Monthly Archives: February 2017

Hot Stuff – Heat Energy Transfer

There were a couple of projects that intrigued my interest as they related directly to what I would be teaching next in my science class. After exploring both of them, I settled on How Does Heat Energy Move. This one explores the different ways that heat energy is transferred. This project covers the types of heat transfer and allows for student predictions, experimentation, data recording, and reflections or revisiting previous ideas to allow for changes in knowledge and understanding.

This project begins with a bit of an introduction for the students but, since most of them will not have had much experience with the concept previously, I would want to do an Anticipation Guide or KWL with the class to gauge their prior knowledge before starting to get an idea of where they may need more support as they go through the project. The project itself meets all of the requirements for the science expectations covering the transfer of heat and required little adjustment. There are places where the students can investigate scientific phenomena through digital examples which display the transfer much more effectively than doing a physical experiment, and there are places where the students can pause the project to conduct some physical experiments on their own.

The main drawback to both the projects I explored was the use of temperature probes as part of the equipment linked to the graphing system within the project. We do not have access to these probes and rely on school thermometers to measure the temperature for class experiments. I adapted this part of the lesson to use the thermometers but since they are not connected to the graphing link, the students need to create the requisite graphs by hand. This is unfortunate as noted by Slotta & Linn, when students constructed a graph by hand, they often lost sight of the purpose of the experiment and were distracted by the graphing procedure. In contrast, when they could observe the probe collecting data and watched the graph form automatically on the screen, they were able to notice important qualitative characteristics of the system (Slotta, Linn, 2009). For instance, they could actually see the plateau when the water begins to boil, rather than try to deduce this from their data. I have seen this disconnect in the classroom when students are recording the data and creating the graph by hand. Although they record the data accurately and create the graph accurately, they are not able to make the connection to the energy being used to change states instead of heating the water. An adjustment or inclusion I might make here would be to include a visual of some sort, video or digital experiment, which shows the graph being created as the water boils so the students could make the connection more easily. It would make more sense to them to watch it after they had done the experiment themselves.

These projects would fit naturally into my classroom as the students are quite familiar with using a variety of digital tools and programs. It would take them a short time to figure out the logistics but they would soon be able to move through the project quite independently. There are plenty of ways for the teacher to scaffold the information for the students as they work through the project, and dispel any misconceptions as they arise. The project provides a good mix of digital technologies and hands on experiences, to give the students an opportunity to practice the necessary skills. Following the TPCK model, the content of the project follows the curriculum expectations closely and allows the use of technology to deliver the content, as well as allowing the students to prove and explain their understanding within the project. This allows the teacher to give students timely feedback as they work through the project, rather than waiting for a culminating activity at the end. It combines many of the 21st Century Learning Skills that are a necessity for students to be successful today, in a fairly user friendly digital environment. I am looking forward to using this in my classroom for our next science unit.

 

Reference

Slotta, J.D. & Linn, M.C. WISE Science: Inquiry in the Internet in the Science Classroom. Teachers College Press. 2009

Around and Around We Go

This week I took a look at the Orbital motion and the ISS WISE activity. The interface was a little daunting to start with so I simply began at the beginning and started small. I was able to make some formatting changes easily and worked in a new writing prompt early asking students to come up with additional examples of artificial and natural satellites and to defend their answers. The previous step was about what makes a sattelite and the difference between artificial and natural ones so it seemed an opportune time to activate prior knowledge and build the habit of gathering evidence. I also added some additional prompts to the intro screen about collecting evidence that gave the students clues about what sorts of information to look for and what types of projects/tests this would be needed for. I figured that if they knew what to look for and why it was important to find, they would pay closer attention to the text on the first reading thus building positive habits for traditional text reading/decoding.

 

While I did not work it in to the project framework, I did explore the Phet Simulations activity. These little simulations allow students to play with different physical systems. I managed to locate one on earth/sun/moon/satellite orbits where the masses, play speed, and gravity could be adjusted. I was able to test it out in my grade 6 class (who are conveniently studying astronomy) and we were able to explore how solar mass affected orbits and how velocity can play a part in escaping gravitational pull. We also managed to pull of a slingshot maneuver around the sun 🙂

As a lesson/group of lessons, this project was already fairly well tailored to my needs. Mainly in needed logistical prompts specific to my students and visualizations relevant to their day to day life. Distance analogies relating to places around the school and community were particularly helpful in getting my class to conceptualize solar system distances when we represented the sun with a beach ball and the earth with a marble.

WISE: Graphing Stories

I selected “Graphing Stories (with motion probes)” (ID: 741) from the selection of WISE projects. This specific project reviews the important concepts of graphing data and accomplishes this by incorporating aspects of kinematics and motion. Further, the lessons utilize Vernier motion detectors to help facilitate learning. I modified the lessons by including additional examples for students to graph (without providing a template graph and with instructions to manually graph on paper). I also included further use of the motion detectors for replicating several of the graphs provided in the lessons.

I use very a similar approach in the Physics units of Science 10 and would likely utilize the WISE lessons to compliment my own lessons. As the WISE lessons are quite comprehensive in general graphing concepts, they would effectively either introduce or even review those requirements. In terms of the kinematics and motion aspects, I would likely cover those Physics terms and concepts prior to using the WISE lessons. The WISE lessons would then be used to reinforce those concepts. In total, the lessons would take approximately four days.

According to Linn, Clark and Slotta (2002), the WISE projects are based on the following four tenets: making thinking visible, making Science accessible, helping students learn from each other, and promoting lifelong learning.  The first tenet involves making things visible for purposes of assessment, to make teachers’ thinking visible to students, and to represent scientific ideas through models or simulations. The Graphing Stories lesson addresses many of these principles. Throughout the lessons, students are able to submit responses, compare answers with other students, and receive teacher feedback (though this is not explicitly available through the lesson). Some of these aspects also address the third principle in which students learn from each other. Students also perform several of the tasks using the motion detectors, which makes the science actively visible. The second tenet involves making science ideas accessible by providing the ability to “restructure, rethink, compare, critique, and analyze” both established and novel ideas. The examples provided in the WISE lessons are ones that students can relate to (e.g. going to camp, the weather, and getting to class on time), increasing the accessibility of the content. Finally, the WISE lesson helps promote lifelong learning by asking students to tell, write and graph their own story based on what they have learned through the lessons.

This specific lesson seems to address many of the requirements of a WISE lesson and also can be completed by students without much teacher instruction. I am curious as to how this (and other WISE lessons) would be ideally implemented in the classroom – whether they are used to solely teach or introduce a concept or in conjunction with some teacher instruction. The FAQ seems to suggest it is up to the teacher to decide where they best fit student learning.

 

References

Kirkpatrick, D. (2015, Nov 15). Graphing Stories (with motion probes). Retrieved from http://wise.berkeley.edu/previewproject.html?projectId=741

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003. Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 516-538

 

 

SKI and WISE

Materials available to assist science teachers in developing significant inquiry instruction for the numerous science standards and contexts are in short supply. Although most science standards and expectations require students to use inquiry based learning, many science classes are continuing to follow a more traditional step by step experiment based curriculum, where the outcomes are generally already known and very little discovery occurs.

WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) was developed to provide a way for teachers to promote more inquiry based learning into the classroom and integrate modern technologies and scientific concepts into an inquiry based activities that help students develop a more cohesive, coherent, and thoughtful account of scientific phenomena. It was developed specifically to provide a technologically enhanced learning environment for a wide community of science teachers and educational researchers. WISE bases its projects on the framework of scaffolded knowledge integration (SKI) consisting of four major tenets: 1) make thinking visible, 2) make science accessible, 3) students learn from each other, and 4) promote lifelong learning.  The WISE software allows curriculum designers to create inquiry projects using its technology features and curriculum design patterns based on the SKI framework. These patterns can be incorporated into new curriculum designs, or existing WISE projects can be modified for specific topic areas. Once the project design is completed, it is tested in a classroom context and observed by the design team. Once it has been tested successfully, the project is eligible to become part of the WISE library of projects.  Classroom teachers can customize these projects to suit the conditions in their own classrooms to meet specific student needs and classroom contexts.

This design process is different from the Jasper series in that each project is developed in a series of scaffolded steps to support the students’ learning as new concepts are introduced. These steps build upon information already known by the student or recently introduced through the project. Specific prompts are used throughout the project to aid students in linking and connecting ideas, critiquing their own progress, analyzing their own knowledge, and reflecting upon their own ideas. The Jasper series provides all the information required to solve a specific problem, but leaves the students to figure out the steps on their own or in small groups, with some guidance from a teacher. WISE promotes student collaboration using discussion prompts and partners, which is similar to the collaboration of small groups used in the Jasper series to solve the problems.

There are many ways to use the WISE projects within a school or classroom setting, and many that are specific to science curriculum expectations in Ontario. One way to use the project is as an introduction to the science concept and the inquiry process by allowing the students to work through the project at their own pace, using the scaffolding resources and teacher guidance. This would allow the students to make scientific discoveries independently, while limiting any misconceptions.

As the few WISE projects that I perused fit quite neatly into the science curriculum expectations for my grade, there is little that I would need to customize. However, many of the resources are specific to the project, such as the heat probes, which are not available in my school. These are connected to some of the data tables and graphs set up within the project and would be inaccessible to my students without the special equipment. I would have to change this part of the project to reflect the equipment available to me (thermometers) and consequently change the data collection method used for this part of the project. Unfortunately, some of the research states that this form of data collection where the student can see the changes in the graph as they hold the probe, solidifies the understanding for the student as it is in real time as opposed to students physically recording the data, creating the graph, and trying to interpret the results.

This is one of the drawbacks of the program in that there is an assumption or expectation that these tools are available or can be obtained for the project.

Those Who Can, Do…

TPACK is one of the first frameworks that really caught my attention when I began the MET program.  Before starting my grad studies, I had already incorporated a lot of technology into my classroom, and Mishra & Koehler’s 2006 framework became a touchstone for me as I evaluated what I had done before and has helped guide how I choose to integrate technology into my practice now.  One of the interesting things about this module’s readings was going back to Schulman’s 1986 work on PCK.  It was, of course, referenced in the TPACK material I had read, but I had never gone to the primary source myself.  Looking back, I think I viewed Schulman’s work as irrelevant…or at least that Mishra & Koehler had appropriated the useful information and brought Schulman’s framework into the 21st century.  While not wholly inaccurate, I found that Schulman’s Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching (1986) had a lot to offer both in the historical context of the model on which European universities were founded and operated (still operate?) and in the information that Mishra & Koehler chose not to expand upon in their work.  For example, Schulman’s (1986) ideas about Curriculum Knowledge as a third sphere of teacher competence was a revelation to me.  I find it both a frustration and a delight that I can be so surprised by new insights on a topic that I have spent much of my academic and all of my professional life considering!  Frustrating, because I would like to think that I consider each important factor in my decision making as a teacher, and I am reminded again and again that there is an ever-growing body of knowledge and research on how people learn.  Delightful, because not only is my job ever-changing with every child I teach, but also there are brilliant minds digging deeper all the time to uncover ways of improving teacher practice and student learning.

An example of PCK that came to mind actually brought me back to my coaching days.  There’s a saying, “Those who can, do.  Those who can’t, teach”.  I remember the first time I heard this as a child, I took it as a slight to teachers.  Later, when I was coaching high level basketball, I realized there was something deeper in the statement, and now I see how it relates to PCK.  I was a good basketball player…I was able to play for a university varsity team.  But I was no star at that level…I was relegated to the bench most games and practice was my time to contribute.  After I finished playing, I began coaching and quickly found I was much better at it than I was as a player.  In fact, as I met and observed other coaches, I noticed that the coaches who were star players at the university level were often not particularly strong at coaching.  Why would this be?  They obviously had the content knowledge…in fact, they had demonstrated that they were the masters of the content as players.  However, their mastery of the content actually hindered them from being great coaches…it came so easy to them when they were learning it themselves, that they never needed to dissect, reflect, and break down their content in order to understand it.  Players like me – ones who had climbed relatively high up the ‘content ladder’, but who had needed to take a more pedagogical approach to acquiring content – have an advantage as coaches.  We understand the feeling learners have when they are not ‘getting it’.  We have been there before and thought critically about how all the moving parts fit together, how it can be explained, and different approaches one could take.  In short, good coaches not only know about the skills of their sport, but also they have some sense of the pedagogical skills needed to help a player gain those skills.  To take it further, Schulman’s (1986) idea of Curriculum Knowledge (the knowledge of all programs and materials designed for instructing a subject at some specific level)  is analogous to a coach’s ability to strategize and prepare for:

1) Team planning – choosing what to spend the most practice time on, what systems to put in place, how to leverage the skills and abilities of the players.

2) Other teams – choosing matchups, planning ways to exploit team strengths against opponents weaknesses.

3) In-game strategy – using personnel effectively, adapting and changing game plans on the fly, calling plays.

When I hear people using the “those who can, do…those who can’t, teach” saying now, I often wonder how others are interpreting it.  Do they understand the power and importance of how content is presented?  That understanding how to teach content goes way beyond personal mastery of the content?  Usually,  though, they just add the obligatory joke, “…and those who can’t teach, teach PE”.  Should I mention to them I also teach PE?

 

References

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

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.

Global Climate Detectives

The project I explored was “What Impacts Global Climate Change?”. I customized parts of it to include section that assesses prior knowledge and initial questions before introducing the question of “What impacts global climate change?”. I also added several videos to show the visual effect of what climate change looks like from satellites. I teach Grade 7s in British Columbia and one of the curricular content areas involves the studying the evidence and human impacts of climate change so this projects was spot on for it. For my lesson, I would have students work in pairs and include parts of collaborative discussions in the project so students can scaffold each other’s learning. Pairs of students would explore the “module” sections together but then after each main part (7 parts total), there would be a whole class discussion that includes an individual reflection. Also, I would also have students create a poster to promote awareness of global climate change that includes learned knowledge and making presentations to other students in the school and possibly the community. Furthermore, students would also work in groups to design a service learning project where they can actively be a part of protecting the climate. The WISE research incorporates many of the 21st century learning skills such as questioning, comparing, rethinking and reflecting. Also, since science knowledge requires teachers to have strong content and pedagogical knowledge (i.e. TPACK), that is, knowledge on the content but then also how to deliver it to students in the best way, the Scaffolding Knowledge Integration Framework of WISE allows teachers to not transfer their misconceptions to students and allows educators to be a part of the learning process along with their students.

WISE :”Airbags: Too Fast, Too Furious? (ID 1750)” and wise2 site

Hi was anyone able to find or browse this project? (Airbags: Too Fast, Too Furious?) I kept running into a “project not found” page. Just wondering if I am missing something simple. I tried it with the title, with the title and Id and just the ID.

Also, the website https://wise2.berkeley.edu/ mentioned in Lesson 2 on page 4 I keep getting a site not found error. Anyone able to access this?
Catherine

Reshaping Instructional Design: A Tale of Jasper Series Inspiration

Upon initially exploring the video-based anchored instructional tool entitled The Jasper Woodbury Problem Solving Series, skepticism on the necessity and the effectiveness of this resource as an enhancer of student learning through problem solving presented itself: Couldn’t effective complex problem solving exist without the use of contrived video-based scenarios? Even after recognizing the intricate seven design features highlighted in the article by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992), the effectiveness of the Jasper series wasn’t convincing. It was only through the actual viewing of video samples from the series, as well as reading through a storyboard version in the Vye, Goldman, Voss, Hmelo and Williams study (1997) that the ingenuity of this anchored instructional design tool became pronounced. CTGV (1992) defines anchored instruction as situated learning that occurs in an “engaging, problem-rich environment that allow[s] sustained exploration by students and teachers” (p.65). The Jasper Series is a problem-rich environment as problem-solving is initiated with a proposed challenge, and the proposed challenge can only be solved through a minimum of fourteen steps, thus requiring a prolonged inquiry and exploration period. In order to solve the problems, the initial problem and the problems posed along the way, the student is required to find embedded clues, pose new problems, and seek alternative solutions (CTGV, 1992). The complexity of the problem solving within the problem solving is unfounded in traditional math curriculums, ensuring that the Jasper Series is an instructional design tool worthy of consideration.

Through the ETEC 533 discussion, one posting has inspired me to move forward with the learning acquired through the Jasper series related viewings and readings. Allison Kostiuk, an elementary teacher, began designing and writing complex problems reflecting realistic and relevant narrative for her students. Kostiuk chose to complete this type of narrative by “incorporating the names of … students throughout the problems, investigating daily issues that arise for … students, and further personalizing the problem by using pictures of… students encountering the problem” (Kostiuk, 2017). This idea of designing personalized problems for students resonates with me as the thought had previously crossed my mind while working through the readings and viewings on the Jasper Series. However, I had not taken time to act upon it. Although designing complex video-based instruction is not plausible at this time, a dramatized audio story or simple dramatic retelling could be viable in presenting students with many of the similar design features as evident through the Jasper Series. Incorporated design features would include video-based or audio-based formatting to increase motivation, narrative with realistic problems, generative formatting, embedded data design, and links across the curriculum (CTGV, 1992). A designed storytelling video-based problem solving scenario is planned to be shared with students at the beginning of this upcoming month. Once completed, it will be available within this posting.

Originally, my TELE design was founded on the concept of reciprocal interaction involving direct input from the student and reciprocal output from the technology. To read the definition of my initial TELE design, please visit here: Reciprocal Interaction: A TELE Design.  Through the readings, viewings, discussions, and considerations related to the Jasper Series, it has become evident that the video-based anchored learning does not fit my original TELE design. Within the Jasper Series, the technology was outputting information while the learner acted as a recipient, inputting information into the mind and then outputting learning into the surrounding environment to work towards solving problems. Following is an altered version of a reciprocal interaction design model with the option for the student to interact through input and output with the surroundings, rather than solely inputting back into the technology. Although the concept of reciprocal interaction continues to be an important feature in my TELE design, interaction with the surrounding environment is essential in bringing relevance to the learning as well as offering the opportunity for collaborative learning and reasoning.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, (40), 1, pp.65-80.
Kostiuk, A. (2017, February 10). Problem solving with anchored instruction [Weblog message]. Retrieved from  https://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/02/10/problem-solving-with-anchored-instruction/
Citation in text (Kostiuk, 2017)
Vye, N., Goldman, S., Voss, J., Hmelo, C., Williams, S., & Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and Instruction, 15(4), 435-484. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233775

The Jasper Series: Math and Science Immersion

The Jasper Series takes math and science concepts into the real world. Skills are not taught in isolation and then applied to problems, the problems are presented in such a way as to allow for skill development. Each problem introduces students to different math and science concepts. Students are introduced to a video story without knowing what they will need to do with the information. After viewing, students are asked to solve a series of problems and sub-problems based on the information provided in the video. Students are able to go back and view the video as many times as necessary. This type of learning is anchored instruction. One benefit of this type of learning is that students who solve contextual problems are more likely to remember the learned skills and be able to apply those skills in new and novel ways.

The Jasper Series appears to be a well thought out program based in anchored instruction. It could do with a remake of the videos as they seem to be dated and this could interfere with students taking the material seriously.

This TELE raises several questions for me (and from reading and responding to several blog posts many of the MET students). Why does education continue to need to be black or white? Rote instruction (direct teaching) vs anchored instruction (situated learning). Why does every “new” idea seem to put down the theories and practices used previously? For me the world, even the education world is a myriad of shades of gray. Do we never use rote instruction or direct teaching for math and science concepts? Does using anchored instruction mean that we just tell the kids to figure it out? Not in my opinion. We need to employ the best teaching technique that helps us achieve our end goal. Sometimes that will be rote instruction, sometimes it will be better suited to anchored instruction. At times students need to build the neural pathways that allow them to memorize facts, at others they need to construct their own knowledge and apply it in new situations.

We spent the last fifteen years understanding the benefits of differentiated instruction. The underlying principle behind this theory is that students learn in very different ways. Choosing only one teaching technique means that we have not reached all of our learners. In previous generations, if you did not fit the mold that the teacher made you were considered a poor student. We now know that there should not be one mold. Rather, potentially, there are as many molds as there are students.

Watching the videos and reading the papers that accompanied The Jasper Series lesson I wondered about teacher professional development. Were teachers instructed how to use anchored instruction or did the creators or those who bought into The Jasper Series expect it would just be an organic process? My concern with this is that in Ontario we had been mandated to move away from rote instruction toward constructivist techniques or anchored instruction. Little to no PD was provided. Sadly, this translated into a lot of staff members believing they no longer taught math. That kids just needed to figure it out for themselves. Needless to say, students began performing quite poorly on provincial tests (although mandated by the ministry of Education to move away from rote, their own tests remained the same). This highlights the black or white ideology that many have. “This is new, this is better, let’s throw away the old stuff” is a myopic view. In reaction to poor test scores, the pendulum has swung back to direct instruction.

If teachers were not shown how to use an anchored instruction program and provided with no opportunities to use anchored instruction in a safe environment in order to become comfortable with the material, imagine how many students were thrust into a new classroom style with no idea what hit them. The Jasper Series did not show any lessons on how to ease students (or teachers) into this type of learning. This would be like students showing up for swimming lessons and thrown into the deep end with the instructor having no idea who could swim.

As a TELE designer I would try to adhere to the following steps:

1. Provide in-depth professional development for staff, on what anchored instruction is and what it is not. Allow staff to start with very small constructivist learning tasks so that they are not overwhelmed.

2. Teacher’s need to walk students through constructivist learning and anchored instruction. With tips like: how to get started, what to do when you get stuck, how to check if you are on the right track. This stage also involves some groundwork for teaching students how to collaborate effectively, talk through problems and processes and support each other in this new learning environment.

3. Problems need to be of interest to the students. It has to be something that relates to them on a deeper level. They need to see how these math and science processes fit into their lives.

4. I would continue with The Jasper Series format of large problems and sub-problems. Each of the problems and sub-problems continue to build on previously learned skills. (This method would be at the centre of the PCK Venn diagram, where pedagogy and content meet).

5. My design TELE would be app or web based vs DVD. Students could access the material from any device, as well as be able to easily find sections of the video so that it can be re-watched whenever necessary. I would also like to incorporate more programs that would allow students to test their hypothesis and see the results of their actions in real time on a simulation activity (TPACK).

6. I would attempt to make my videos more generic and stay away from typecasting characters. (One of the things that distracted me right away in The Jasper Series was the “nerdy” type character in the episode Trouble at Boone Meadow. Students in my class would be distracted by this character. He would not be seen as funny but rather as a target for their jokes.

7. My TELE would try to move beyond Shulman’s (1987) PCK framework that looks closely at Pedagogy and Content towards Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK which incorporates technology as well.

8. In my TELE assessment, would be built into each daily activity. Students would be aware that making mistakes is welcome but they must be able to articulate what went wrong and why, as well as, how they would fix the situation.
“Designers should provide students with environments that restructure the discourse of …classrooms around collaborative knowledge building and the social construction of meaning” (Kozma, 2003, p.9).

References:
Kozma, R., & Robert B Kozma. (10/01/2003). Journal of research on technology in education:
Technology and classroom practices: An international study International Society for
Technology in Education.

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

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1)1-23