students are asked to draw a diagram of every successfully bridge they design as they progress through the game.
  • The students are given two classes to advance as fair as possible through the game.  At the beginning of the second class, students are asked to share their successful bridge designs and the teacher asks guiding questions that eventually lead to the highlighting of triangular truss structures and their role in supporting bridge forces.
  • The students can use this knowledge and more actively think about their bridge design as the game becomes more difficult.

Stage 3: Refinement

  • The students continue to use their understanding to build more complicated bridge designs.
  • Once complete, the students are given their final project – a bridge built of popsicle sticks.
  • They are tasked with first sketching and planning their project using the knowledge gained from the simulator, and then proceed with the build and test.

Edelson’s LfU theory and process provides a rather pragmatic approach to unit design that not only allows for the tighter integration of content and process, but also offers a measured approach to its implementation in the classroom.

 

 

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.

Including and Motivating Students of Today

British Columbia’s New Curriculum lends itself to project-based learning as it allows educators to incorporate various “big ideas” and curriculum content areas. Along with this, project-based learning allows for increased emphasis to be put on student-centred learning, rather than on the teacher simply imparting knowledge through memorization and recitation that the learner is then often unable to access when needed (Edelson, 2001). Learning-for-Use promotes higher-level thinking skills as students are encouraged to apply both their prior knowledge and the new knowledge they are in the process of acquiring to integrate a framework that accesses the varying levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, from knowledge and comprehension, to application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of the world around them (Moore, n.d.). Daniel Edelson (2001) points out that “educators have traditionally seen content and process as competing priorities” (p. 355), with content and inquiry “taught separately through separate learning activities” (p. 356), as opposed to being taught (or considered) as intersecting domains as shown in Mishra and Koehler’s work (2006). In contrast, “recent education reform initiatives emphasize the significance of developing thinking skills, data analysis skills, understanding real-world applications, and utilizing the power of technology in teaching and learning (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000; National Research Council,1996; North American Association for Environmental Education 2000)” (as cited in Bodzin, Anastasio, & Kulo, 2014, p. 2). By using a framework like Learning-for-Use, content and process are integrated as students are given the opportunity to learn through their own inquiry, experience, and discovery by allowing students to engage in situated learning environments through the following principles as outlined by Edelson (2001):

1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding
goals.
3. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use.
4. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied
(p. 357)

Supporting these principles of Learning-for-Use are the beliefs that students learn through a process of constructing new knowledge through personal experience and communication, rather than having knowledge transferred to them; through goal-directed learning initiated by the learner; through the creation, elaboration and accessibility (storage) of knowledge; and through the understanding of and ability to use factual knowledge and then transform that knowledge into procedural knowledge (Edelson, 2001; Radinsky et al., 2006).

When considering Learning-for-Use and working with GIS in terms of my own classroom and teaching, the first unit application that came to mind was around natural resources/rocks and minerals. When exploring ArcGIS through searches like “mineral exploration in British Columbia” and “natural resources in British Columbia” a variety of titles related to geological features, mineral occurrences, mineral potential, major natural resource projects, natural events, and so on were found. While there are many classroom and community-based activities that are applicable to natural resource management and mineral exploration in the area where I live, it can be difficult to help students understand the “bigger” picture. The introduction of interactive maps could help bring natural resources and mineral exploration “to life” for students, as well as having them really consider how British Columbia both contributes to and is affected by the harvesting of natural resources. Students could not only identify areas of mining, logging, and so on, they could also then layer on bodies of water nearby to discuss effects on waterways; they could layer on towns and cities to discuss how to process the resources most effectively/economically; they could look for other areas of potential resources; and so on. In addition, when reading Bodzin, Anastasio, and Kulo’s (2014) article on Google Earth, I wondered about having students use this program as a way to identify how the management of resources looks from a “bird’s eye view” in terms of location, environmental disruption, and land reclamation.

Finally, the opportunity that Learning-for-Use and GIS environments offer in terms of inclusive environments and accessibility of materials for a diverse range of learners is an important feature for classes today. Bodzin et al. (2014) discuss the incorporation of “design features in instructional materials so that low-level readers and low-ability students can understand scientific concepts and processes in addition to learners whose cognitive abilities are at or above the intended grade level” (pp. 13-14). Radinsky et al. (2006) emphasize the importance of differentiated assessment in order to assess students in a variety of ways, pointing out that each assessment allows a different view of students’ knowledge and comprehension. Our learners today are diverse, with significantly different expectations than students had in the past, so our classrooms must adapt to our changing learners as well as to the changing world around us. Learning-for-Use and GIS environments provide new and innovative opportunities for student-centered, inclusive and accessible learning to appeal to our learners of today.

References:

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning earth and environmental science. In MaKinster, Trautmann, & Barnett (Eds.) Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/research/Bodzin_GE.pdf

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.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Moore. S. (n.d.). Bloom’s taxonomy: Teacher planning kit. Blogsomemoore: Teaching and Empowering ALL Students. Retrieved from https://blogsomemoore.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/blooms-questions.pdf

Radinsky, J., Sacay, R., Singer, M., Oliva, S., Allende-Pellot, F., & Liceaga, I. (2006, April). Emerging conceptual understandings in GIS investigations. Paper about forms of assessment presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua_Radinsky/publication/242390299_Emerging_conceptual_understandings_in_GIS_investigations/links/54eb39670cf27a6de11763ab.pdf

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/

My World LFU – Full STEAM Ahead

LFU is to support learners in developing knowledge in a way that will be easily retrievable when needed in the future (Edelson, 2001). With teachers being asked to more content more effectively and to foster “deep” and “robust” conceptual understanding in students there needs to be a change in the way science is taught in the classroom. The didactic model of lectures and reading, with separate learning activities only serves to provide students with inert knowledge that cannot be called upon when it is most needed (Whitehead, 1929). We have all had those students who cannot seem to remember anything that had been previously taught to them, mostly because the information was not relevant to them. This shallow understanding of scientific concepts leads to student misconceptions and unreliable information for future understanding.

The LFU model, based on four basic principles of learning, support constructivist, cognitive, and situated learning perspectives. These principles put the learning firmly in the hands of the learner, allowing them to set goals, make deep and new connections between knowledge structures, and retrieve the relevant information in the future.

One aspect of the LFU model that resonated with me the most was the evidence that application and reflection are both critically important to the development of useful knowledge. In many traditional models of learning the task was assigned, students met the requirements by doing the task, the task was graded, and it was never re-visited again, making it difficult for students to see how knowledge connects across the curriculum or across different disciplines. Mathematics and scientific concepts are not applied in isolation in the real world, and yet, that is how they are taught traditionally in the classroom. The LFU model emphasizes time to reflect upon the acquisition of new knowledge, and how that knowledge connects to what they already know, and how it can be applied to problems or relevant situations. This was evident in Camila, the Earth, and the Sun when the students shared their ideas and understandings with their peers in an open discussion, allowing all of them to reflect on the information being given, and to reform their ideas with the new knowledge. I find it is one of the things that many teachers do not take the time to do in their classrooms, give the students opportunities to reflect on their learning, both formally as in a written response, or informally as in an open discussion or small groups. It was one of the aspects of the WISE projects that I appreciated, there was time for the students to go back and revisit some of the information and reflect on what they had learned.

Since I teach all the content subjects to my class, I am always interested in finding ways to integrate the subjects to help make the topics more relevant to the students. I was particularly intrigued by the Create-a-World project, especially as new planets have been discovered which may sustain life similar to that on earth. Using these types of programs students could determine how different landforms were created, climate patterns of different areas, the water cycle, and environmental issues which may arise with civilizations. Although My World and World Watcher seem to be optimal for this application, I do not think they are supported by my Board and would have to seek out alternatives for the project. Google Earth is supported and could easily be used to investigate a variety of landforms around the world, it does not seem to have all the affordances of the other programs. Our Board does support Gizmos through the Explore Learning website (https://www.explorelearning.com/) which has many interactive lessons on specific math and science topics which would allow students to explore such concepts as Weather and Climate, Tidal Effects, Seasons, and Topographic Maps. Students can choose which Gizmos they would like to explore relevant to their project. These interactive lessons allow students to explore things of interest to them motivating them to learn, they construct new understanding using previous knowledge and new knowledge to form new connections, and they have time to reflect on how these concepts fit with their world requirements.

In keeping with the STEAM movement, I like to add a creative aspect to the project, much as Camilla used the drawings of her perception of light on earth to demonstrate her learning. Students could create a physical model of their planet, showing the different landforms and various eco zones using colour and texture. They could create a series of drawings to demonstrate their understanding of weather, climate, precipitation, landforms, etc. They could create an evolution video on how their world was formed using iMovie or other similar software applications.

Having been exposed to these different types of GIS applications and the principles of LFU, discovering other software or programs to support this type of learning will become a focus for the future of my classroom.

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

Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2009). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642.

LfU and Geospatial Technologies: Mind Blown

According to Edelson (2001) the Learning for Use Framework (LfU) incorporates several components that bring real world examples into science and math classes most often using technological developments to support learning. Edelson (2001) and his colleagues “believe that if we are able to present schools with compelling examples of the use of computers to achieve ambitious science education standards, the introduction of computers into schools will become an opportunity to engage those schools in science education reform (p 356).”

The goal of LfU is to incorporate real life problems into learning activities so that the material becomes meaningful and students are better able to recall what they have learned when it is relevant (p 356). The LfU model is based on four principles that incorporate constructivism, constructionism and situated cognition:

1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.

2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals.

3. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use.

4. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied. (p 357)

The LfU model involves the processes of first-hand experience and understanding built on communicating with others. It is important to note here that these methods are not necessarily orderly and discrete but rather a “continuous, iterative, often cyclical process that consists of gradual advances, sudden breakthroughs, and backward slides (p 377).”

I feel this is an important concept for teachers to embrace. Over the past few decades, we have created generations of students who just want to know how to do something “right”. It is a mindset of “tell me, show me, grade me’ ok let’s move on”. Students are leaving school with very little problem-solving ability and poor critical thinking skills. Why? Because that is how they have been trained. Unfortunately, they are entering a work force that is no longer industrial based. Employers are looking for workers who can solve real-world problems, think critically about best scenarios and work together in collaborative groups. Most graduate’s skills are lacking in these areas.

As educators, it is up to us to realize that although not all our past pedagogy is bad it does need updating. Technology integration may be the key to bringing constructivism and situated cognition into our everyday lessons. Bodzin, Anastasio and Kulo (2014) [Designing Google Earth activities for learning Earth and environmental science] recognize the limitations we have all discussed in previous blog posts: “There have been many challenges, however, to implementing geospatial technologies in K-12 classrooms. These include technical issues pertaining to the interface design of software, time for classroom teachers to learn to use the software, lack of existing basal curriculum materials that integrate geospatial technologies, and lack of time to develop learning experiences that integrate easily into existing school curricula (Meyer et al., 1999; Baker & Bednarz, 2003; Bednarz, 2003; Kerski, 2003; Patterson et al., 2003.” They still believe geospatial technologies hold great promise for classroom use (p 3). Bodniz et Al. (2014) outline nine design, scaffold and use steps that are collaborative and student centered to create meaningful activities for students using geospatial technologies (see article p 17).

The article by Radinsky, Oliva and Alamar (2009) Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property takes this design process even further by centering learning around shared cognition. The authors state, “we need to develop ways to recognize and assess emerging science knowledge in classrooms not only as individual accomplishments but also as shared processes and communal understandings. The present study is an effort in this direction (p 620).” They highlight 6 scaffolded steps referred to as moves to incorporate this learning into the classroom.

Move 1. Reviewing Shared Assumptions: Starting from What ‘‘Everybody’s Thinking’’ (p 628).
Move 2. Referencing Other Students’ Work (p 629).
Move 3. Combining Separate Ideas in to a Shared’ ‘Common Ground’’ (p 630).
Move 4. Creating and Inspecting Multiple Shared Representations (p 631).
Move 5. Leveraging Peers’ Language to Clarify Ideas (p 631).
Move 6. Negotiating Language and Representations to Develop New, Shared Explanations (p
632)

After reading several of the articles this week I spent a few days mulling over how I see LfU and geospatial technologies being integrated into my lessons. Initially, I thought I would struggle to find units or modules that would fit as the concepts seemed to be too advanced. I immediately changed my mind as several good fits emerged simultaneously, suddenly I was overwhelmed with ideas.

The idea I have thought about the most is an integrated curriculum unit that is hinged around science and social justice. In a MET course, last term my partner and I developed a Google Classroom unit for a grade three students (but could be adapted to any grade level) on Testing Materials and Design. Geospatial technology could be incorporated easily into this unit. In the module 6 activities A) Build a better amusement park and B) Imagineering a cross curricular blended learning module geospatial activities could be added. For the first activity Build a better amusement park students could use any of the geo technologies to look for an area that they could build on. Is the terrain suitable, is there enough space, is there room for growth and so on?

For part B students are introduced to the Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: William Kamkwamba. William used his knowledge of science, his imagination and found materials to create a windmill for his town. He harnessed the only natural resource available and used it to better the lives of the villagers. Students could use Google Earth technology to view the African landscape and look for other suitable locations to build wind turbines, or perhaps look at ways to harness water or the sun to base their Imagineering project on. My mind is literally teeming with ideas as I write this.

The benefit of the LfU approach utilizing geospatial technology to teach earth sciences is that students can actually see what they are learning. They are able to manipulate variables and “see” the outcome. They are able to look at real world, real time images and understand changes to landscapes whether that be in relation to human interaction such urban expansion, natural disasters (areas of a city devastated by an earthquake) or the displacement of refugees due to civil unrest. With out technology, there is no “seeing” but rather students are expected to visualize these images with no real life context to compare them to.

A few years back our local newspaper did an educational ten part story on social justice titled “A Long Walk to Water”. The grade eight teachers used it in their classes. While an interesting read, the students, living in middle-class Ontario Canada, could not comprehend the issues facing the young women in the story. Teachers were frustrated that the unit seemed to be flopping and could not understand the lack of connection and general “who cares” attitude of the students.

In one of our Social Justice club meetings kids talked about the story and how even they, students interested in social justice could just not align this with their own lives and understandings of the world. From this discussion we started looking at new activities.
We tried to bring real world connections to the classroom; we went on the computers and looked at the area involved. Looked at the temperatures and terrain, the political instability in the area. The issue that girls were expected to be slaves while boys went to school. While the story was called Long Walk to Water, the students didn’t understand what long meant. We used google earth to track their walks, and put it in relation to our community. We borrowed large water jugs from a nearby business and filled them so students could feel how heavy the water jugs were. To bring it all together we had the grade eight students carry the filled jugs on a social justice walk. Even though the distance our students traveled was relatively flat and safe and less than half the distance that the girls in the story travel each day, most of our students could not make the journey with out stopping, whining and generally wanting to give up.

When students did need to stop the members of the social justice club would go up and remind them that there were kidnappers and bandits around and that stopping meant they were sitting ducks. Some students were inclined to leave their jugs and they were reminded if they did there would be no food or water at home for the entire family including young siblings and babies. Doing all this helped the students make the connection, and for most appreciate how their lives differed from others around the world.

References:

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning Earth and environmental science. In Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Springer Netherlands.

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

Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2009). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642. 

Sverko, C. and Roffey, T. Google Classroom Unit: Testing Materials and Design created for ETEC 565A December 2016.