Monthly Archives: March 2017

Leap Motion Technology

image from leapmotion.com

Leap Motion Technology allows you to use your hands as a mouse. I compared it to Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark in Iron Man, using his hands to scroll, switch screens, maximize and minimize images, etc.

The image above is one of the training exercises, you use your hands to pluck petals off a flower. It allows you to get used to the technology and the technology to get used to you.

As promised here is a blog post on Leap Motion. Here is the link to the website https://www.leapmotion.com where you will find all the information you desire.

What does Leap Motion look like?

 

image from leapmotion.com

Leap motion is the small device shown above that attaches to your computer via the USB port.  There are a host of apps (free and paid) and training programs available to help you become familiar with and use your leap motion both as a tool/learning device and game enhancer, especially with VR.

One of the blogs about creating educational games using the leap motion technology is a really good read as it discusses scaffolding lessons so that students become comfortable with the technology before they are expected to use it in advanced ways. As I mentioned in my earlier post some of my students were frustrated trying to learn how to manipulate their hands using leap motion and often stepped back to watch others learn how to use it before they would try again.

I had hoped to film some of my students using the leap motion technology with a 3D geometry program.( It was amazing to watch groups of students contorting their bodies as they tried to manipulate the objects on screen. ) Unfortunately I was ill just prior to March Break and although school was to resume today our board has locked its elementary teachers out as a result of ongoing contract issues.

http://blog.leapmotion.com/8-things-every-educational-game-developer-needs-know

I have found and inserted below three good youtube videos.

Video One is an introduction to Leap Motion

Video Two is the demonstration of the 3D geometry app I spoke about in Module C lesson 1.

Video Three is how leap motion is being adapted and implemented with VR goggles. I have just ordered my adapter to try it out on my EVOO VR headset.

If you have any questions about Leap Motion feel free to ask.

Have a great week everyone.

Catherine

 

Networked Communities: Scratch

Scratch is an online, drag and drop, programming environment developed at MIT. The interface facilitates both animation and interactive programming. Scratch has a large and supportive community where users share their projects and can view the coding of other members’ projects and can freely remix them. A novel feature of this environment is the remix tree. It tracks where each remixed project comes from all the way back to the initial creation as well as displaying all other projects that came from the same root work.

 

https://scratch.mit.edu/

Constructing meaning from “Scratch”

Knowledge in science is a socially constructed phenomena. As Driver et. Al (1994) note, the language of science is not that of observing natural phenomena, but it is instead the language of the constructions which we use to explain it. There is no equation of force sitting out there in nature. It is a construction based on our observations of our environment. More over, it has been negotiated by generations of scientist into the form of F=MA that we see today.

We must acknowledge that such complex social constructions are not available in the environment for our students to simply access. We can lead them to the data that generated them, and they may recognize patterns within it, but the specific language of science must be learned through a process of cognitive apprenticeship and enculturation into the values and language of the discipline. As science educators, we can begin this process by modelling the believes, language, and processes of the scientific community for our students.

Within networked communities, participants engage in the ongoing construction of knowledge and meaning within a discipline. These communities are often a combination of students, amateur enthusiasts, and professionals. Each group can meaningfully contribute to the ongoing dialogue of the field. Students pose questions and may link ideas to novel metaphors and models. Amateur enthusiasts may find novel processes that reduce cost and barriers to entry. Professional have a wealth of knowledge and experience to share but might also be able to crowd source data and ideas to advance a given field.

To illustrate the above, let’s consider the Scratch programming environment. In this free, web-based, programming environment any of the above categories of participants are able to create programs with relative easy by using a drag and drop interface. Projects are readily shared throughout the community and Scratch enables commenting on, favouriting, and remixing of projects. The coding of each project is readily viewable by all participants and often provides scaffolding for more novice programmers to use to create their own projects. Complex projects may be designed by expert programmers but can be explored by novices. Forums allow novices to seek advice or for groups to collaborate together on a single project.

 

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

Google Expeditions

Google Expeditions is an application that allows students to embark on virtual field trips or expeditions from the classroom. The expeditions are focused on a variety of different subjects and curricular areas, including a number of science-based content areas (i.e. anatomy, environmental, ecosystem, space, and so on). Each expedition contains a number of 360 degree “scenes” from around the world for the explorers to view (i.e., “Submarine Science” contains six scenes to view/explore).

Google Expeditions offers two roles: that of a guide (the teacher) or of an explorer (the students). In the “guide” role, each scene contains an introduction to each scene, questions (beginner, intermediate, and advanced questions), and information to guide explorers through each scene. Each scene includes points of interest or important information/artifacts related to the topic, which are represented for explorers by arrows and targets in their view. Many expeditions include stops (scenes) at educational institutes or museums. For example, “Climate Change” takes the explorer to the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, and “Rocks, Minerals, and Gems” takes the explorer to the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences.

Google Expedition “Kits” are available for purchase, but are incredibly expensive. Cardboard viewers are also available, but again cost money that I would imagine many administrators might struggle to rationalize in their school budgets (because they are literally just viewers made from cardboard). Information is provided on the website to explain how teachers can use Google Expeditions in their classrooms without purchasing the kit, and cardboard viewers could be constructed by the teacher/student, although it would take a little time. I have used the app with my tablet without a viewer and feel that this is a possibility as well, although teachers would want to try this ahead of time to see what they think (it does detract from the VR experience). Google Expeditions does require internet access and mobile devices (a tablet is recommended for the guide and phones for the explorers), and specific device requirements must be met.

Google expeditions connects well to our current studies as it provides students with a virtual-reality style environment that can be used to enhance existing curricular topics in science. Google expeditions allows students to experience an environment they likely would not have been exposed to otherwise. It is limited in the fact that while the experience does include 360 degree scenes, students are not able to virtually travel through the scenes and are restricted to viewing from one spot. While ideally, students each use their own mobile device to view each scene, students are all explorers of the same scene at the same time and have the opportunity to orally share what they are viewing/experiencing with their classmates as they explore the scene through their viewers.

Learn more about Google Expeditions: https://edu.google.com/expeditions/#about

Individualism, Immersion and Evolution

Embodied learning acknowledges the individualism of the learner. The individual’s cognitive behaviour connects to past cognitive experiences and present interpretations in ways that are unpredictable and dependent on the the learner’s Umwelt. Umwelt is described as “the environment as the student sees and knows it – a limited view of the real world, ever changing as the student explores it and comes to understand it” (Winn, 2003, p.12). The learner’s interaction with the surrounding environment can be viewed as a biological interaction and a way of knowing. Metaphorically, the learner is an organism interacting with and within its environment. In effect, both the organism (the learner) and the environment evolve and are changed through the interaction (Proulx, 2013). Proulx refers to this interaction as enactivism and suggests that enactivism is the necessary cognitive theory behind problem solving, or more succinctly “problem posing”, in mental mathematics. Through problem posing, “the solver does not choose from a group of predetermined strategies to solve the task, but engages with the problem in a certain way and develops a strategy tailored to the task (both of which also evolve and are co-defined in the posing). Strategies are thus not predetermined, but continually generated for solving tasks” (Proulx, 2013, p.316).

In the brief article by Barab and Dede (2007), there is evidence of the cognitive theory of enactivism as the science learner is immersed in “narratively driven, experientially immersive, and multi-rich media” (p.1). The learner, as the organism, interacts with the immersive game-based simulated environment, bringing individualized input and then coupling {embedded interaction} with the environment. Problem posing exists as the learner poses solutions and generates strategies as interaction occurs with/in the simulated environment. In contrast to Proulx’s (2013) writing on enactivism and mental math problem posing through which students interact with an unprogrammed environment, Barab and Dede (2007) share studies of learners interacting with a programmed simulated environment. Can learner interaction with a programmed environment, even when programmed to be an adaptable environment, allow for enactivism to truly emerge? Or in other words, is the environment truly evolved by the learner, or is it an illusion? Also, what would be the best practices for teacher assessment and feedback when learners and environments are continually evolving and adapting?

In my own practice, I appreciate Proulx’s view on the individual learner and how this individualism aids the approach and walk through learning. I particularly appreciate that his focus is on mental mathematics, an area that seems to be neglected as students interact largely with workbook based curriculum and predetermined strategies. Continuing to engage students in number talks, breaks the misconception that there is one right way to find a solution, and opens the mindset to evolving possibilities. Immersive simulations that allow students to problem pose and structure solutions through interaction with the environment, and then use the adaptations to further generate strategies for solutions is ideal. I look forward to discovering simulations that encompass enactivism through the remainder of this module.

 

 

Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1-3.
Proulx, J. (2013). Mental mathematics, emergence of strategies, and the enactivist theory of cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84, 309-328.
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Desmos – Graphing Calculator – Free

Desmos is available as a web-based application through any Internet browser, as well as in downloadable mobile app form on both Apple and Android devices.  Its most attractive feature is that it is free, yet it offers students many of the capabilities of a Texas Instruments graphing calculator, plus the options to save and share graphs and projects.  It also includes the option of accessing pre-built simulations of concepts such as linear regression.  The touch-screen or mouse-based interactive capabilities make it very user friendly for the generation of students who are familiar with such methods.  Desmos is a way that all of my students, regardless of socioeconomic status, can have access to high-quality digital graphing tools.  We use it regularly in my classroom for concepts such as solving linear inequality systems, analyzing slope, and visualizing graphed data, and many of my students have also downloaded it or accessed it on personal devices.

The user guide at https://desmos.s3.amazonaws.com/Desmos_User_Guide.pdf offers an overview of many of its capabilities.

So You Want to Be a Mathematician: Physical Aptitude Required

My readings for this lesson revealed the following key ideas:

  • The idea of coupling describes a mutually influential dynamic of interaction between learners and their environments. (Winn)
  • The real power in augmented reality lies in using digital technology to enable students to see the world around them in new ways and to engage with realistic issues in a student-connected context. (Klopfer & Sheldon)
  • If physical objects focus a child’s attention on irrelevant aspects of a procedure rather than on the underlying concept, the child may be unable to generalize learning to a new context. (Novack, Congdon, Hemani-Lopez, and Goldin-Meadow)
  • A meta-analytical study of research articles by Wu, Wu, Chen, Kao, Lin, and Huang found that only 5% of the studied articles investigated the affective domain during mobile learning and only 5% evaluated the influence of learner characteristics in the mobile learning process.

 

As a math teacher who regularly recommends and models physical manipulative for math learning, I was initially saddened by Novack, Congdon, Hemani-Lopez, and Goldin-Meadow (2014) that action-based learning can actually inhibit students from applying their learning to novel contexts.  Their further explanation, however, of the concreteness fading theory was reassuring as it pointed to the way in which I strive to use physical manipulatives.  According to this theory, the most effective way to use representations for learning is to first introduce concrete representations then transition learners to more symbolic or abstract representations.  Symbolic and abstract representation is where I envision a valuable role for augmented reality and mobile apps for learning.  Students can progress from a concrete physical tool to a digitally represented tool, and ideally eventually to an abstract gesture approach that allows them to apply their learning in novel contexts without the limitations of technology availability.  One way I envision using embodied learning with my senior math students is using body and arm positioning to represent the shape of particular types of functions, such as the trigonometric functions, a cubic, etc.  By using movement to represent these forms, it is my hope that it will help them to apply the abstract rules to the physical position and movement.  Following from Novack et al’s findings, having my students orally say certain conditions and rules while performing the gestures will potentially help them better internalize the learning.

Winn (2003) explains that internal rules or procedures that specify how a student interacts with his/her environment change through adaptation primarily based on their success at producing fruitful behaviour.  Students working with physical manipulatives such as base-ten blocks will be able to use them fruitfully for particular contexts for a period of time.  Eventually, they will reach a point where they are no longer applicable or efficient.  Movement to a different method of exploration can thereby return the learning to fruitful levels.  Eventually, the development of an abstract concept will likely enable the student to use abstract strategies to produce fruitful behaviour that was not possible with other tools.  For my own STEM practice, this reinforces the idea of scaffolding learning experiences to move students from the concrete to the abstract in progressive stages that allow them to also recognize limitations and learning needs for themselves.  With the growth of mobile learning opportunities and device proliferation, this process can be further expanded into the home as students are able to engage in representative learning activities on personal devices as well.  Wu et al (2012) highlight the conclusion of Ketamo (2003) that while mobile technology can generally bring some added value to network-based learning, it cannot replace conventional computers.  As mobile devices continue to advance in their development they offer more possibilities, but there remain tasks that are far better suited to a computer, such as those that require large amounts of memory, processing power, electrical power, or certain forms of tactile interaction such as a full-size keyboard.  Thus, I still recognize connected but different roles for both mobile technologies and computer-based technologies as components of the learning process.

 

Questions Arising:

If educational philosophy is increasingly focusing on student engagement through personal connection and the affective component of holistic development, how can we reconcile a push for these personalized approaches with a seeming lack of sufficient research on the affective and learner-centered influence of mobile learning opportunities?

 

Winn explains Umwelt as the environment as seen and understood by different individuals.  Recognizing that understanding a student’s Umwelt is essential to engaging them in meaningful and fruitful learning opportunities, what are strategies a teacher can use to gain a deeper understanding of a student’s Umwelt in any given situation, particularly when a student is currently lacking in engagement?

 

Novack et al found that gesture was an important component of grade 3 students learning how to group when adding more than two numbers as they used their hand to gesture the v-formation of combining values.  How can gesture be incorporated into the teaching of more complex mathematical processes?

 

Resources:

Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010). Augmenting your own reality: Student authoring of science‐based augmented reality games. New directions for youth development, 2010(128), 85-94.

Novack, M. A., Congdon, E. L., Hemani-Lopez, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science, 25(4), 903-910.

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

Wu, W. H., Jim Wu, Y. C., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-827.

Disembodiment before Embodiment

 

In the readings this week regarding embodied learning, I was interested in the applications of embodied learning theories to mathematics. The ability to understand numbers and unknowns is a concept that many students struggle with at some point in their academics.  Being able to experience the learning through more tactile means adds another dimension on learning to students.  Also, using signs and symbols to represent numerical equations can assist in students understanding on mathematical phenomena. Radford (2009) emphasizes that in order for students to embody their learning, they must first disembody their previous notions of spatial awareness. When students have partially developed ideas of mathematical concepts, it can be much more difficult for them to learning through embodied methods.

 

In the paper by Carraher et al (1985), the authors noted how children that had little to know formal education in Brazail were about to understand and compute mathematical problems as they bartered for goods in the markets. This demonstrates how the way we go about learning math in more formal education settings is not the only way to build real world skills.  For a project with my grade 4s, I gave them the opportunity to plan a party with a budget of $100. We walked to our nearby grocery store so that students could decide on products they wanted based on how many guests they were having. They had to use their math skills as well as planning skills to make sure they’re guests would be satisfied. I think this is the closed I’ve come to teaching embodied learning in mathematics. I’m curious what new educational technologies will emerge for educations to use in the classroom.

 

Some questions I have :

 

Embodied learning to me seems to be more of a teaching strategy that educators turn to when more traditional disembodied methods are not working. How can we make embodied learning more relevant and integrated into the curriculum?

 

The second questions ties into the first… If we use embodied learning in the classroom, how do we know it’s working? It seems that we may flip back to the traditional assessment formats to measure its success. I was wondering what types of measurable assessment can we conduct to demonstrate its effectiveness?

 

References:

 

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Dias Schliemann, A. (1985).

British journal of developmental psychology: Mathematics in the streets and in schools British Psychological Society.

 

Radford, L. (2003) Gestures, Speech and Sprouting Signs: A Simiotic Cultures Approach to Students’ Types of Generaltizations. Mathematical Thinking and Learning

Climate Time Machine

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine 

This resource allows students to visualize the climate change over time. There are four topics to choose from: sea level, sea ice, global temperature and carbon dioxide. It’s a simple tool that can be used to introduce what climate change is and how it is affecting the indicators of the environment. This connects to resolving student misconceptions of scientific knowledge as a topic like climate change is not easily grasped by students as it cannot be visualized, but this tool can demonstrate in simple ways what global warming is. Students can then perhaps split into groups to study what has caused the changes in each indicator.

How is Knowledge about Science Generated in Networked Communities- In consideration of Virtual Reality

When considering networked communities we must first look at how to establish this sort of community and what principles are important in a successful one. In constructivist models, problem solving is at the heart of learning, thinking, and development.  Learners solve problems and discover consequences by reflecting their experience and thus construct their own understanding.  That being said, research shows that knowledge construction is rarely done in isolation but rather by creating and forming a knowledge building community (Lamon, Laferriere & Breuleux, in press). In fact, the goal for learning communities is for a group of people with focused common issues or problems to discourse and work to find solutions to problems, complete tasks, or refine processes beyond the capabilities of any single person. (Lamon et al., in press). The building of a classroom community of learners must be paramount for this type of community to foster.

When considering science knowledge generation in this sphere, several things need to be considered. Research shows that students may misinterpret or overlook important information in a simulation and teachers may be tempted to believe that simulations are automatically effective in communicating complex models to students (Stephens & Clement, 2015). Following this, in order to support knowledge generation teachers need to support students to promote reasoning and comprehension during use of simulations. As part of this, research has suggested that many teachers may need more guidance provided along with simulations to help them identify which features and relationships may be overlooked by students (Stephens & Clement, 2015). Virtual reality alone will not suffice and educators require information and guidance on how to support learners through the science knowledge generation process in networked communities.

To expand on this, research has shown that new knowledge is created in a social process and in concrete situations, and this will occur if a community has reached the boundaries of its existing knowledge and are exposed to conflicting concepts (Johannes, 2011). Using virtual reality to meet the goals of knowledge generation in science is prescient in several ways. Learner object interaction in virtual reality provides the model of a cognitive operation that learners have to carry out mentally in order to create their own mental model of certain facts or of a topic of instruction. It may support knowledge building especially in such domains in which spatial information is essential for understanding. In addition, in networked communities personal and social presence is fostered within the community and is amplified if students are affected personally and see some connection between their own person and what happens in a virtual reality. This also increases collective cognitive responsibility of a group for succeeding together (Johannes, 2011). Educators can provide for rich knowledge generation in networked communities through providing virtual reality experiences that tap into connections or experiences that students feel are relevant to them.

The educator is an integral part of creating the sustainability of knowledge generation through virtual reality as the educator sets up the environment for knowledge generation to occur. The educator must consider the needs of the students, gently guide them back on the right path if they have strayed too far, and always keep in mind the dynamics of the networked community and how to facilitate discussion and reflection. In addition, the educator must critically examine the virtual reality to ensure it is not creating more misconceptions, and this is done through assessing on an ongoing basis throughout the process and making corrections as necessary. So, in my mind, knowledge generation in a networked community depends more on frontloading the experience, carefully monitoring the process of social interaction and knowledge generation and providing time for all of this plus time to reflect on the learning.  I look forward to your views about this.

Johannes, M. (2011). Knowledge building in user-generated online virtual realities. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence 3, 1. DOI: 10.4304/jetwi.3.1.38-46.

Lamon, M., & Laferrière, T., & Breuleux, A. (in press). Networked communities. In P. Resta, Ed., Teacher development in an e-learning age: A policy and planning guide, UNESCO.

Stephens, A., & Clement, J. (2015). Use of physics simulations in whole class and small group settings: Comparative case studies. Journal of Computers & Education. 86, C, pp. 137-156.