Monthly Archives: February 2017

Channeling My Inner Miss Frizzle – in Math

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 discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

My school division uses the Math Makes Sense line of mathematics textbooks and programming as the main resource for math education up to Grade 9.  I, and most teachers I know of, have a love-hate relationship with the approach of MMS, as it tends to be very abstract and conceptual without always including as many hands-on, nitty-gritty experiences for the students.  While each lesson begins with an exploration task, these explorations are often too difficult for students when they lack a meaningful context or are really just pencil-and-paper tasks.  After exploring the readings and activities this week, I have somewhat softened my perspective of MMS, however, in the sense that I believe the general approach of the programming aligns to a certain extent with LfU principles, although the execution may not always follow suit.  This can be accounted for with supplemental and substitutional experiences designed by the instructor.  I like to use hands-on exploration activities with my students, but I often situate them after I have provided initial instruction.  LfU would dictate that students begin with rich exploration tasks, and then the teacher supports consolidation of learning afterwards.

One big take-away I gained from this week’s reading was in Perkins, Hazelton, Erickson, and Allan’s article regarding place-based education. They explained that, “Introducing GIS and GPS in the students’ familiar and immediate surroundings more easily bridges the gap between the real and digital worlds.  Each student has tangible experience with their schoolyard and, therefore, some sense of that space that will allow them to construct new knowledge in the context of a place that they know” (2010, p. 217).When working with measurement in math, and specifically with unit conversions in early high school, LfU-based activities can involve students exploring the actual space of the classroom, school, and school yard to look for patterns in relationships between measurements taken using different measurement devices.  Providing students with specific tools that can provide or not provide specific measurements can create a need for strategies to use the tools at hand to accomplish the task.  Following an investigation of such measurements, discussion regarding patterns and trends could follow, with students also having an opportunity to ask peers questions regarding incomplete connections or misunderstandings.  The teacher can help to build a common record of findings and patterns, working towards conversion rules.  This investigation could be followed up with an application to a space of their choice – the rink, a baseball diamond, a theatre, with students needing to determine certain measurements in order to refurbish the space with the appropriate materials.  Students are the drivers of the conceptual and skill development, with teachers taking on the role of guide and supporter.

A second concept that I feel is very important is that “The designer or teacher must also pay attention to the preparedness of the learner to receive the information and the processing and use of the information that the student will be asked to do in the learning context” (Edelson, 2001, p. 377).  Teachers need to meet students where they are at, not where we think they should be.  If a task offers too much challenge for a student, s/he will likely not find the motivation necessary for LfU, or may struggle with the tools themselves.  As teachers, we can support students in LfU-type activities by ensuring that the learning activities and tools are equitably accessible to all students.  Students who need additional supports to participate in the investigation can still explore and create their own learning, and will benefit greatly from doing so.  For example, a student with weak short-term memory skills, may need a written list of steps for the process of a particular activity, but these steps can be written by the student with the assistance of a teacher or educational assistant so that they are not directive, but rather supportive of the learning exploration process.  The same way that some students need glasses to see, we need to remember that some students need specialized supports or adaptations in order to be able to properly access and participate in the learning.  Such supports could include strategic grouping or pairing, outlined step lists, exemplars, scribing, audio support, etc. Students with academic challenges deserve to participate in exploratory activities as much as students who do not require additional supports.

Ultimately, the teacher’s job is to provide the context for learning experiences that stimulate motivation and curiosity, support students in their problem solving skill development, gently guide students in a better direction when they get off course, and explore with the students.  When students see teachers learning with them, it creates less of a perception of teachers as the keepers of all knowledge.  Ths also reinforces the LfU idea that “the construction of understanding is a continuous, iterative, often cyclical process that consists of gradual advances, sudden breakthroughs, and backward slides” (Edelson, 2001, p. 377). Teachers as learners reinforces the concept of ongoing learning.

Students need to be given agency to explore and “get messy” with their learning.  There are many interesting and open-ended tasks for learning in mathematics if teachers are willing to provide these opportunities for their students.  In the words of one of my favourite television teachers, Miss Frizzle, teachers and students engaging in LfU-styled learning need to be willing and prepared to ‘Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!’

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. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.0.CO;2-M

Perkins, N., Hazelton, E., Erickson, J., & Allan, W. (2010). Place-based education and geographic information systems: Enhancing the spatial awareness of middle school students in Maine. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 213-218. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/00221341.2010.501457

T-GEM

Challenging Concept: Integers

I teach grade 6s and 7s and integers is a common concept in math my students struggle with. Particularly, when dealing with negative integers. This includes adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing with negative integers. Specifically, my students have had difficulties with understanding that adding a negative integer makes a number less positive and that subtracting a negative integer makes a number more positive. Though we go over the rules of integers, I have seen significant students experience difficulty with the concept. I have also utilized metaphors such as thinking of negative integers as “unhappy things” and positive integers as “happy things” and if we add more positive integers, we will be more happy and the number will be more positive and vice versa. However, if I subtract a negative number, I am metaphorically speaking taking away unhappy things, and therefore I will be more happy and the number will be more positive.

3 Step T-GEM cycle

Teacher Strategies Examples Student Strategies
Provide background information on integers Introducing what “positive integers” and “negative integers” look like
Generate Show examples of different types of integer equations, but starting only with adding of two positive and two negative integers. (+2) + (+3) = +5
(-2) + (-3) = -5		 Try to generate relationship between positive and negative integers and operation. They also try to consider how this math concept is used in real life applications.
Evaluate Encourage students to evaluate their relationships to see if the integer equations will become true/false. “What are some other examples?”
“Create your own examples and see if it follows your rules.”		 Try out their theories and evaluate them.
Modify Ask students to modify original ideas of relationship between positive integers.

Then, the teacher will introduce a new related concept such as adding a negative integer, then subtracting a negative integer, before moving on to multiplying and dividing.

“What changes can we make to your rule?” Modify their relationships if it is false.

 

Digital Technology

A digital technology that can be used to accompany the concept of integers is the use of coloured chips found at http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/frames_asid_161_g_2_t_1.html?from=search.html and http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/frames_asid_162_g_3_t_1.html?from=search.html. They allow students to visually represent the integers using different coloured chips (e.g. one for negative, one for positive).

Index of Virtual Manipulatives. (2017). National Library of Virtual Manipulatives. Retrieved 23 February 2017, from http://nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/search.html

Constructivist Building Materials- Trees and forests through the LfU Lense

LfU, as a design approach, and arcGis, as a technology, seem particularly fitting for exploring topics in the Trees and Forests unit of Alberta’s Science 6 curriculum. Primary topics in this unit include: Identifying trees, examining tree growth, looking at human impacts of the use of trees and forests, and identifying an issue around trees and forests, the various perspectives on this issue, and actions that might be taken.

Within the LfU model, there are 3 major areas to address: Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001). To create motivation students must “Experienc[e] the Need for New Knowledge” (Edelson, 2001). In Kulo and Bodzin (2012), whose work focused on creating an energy unit using the LfU model and geospatial technologies, this was accomplished through an inventory of students’ home energy consumption and the effects, presumably environmental and economic, on using different sources to achieve our energy needs. This introduction helps to link a topic that seems to have little to do with a student’s daily life with significant consequences. In delivering a Trees and forests topic in this manner, I would need to identify a similar motivating question that would prompt students to look beyond their day to day lives and that has significant impact. Examining students own use of forests and forest products might be a good jumping off point as they may be unaware of just how many of their activities and every day products utilize a forest in some way.

 

The knowledge construction phase “results in the construction of new knowledge structures in memory that can be linked to existing knowledge.” (Edelson, 2001). Since a student “constructs new knowledge as the result of experiences that enable him or her to add new concepts to memory, subdivide existing concepts, or make new connections between concepts.”, I would need to design experiences that connect to my students’ home environments and experiences. While the forest use survey would begin this process, Edelson (2001) notes that the phases often overlap, I would need to extend beyond simple recognition scaffold students in exploring how forests could be used and what the impacts of such use are. In this section, we could leverage forestry map overlay from arcGIS to examine how our local forest has changed over type. Examining the dates of policies related to different local forest use areas may help us determine how local governments have attempted to manage human forest uses. Examining trends in forest size, composition, and density would allow us to gauge the effectiveness of some of these policies.

 

The final phase, Knowledge Refinement, students are guided to organize their knowledge in a useful manner. Declarative knowledge is made more accessible at a future date through its application to a task thus helping to code it as procedural knowledge (Edelson 2001). In Kulo and Bodzin (2012), This was accomplished through creating a fictitious island and developing a plan for addressing its energy needs. A similar process could be employed for my topic through creating a fictitious forest area and managing the proposals of several stakeholders who would like to use the forest. Students would develop regulations for forest use and choose which proposals to approve or deny.

 

In the LfU framework, teacher and student roles are largely defined by the constructivist framework. As a teacher, I would need to scale back on the raw transmission of facts and instead create experiences that would allow students to uncover connections and trends. My role would entail more the curation of generative data sets that the distribution of facts. The role of student in the constructivist/LfU classroom is also significantly different. Students must become active meaning makers instead of passive recipients of facts. To be successful in this type of environment, student must become activists of a sort. They must identify problems upon which to apply their new knowledge if it is to be successfully transformed into long term procedural knowledge.

 

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. 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. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.0.CO;2-M

Wise Instruction – Inquiry, WISE and Model-based Learning

The following posting is guided by the following process questions:
  • What broader questions about learning and technology have provoked WISE research and the development of SKI?
  • Describe the authors’ pedagogical design considerations that shaped the development of “What’s on your Plate?” How and where was WISE integrated into a larger sequence of activities?
  • Analyze the evidence and author’s conclusions. Are the conclusions justified? In what ways does WISE support the processes commonly associated with “inquiry” in science? How might these processes be used to support math instruction?
  • What might be the cognitive and social affordances of the WISE TELE for students? Use “What’s on your Plate?” as an example to support your hypotheses.

Inquiry is the newest trend in pedagogical design and curriculum and infiltrates BCs New Curriculum established for K-9 students. As described in the following video on the BC Ministry of Education website, inquiry requires students to ask questions, hypothesize, investigate, experiment, create, reflect and revise. These actions are intended to help students to learn the processes of science, and not solely the content, while building skills in communication, collaboration, critical thinking, vocabulary building and analysis.

Linn, Clark and Slotta (2003) offer a deeper definition of inquiry and describe it as “engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments (p.518). The designers of WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) have taken this latter definition, placed it into the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration network (SKI), while asking questions of how to design a technology-based learning environment that “scaffold[s] designers in creating inquiry curriculum projects and designing patterns of activities to promote knowledge integration for students and teachers” (Linn et al., 2003, p.518). The designing of WISE is an evolving inquiry as the design team, including science teachers, pedagogical specialists, scientists and technology designers, engage in inquiry processes through its continuous designing and revising. The designers of WISE are not simply interested in inquiry, but in the intersection of inquiry and technology and the enhancement of learning as a result. A considerable statistic cited by Linn et al. (2003) describing the participation level of students through asynchronous communication in comparison to face-to-face discussion is convincing: “Online asynchronous discussions enable students to make their ideas visible and inspectable by their teachers and peers and give students sufficient time to reflect before making contributions. Hsi (1997) reports that under these circumstances, students warrant their assertions with two or more pieces of evidence and over ninety percent of the students participate. In contrast, Hsi observed that only about 15% of the students participate in a typical class discussion, and that few statements are warranted by evidence” (p.530). Other WISE related studies also reveal enhanced learning as a result of students learning through a technology-based environment. One such design study is conducted by Gobert, Snyder and Houghton (2002) using a WISE project entitled, “What’s on your Plate” – a geology focussed project.

Gobert et al. (2002) pursue a design study “to investigate the impact of decisions about curricular materials with the express goal of redesigning them in accordance with the findings obtained” (p.7). More specifically, they ask, “[I]n what ways does model-building, learning with dynamic runnable visual models in WISE, and the process of critiquing peer’s models promote a deeper understanding of the nature of science as a dynamic process?” (p.7). The two areas of SKI that are focussed on in this study are: 1) making thinking visible and 2) learning from others. Gobert et al.(2002) are also interested in observing changes in students’ epistemologies as they work through the WISE project. Specifically, they asked these questions: “How can we use the technology effectively to promote deep learning in line with epistemic goals? and How can we identify change in students’ epistemic understanding?” (p.2). In order to measure these epistemic changes, pre and post tests are conducted indicating significant increases in student understanding and reasoning related to model-based learning. Student post test responses include significantly more detail, scientific vocabulary and accurate knowledge, while peer critiques include reasoning and communicative understanding. Gobert et al. (2002) state established research for integrating model-based learning within science education, both models to learn from and model construction assignments. Positive effects of model-based learning integration are described here: “It is believed that having students construct and work with their own models engages them in authentic scientific inquiry, and that such activities promote scientific literacy, understanding of the nature of science, and lifelong learning” (Gobert et al., 2002, p.3). These positive effects of model-based learning are evidenced in the conclusions of the design study by Gobert et al. (2002). While model-based learning through WISE indicates significant growth in the students’ understanding of the use of dynamic visual models and the nature of science,  can this model-based learning also be effective in the acquisition of mathematics?

WISE supports the processes of inquiry through the “What’s on Your Plate” project including diagnosing, planning, researching, constructing, critiquing, revising, communicating and reasoning. Through these inquiry processes, students successfully make their thinking visible through the construction of models which are then critiqued by peers, and then revised through reasoning. Model-based learning in mathematics could be structured similarly using inquiry processes that require students to diagnose a problem, research the information necessary to solve the problem, construct a model using software or hands-on materials, and share their model with an explanation for peer critique. {This process is evident in The Jasper Series.} Reasoning and further research follow the critique leading to a revised model construction. In essence, model-based learning affords the student to become a “teacher” through the construction of a teachable model. In mathematics, model-based learning could predictably enhance understanding in areas of geometry, patterning and problem solving. Models could include simulations, diagram representations, symbolic data, or three-dimensional constructions.

After brief research, this following resource seems valuable in inquiring further into model-based learning: Model-Based Approaches to Learning: Using Systems Models and Simulations to Improve Understanding and Problem Solving in Complex Domains by Patrick Blumschein, Woei Hung, David Jonassen, and Johannes Stroebel (2009).

References
Blumschein,P., Hung, W., Jonassen, D., & Stroebel, J. (2009). Model-based approaches to learning: Using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana. This is a conference paper. Retrieved conference paper Saturday, October 29, 2013 from: http://mtv.concord.org/publications/epistimology_paper.pdf
Linn, M. C., Clark, D. and Slotta, J. D. (2003), WISE design for knowledge integration . Sci. Ed., 87: 517–538. doi:10.1002/sce.10086
McAleer,N. (2005, June 21). Getting started with student inquiry in science. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYGawWpiDOE

Applicable Learning

The Learning-for-Use (LfU) framework has provided me with insight on integrating technology into the math and sciences. I can envision using activities like Google Earth, ArcGis and WorldWatcher to have students visualize and apply their learning. For instance, I can have my grade 6/7 students look at maps for their country/ancient civilization study projects. They can retrieve important facts from these visuals and being able to manipulate the maps to show different information is an effective skill for them to develop. Furthermore, students can demonstrate their usage by showing their peers through a projector or SMART Board. The design principles of LfU are at work in terms of promoting motivation by having students actively being a part of the learning process, constructing knowledge based on their maps, and refining their knowledge by sharing their knowledge and making reflections (Edelson, 2001). The roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles because teachers are not the solely responsible for delivering content knowledge, students are encouraged to take ownership of their learning and are not relying on the the teacher for their learning, and both teachers and students are engaged in the learning process equally. I also like the concept of integrating specifically computers into the curriculum because being able to use a computer is an important skill in terms of proper word processing, running programs, etc. LfU`s emphasis on computer definitely brings forth the idea of reform in the educational system (Edelson, 2001).  

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.

Plate Tectonics with LfU and GIS

Using additional literature from the field of science education, what are several conceptual challenges students might have today with understanding Earth Science that LfU might support?

Learning for Use (LfU) is a theory of learning based on four tenants (Edelson, 2001), briefly summarized as:

  1. Learning is constructed through the modification of knowledge.
  2. Learning occurs through both conscious and unconscious goal setting.
  3. Knowledge is recalled and utilized based on its construction.
  4. Knowledge should be presented in a way that supports its use

These four principles underlie how learning occurs and specifically, the design of curriculum through a three-step process: (a) motivation, (b) construction of knowledge, and (c) refinement of knowledge (Edelson, 2001). In conjunction with geographic information systems (GIS), LfU is able to effectively integrate content and process learning through the use of appropriate inquiry-based activities.

In the field of Earth Science, there remain many misconceptions from simply differentiating the terms rocks and minerals to erroneous ideas about volcanoes, such as magma originating in the core (King, 2010). However, misconceptions with plate tectonics could potentially be remedied through LfU and GIS support. Various concepts associated with plate tectonics continue to be misrepresented in the classroom and textbooks themselves (King, 2010). These include the general concept of ‘tectonic plates’ and how they move, how continents and oceans form and develop, and the links between earthquakes, volcanoes, and plate movement.

As evidenced by Bodzin, Anastasio and Kulo (2014), geospatial tools such as MyWorld GIS or Google Earth help promote and foster spatial thinking. Remotely sensed aerial and satellite images can be utilized to support plate tectonic theories and concepts of by viewing the Earth’s surface and examining changes that have occurred over time. This would be especially helpful in viewing how continents move. Further, Perkin, Hazelton, Erickson, and Allan (2010) demonstrated that students are engaged through hands-on and real-world learning with a place-based educational approach. Similar activities, using aerial views of local areas and overlays, could also demonstrate plate tectonics and their specific relationship with the formation of earthquakes and volcanoes.

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.

King, C. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565-601.

Perkin, N., Hazelton, E., Erickson, J., & Allan, W. (2010). Place-based education and geographic information systems: Enhancing the spatial awareness of middle school students in Maine. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 213-218.

Plate Tectonics: Reshaping the Ground Below Us

Web-based Science Inquiry Environment (WISE)

Project: Plate Tectonics – 

Renamed: Plate Tectonics: Reshaping the Ground Below Us – ID 19738

WISE is theoretically based on the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration network (SKI) which includes the following four tenets: 1) accessibility to science, 2) making knowledge visible, 3) learning from others and 4) promoting autonomy (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003). In piecing together a unit study for middle school students (grade 6-8), incorporating these four tenets of SKI into the non-technology based areas of learning is intentional to enhance visibility of knowledge and opportunities for peer review and critique. The WISE Plate Tectonic project is being used as a final assignment within a geology unit based on the structure of the earth, the surface of the earth, plate tectonics, and earthquakes and volcanoes. A few authorship changes have been made to the Plate Tectonic project mainly to include a Canadian perspective. These changes include the addition of Canadian map images showing placement of volcanoes, earthquakes and mountain ranges, along with appropriate text. As well, small alterations have occurred in the subtitles of the lesson outline.

The geology unit includes three resources, two non-technology based texts and one project from WISE. The two non-technology based resources that have been chosen are faith-based resources as the school that I work for is an independent religious school. The Geology Book by Dr. John D. Morris is a textbook, but includes detailed and colourful diagrams illustrating the inside of the earth and side views of how the earth’s surface is formed. A Child’s Geography: Volume 1 by Ann Voskamp includes conversational style writing, hands-on activities, real world extensions and a living book list of extension readings. Talking about thinking is incorporated into both of these resources through oral narrations, discussions and the sharing of written work for peer critique. Learning is made visible through notebooking and hands-on model making.The table below illustrates the order of the unit with how resources will be completed in conjunction with each other.

In designing this unit, the four tenets of SKI are intentionally incorporated in addition to, or through the use of each resource. These four tenets provide a framework for students to work through an inquiry process as described in Inquiry and the National Educational Standards with students thinking “about what we know, why we know, and how we have come to know” (Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, 2000, p.6). Linn, Clark and Slotta (2013) more specifically define inquiry “as engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments” (p.518). The following table analyses each of the three resources and aligns them with the four tenets of SKI as well as the inquiry processes described by Linn, Clark and Slotta in the above definition.

 

Scaffolded Integration Knowledge Network Processes of Inquiry Geology Unit Resource
Accessibility to Science – {content, relevancy, real-life application} Diagnosing problems

Planning investigations

Revising views

Researching conjectures

Searching for information

 WISE Plate Tectonics
Researching conjectures

Searching for information

Revising views

 The Geology Book
Revising views

Researching conjectures

Searching for information

 A Child’s Geography
Making Thinking Visible Constructing models

Communicating to diverse audiences

Forming coherent arguments

 WISE Plate Tectonics
Constructing models The Geology Book
Constructing models A Child’s Geography
Learning From Others Diagnosing problems

Critiquing experiments

Distinguishing alternatives

Revising views

Debating with peers

 WISE Plate Tectonics
Critiquing by peers

Revising views

 The Geology Book
Critiquing by peers

Revising views

 A Child’s Geography
Promote Autonomy Diagnosing problems

Critiquing experiments

Distinguishing alternatives

Planning investigations

Revising views

Researching conjectures

Searching for information

 WISE Plate Tectonics
Researching conjectures

Searching for information

Critiquing by peers

Revising views

 The Geology Book
Researching conjectures

Searching for information

Critiquing by peers

Revising views

 A Child’s Geography

 

 

 

Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: Author.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D. and Slotta, J. D. (2003), WISE design for knowledge integration . Sci. Ed., 87: 517–538. doi:10.1002/sce.10086
Slotta, J. D. & Linn, M. C. (in press). WISE Science: Inquiry and the Internet in the Science Classroom. Teachers College Press. Retrieved from https://edx-lti.org/assets/courseware/v1/634b53c10b5a97e0c4c68e6c09f3f1b6/asset-v1:UBC+ETEC533+2016W2+type@asset+block/WISEBookCh1-30209.pdf
Web-based Inquiry Science Environment.(1996-2016). Retrieved from https://wise.berkeley.edu/

 

Genetic Diversity

For some reason I don’t think my last post published properly or I may have posted it to the wrong section. So here it is again.

The Project that I choose to examine in WISE was called “Space Colony – Genetic Diversity and Survival”.  The project is presented as a case study. The students were presented with a “mission briefing” where they were given two options for the survival of “colonists” on a planet based on their genetic makeup.  They would then have to come up with a hypothesis for why the route they choose would be the best options. The project then took the students through the molecular level of biodiversity that included cell division, DNA, mutations, single celled and multicellular organisms, etc. After learning about cells and how human cloning works, the project then zoomed out and gave students the opportunity to think about the big picture. Ultimately, this should help them understand the original problem that was presented at the beginning of the project with regards to which planet would be best for the colonists.

 

When experimenting with the project,  I was able to add in animations that I found online to illustrate cell division. This provides students with a visual of how the different components of the cells reproduce in order to create genetic diversity. I also added more areas where student were able to explain their thinking, rather than multiple choice. Kim & Hannefin (2011) discuss that WISE is about creating experiences that challenge that students to a particular task, scaffolding content in a way to expand student problem solving. The projects that I explored in WISE demonstrate a high degree of interaction with various models. I like how they incorporate some interpretation of data, blending the mathematics and sciences together. Williams et al (2004) discusses how teacher are able to gain a deeper understanding of the curriculum goals in order to support students’ learning and make their thinking visible.

 

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computer & Education, 56(2), 403-417.

 

Williams, M. Linn, M.C. Ammon, P. & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.

Genetic Diversity

The Project that I choose to examine in WISE was called “Space Colony – Genetic Diversity and Survival”.  The project is presented as a case study. The students were presented with a “mission briefing” where they were given two options for the survival of “colonists” on a planet based on their genetic makeup.  They would then have to come up with a hypothesis for why the route they choose would be the best options. The project then took the students through the molecular level of biodiversity that included cell division, DNA, mutations, single celled and multicellular organisms, etc. After learning about cells and how human cloning works, the project then zoomed out and gave students the opportunity to think about the big picture. Ultimately, this should help them understand the original problem that was presented at the beginning of the project with regards to which planet would be best for the colonists.

 

When experimenting with the project,  I was able to add in animations that I found online to illustrate cell division. This provides students with a visual of how the different components of the cells reproduce in order to create genetic diversity. I also added more areas where student were able to explain their thinking, rather than multiple choice. Kim & Hannefin (2011) discuss that WISE is about creating experiences that challenge that students to a particular task, scaffolding content in a way to expand student problem solving. The projects that I explored in WISE demonstrate a high degree of interaction with various models. I like how they incorporate some interpretation of data, blending the mathematics and sciences together. Williams et al (2004) discusses how teacher are able to gain a deeper understanding of the curriculum goals in order to support students’ learning and make their thinking visible.

 

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computer & Education, 56(2), 403-417.

 

Williams, M. Linn, M.C. Ammon, P. & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.