Monthly Archives: March 2017

Knowledge Construction, GLOBE, and Virtual Field Trips

From the article by Driver, Asoko, Leach, Scott & Mortimer (1994), knowledge in science is constructed at an individually and socially. Specifically, students learn as an individual when previous knowledge schemes are modified after encountering disequilibration (Driver et al., 1994). For example, when students’ misconceptions (e.g. informal science ideas, commonsense knowledge) are challenged, they learn by changing their previous knowledge about a topic based on information that contradicts or conflicts with what they know. Furthermore, at the social level, scaffolding opportunities encourage individuals to engage socially in discussions about phenomena. Classrooms are the most typical environments where this “process of conceptual change” (Driver et al., 1994, p. 8) occurs because they provide a place for students to be actively engaged and where social interaction with peers offer different perspectives for them to reflect upon. That is, students become introduced to science concepts and rules of the scientific community. A summary point of the article, “Scientific knowledge is socially constructed, validated and communicated” (Driver et al., 1994, p. 11) resonated with me because it shows that science is not a “top-down” or “teacher-directed” learning process. Rather, scientific knowledge is learned through a collaborative effort involving exploration, discussions and reflections. As well, the role of the teacher is to inspire new ideas and inquiries to support students. Collectively, this view also reminds me of PCK because it emphasizes the pedagogical knowledge of teachers (e.g. facilitator, guide, provide scaffolding opportunities, etc.) and the delivery of content knowledge (e.g. socially constructed) I chose to explore GLOBE and Virtual Field Trips as my two networked communities to validate and further expand on Driver et al. (1994)’s article on knowledge construction in science.

GLOBE is an educational resource aimed at strengthening students’ understanding of math, science and geography as well as expanding their environmental awareness (Butler & MacGregor, 2003). One of its main features is the student-scientist interaction component where they exchange data, and communicate with each other to study problems. At the individual level, students construct knowledge by contributing data to the GLOBAL database. Knowledge is socially constructed through “active participation of scientists as research collaborators with students” (Butler & MacGregor, 2003, p. 9) where the scientists also act as mentors. The benefits of this aspect is that students’ learning is enriched, their commitment to science education is strengthened and they receive training for future career endeavors. In terms of PCK, both pedagogical and content knowledge are supported. Teachers are provided with quality training through a GLOBE Teacher’s Guide that emphasizes hands-on, inquiry-based pedagogy. As for content knowledge, there are a variety of investigation areas such as the atmosphere, soil, land cover, water, etc. and teachers are able to reach out to other educators as well as scientists to provide information.

Virtual Field Trips (VFTs) is another learning resource for students to connect with scientists. In Adedokun, Hetzel, Parker, Loizzo, Burgess, & Paul Robinson (2012), researchers explored how VFTs can be utilized to connect scientists and enrich students’ views of science, careers in science and scientists. The study was based on three limitations regarding VFTS: the use of VFTs to explore careers in science, characteristics of effective VFTs, and benefits of building student-scientist interactions through VFTs (Adedokun et al, 2012). Specifically, the VFT focused was using Purdue zipTrips, which were real time 45 minute interactive programs with 4 aspects: audience’s, interaction with scientists, pre-recorded segments, and integrated activities. Through current literature on VFTs, the researchers collated 8 guidelines of effective VFTs and applied a VFT like zipTrip to them. One of the guidelines that highlights the construction of scientific knowledge are the constructivist elements where zipTrip respects students’ prior knowledge but supplement structured tasks to provide opportunities for students to alter their beliefs. This reflects Driver et al. (1994) and the individual level of knowledge construction. As well, the interactivity aspect of zipTrips also supports Driver et al. (1994)’s social construction of knowledge where students interact with scientists to see their work environments, for instance. Furthermore, PCK is integrated in VFTs in general because it emphasizes authentic learning environments (e.g. inquiry-based pedagogy) and clear learning outcomes (e.g. curriculum-linked content).

 

Adedokun, O. A., Hetzel, K., Parker, L. C., Loizzo, J., Burgess, W. D., & Paul Robinson, J. (2012). Using Virtual Field Trips to Connect Students with University Scientists: Core Elements and Evaluation of zipTrips™. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 1-12.

 

Butler, D.M., & MacGregor, I.D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20.

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

Science – There’s an app for that!

Zydney and Warner (2016) conduct a comprehensive literature review of the use of mobile apps for science learning.  With increasing stress by district administrations on technology integration, BYOD programs, and school programs promoted by both Apple and Google, it is not surprising that innovations in the mobile and app industry “…have prompted educators and researchers to utilize these devices to promote teaching and learning” (p. 1).  I have also experienced the excitement with mobile apps through peers in the MET program as well as through PD sessions hosted by the Manitoba Teacher’s Society.

Zydney and Warner (2016) explain the advantages of mobile apps as being, “…interactive and engaging…” (p. 1).  Further, that apps “[allow] educators to teach without being restricted by time and place…” (p. 1).  Other posts this week stressed the drawback of time spent in class learning new technologies for both teachers and students, especially in lieu of discussing curriculum during that time.  Perhaps the use of mobile apps is a possible solution that in fact once adequately mastered by teacher and students, benefits from being used unrestricted of time and place.  A great example of this is the use of twitter I read about in a previous MET course.  A math teacher essentially tweeted interesting and complex math problems to students outside class and received responses from students thus facilitating learning beyond the scheduled math class during the day.

Zydney and Warner (2016) discovered 6 main features in their review that included, “technology-based scaffolding, location-aware functionality, visual/audio representation, digital knowledge-construction tools, digital knowledge-sharing mechanisms and differentiated roles” (p. 6).  It appears all these features follow very closely support the T-GEM and LfU models we have explored in module B.

Technology-based scaffolding and visual/audio representation plays a role in the initial stages of helping students develop their ideas.

Digital knowledge-construction tools and sharing mechanisms help in creating meaning, recording observed data, and making thinking visible for students; especially in a cooperative manner.

With the plethora of apps available today for learning science in conjunction with the omnipresence of mobile technology both in and out of the classroom, it appears mobile apps provide a great asset to teaching science content and conduct science inquiry both in and out of the classroom.

Question for peers:

Is there a mobile app that you have some experience with that in your opinion is excellent in teaching content and leading science inquiry?

Reference

Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computer & Education, 94, 1-17.

Learning in Artificial Environments

Like a few of my classmates, I have found myself intrigued with many of the readings this week, moving from one article to another as I become more involved in the different aspects of this type of learning, with each new article giving me something new to ponder on. The idea that most caught my interest was that of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations as posited by Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, and the link to gaming environments. I have long been fascinated by the idea of using game elements in the classroom to increase student engagement and motivation, and AR simulations provide the means to implement this. The technology-mediated narrative and the interactive, situated, collaborative problem solving affordances of the AR simulation were highly engaging, especially among students who had previously presented behavioural and academic challenges in the classroom (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell).

Winn notes that cognition is embodied in physical activity, that is embedded in the learning environment, and that learning is the result of the adaptation of the learner to the environment and the environment to the learner (Winn, 2002). This idea is corroborated by further research suggesting that learning and cognition are complex social phenomena distributed across mind, activity, space, and time.  A student’s engagement and identity as a learner is shaped by his or her collaborative participation in communities and groups, as well as the practices and beliefs of these communities (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell).  The idea of collaboration using Participatory Simulations is reiterated by Collella in the Participations Simulations Project using the Thinking Tags. Participants personal connections to the educational situation enable them to bring their previous experiences to bear during the activity, establish strong connections to the activity and the other participants, and to be able to draw upon their experiences for the future (Collella, 2000).

The idea of using the area around my school to create an AR activity, such as the one presented in Alien Contact, fired my interest in creating such a project. This would be a great way to embody physical activity, science and math into an already familiar environment using digital resources to create the simulation. I was also intrigued by the idea that the narrative was an important component to the activity. This is a gaming feature to engage the students the background story is most important. The problem solving using science and math is embedded in the story. The most significant affordance of AR is its unique ability to create immersive hybrid learning environments that combine digital and physical objects, thereby facilitating the development of process skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and communicating utilized through interdependent collaborative exercises, its ability to blend a fictional narrative with the real and familiar physical environment such as the school playground (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell).

However, as all of the participatory simulations I discovered used specific technology, perhaps not available to all schools, my questions are these:

How can we use technology already in the hands of our students, such as smart phones or tablets, to engage them in AR participatory simulations?

How can we best leverage the hybrid environments of digital and physical artifacts to create a rich, collaborative inquiry integrating math and science?

How can we interest teachers in integrating AR type simulations into their classroom program?

 

Resources

Vanessa Colella (2000) Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9:4, 471-500 doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0904 4

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2008). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,18(1), 7-22. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

The Habitable Planet

This is a multimedia course for learners interested in studying environmental science. The Web site provides access to course content and activities developed by leading scientists and researchers in the field. It includes many areas of study using different types of learning materials. The learning materials are augmented with videos and some with simulations such as the food chain. I found the videos informative and the simulations fairly easy to manipulate. I would use the food chain simulation with my own class in our ecosystems

 

https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/index.html

 

 

Virtual Reality and Concept Development

Students may develop misunderstandings of science due to a variety of factors including representations, teachings or models that do not fully explain a phenomenon or incorrectly explain a phenomenon. Virtual reality can help to create sound scientific conceptions if it is designed correctly. Research has found that current conceptions can be challenged by new ones especially if they arouse curiosity and that conceptual change is greater when engagement is high. Virtual reality immerses the students in the learning and increases engagement and immersion and presence help conceptual change. Students are able to have deeper learning through active discovering through immersion in the environment (Winn, 2003).

Presence in virtual reality is defined as a measure of the soundness of sensory cues that give a sense of physical presence or direct experience (Whitelock, Brna & Holland, 1996). This is further broken down into the degree to which the technology delivers realistic renderings, colours, textures, motion etc, the extent to which the environment that is simulated is familiar to the user and as “real” to life control over this environment (Whitelock, Brna & Holland, 1996). When virtual reality meets these criteria students show improved understanding of concepts. That being said, virtual reality can also exacerbate previous misconceptions or even build new misconceptions.  An example is seen in the example of Virtual Puget Sound. In this virtual reality the concept that water speeds up when moving through narrow channels was misunderstood by a student who thought that longer arrows in narrow channels showed that they were more clogged (Winn, 2003). The concepts laid out in virtual reality environments may not be intuitive to new learners or learners with previous little experience or understanding of the phenomenon.

Questions I wonder about…and hope you may shed some light on….

How can we mitigate scientific misunderstandings that may be fostered through virtual reality that has not been effectively designed?

How are we assessing understandings and concepts learned in virtual environments? Are we checking in to ensure students are correct in there scientific understandings throughout the virtual reality process or are we expecting the technology to lead them down the “right path” without effective facilitation?

Should virtual reality be field tested to ensure that the design is optimal or is this dependent on too many outside factors out of the designers’ control? (Age of students, previously held scientific beliefs, educators’ understandings and useage of the technology, etc.)

Whitelock, D, Brna, P., Holland, S (1996). What is the value of virtual reality for conceptual learning? Towards a theoretical framework. CITE REPORT. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon_Holland/publication/251442609_What_is_the_Value_of_Virtual_Reality_for_Conceptual_Learning_Towards_a_Theoretical_Framework/links/581792fd08aeffbed6c33b4f.pdf

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

 

The Universe and More: “Physics at Your Fingertips”

This is a free online, resource for Physics 11 and 12 classes, mostly.  Topics include Kinematic Graph Interpretation, Waves, and Polarity, each has an interactive, quantitative and/or qualitative activity for students to investigate. Some work sheets are provided and the authors have recently included a host of interesting videos on a variety of different topics.

Unfortunately, it is possible for students to simply “guess and check” on the simulations until they pass a level.  The accompanying worksheets would mitigate this negative outcome, however. I would be inclined to use this site as a reinforcement activity, as opposed to a learning activity, so that as many students as possible would actually use the principles of physics.  It would be great if educators could embed questions, in between levels, to check for understanding, as students navigated through levels.

Of the videos that I have seen, they could be used in a Jasper Style or WISE platform as points of discussion and problem solving.  They each seem to revolve around a single concept in physics; students could discuss the principles of physics at play in the videos, in a forum on WISE or as a class discussion.

 

Gravity Visualized

Although this may be better digested by a high school crowd, the metaphor that this instructor uses to simulate space-time is extremely visual. I would LOVE to have this in my classroom one day.  In the video, Mr. Burns simulates how masses are gravitationally attracted to each other, why smaller objects orbit larger objects, why the planets are moving in the same direction around the Sun and how the moon can orbit the Earth, whilst also orbiting the Sun.  Should someone physically recreate this metaphor in their room, I think that it would satisfy most of, if not all, the requirements for an effective metaphor.

The benefits of plugging in: Tablets as cognitive tethers

This week, I had the opportunity to investigate Winn (2003), Aleahmad and Slotta, J. (2002), and Núñez (2012).

Winn (2003) provides a robust reimagining of the constructivist framework in light of developments in neuroscience. Winn (2003) situates embodied learning as an outgrowth of both constructivist and information processing theories. Winn (2003) rejects the constructivist perspective that a learner’s constructions are to unique to be adequately measured. He asserts that, instead, an educational designer can make use of artificial environments add predictability to the constructions students might make.  With regards to information processing, Winn (2003) views the previous views as inadequate due to an exaggerated focus on symbol manipulation and insufficient exploration of their meaning. Winn expresses theory central tenants to the theory: That cognition is linked to our physical being (embodiment), that we are coupled to our environment (embeddedness), and that we influence, and are influenced by our environment (adaptation).

Nunez (2012) examines the state of embodied cognition as a theory. Nunez identifies that embodied cognition is capable of providing rich descriptions of phenomena but that many other theories have stalled at this point. To be considered scientific, embodied cognition must begin to generate testable theories. If it is unable to provide these, embodied cognition may not have a sufficient claim be being considered scientific.

Aleahmad and Slotta (2002) looked at the use of handheld devices for data collection when combine with the wise environment. They found promising results from two trials and were able to implement both survey style and measurement style data types.

Aleahmad and Slotta (2002) seem to have happened upon a possible solution to issues faced in Winn (2003). Winn asserts that engagement with artificial environments is key to realizing their benefits. What the tablet devices may allow is a sort of bridge between the artificial and real environments. When students leave the classroom, they must uncouple from an artificial environment. The tablet might serve as a kind of tether. The presence of the device, and the fact that data collect with it will return to the artificial environment, serves to continually remind students of the presence of the artificial environment waiting for them back in the classroom. Despite not being present, the artificial environment still acts upon the cognition of the student and influences how they behave in the real environment. These actions, in turn, will alter the artificial environment through the input of new data. In essence, while Winn (2003) was looking for a solution to students becoming distracted from the desired artificial environment, Aleahmad and Slotta (2002) are using a tablet to, in a way, distract students from the real environment and back to the artificial one.

In my own practice, I have had some great success using WISE to investigate the cause of the seasons. Instead of data gathering with mobile devices though, I used simulations with my students. The process clearly reflected Winn’s (2003) view that both the student and the artificial environment mutually influence each other. The students began with data to collect. As they manipulated the simulations, they began to develop questions. This led to different tests of the environment yielded further result and more questions. I also found that the use of simulations seems to reduce cognitive load. Students were able to reason more accurately when observing a model/simulation instead of having to use their working memory to represent and manipulate representations of the earth and sun.

Going forward, I would certainly plan to use more simulations to help students discover phenomena, scaffolded by leading questions or key data that needs to be gathered. Timely provision of dissenting information and observations, a key tool I began using in the above WISE unit, will be carried forward into other STEM subjects to help facilitate inquiry learning.

In terms of some questions about embodied learning, I wonder, to what extent could practicing externalized cognition can impact student learning in STEM disciplines? By prescribing certain styles or approaches to of note taking, equation solving, unit analysis, etc., in the external environment, might we be able to shape a student’s conceptions more accurately?

References:

Aleahmad, T. & Slotta, J. (2002). Integrating handheld Technology and web-based science activities: New educational opportunities. Paper presented at ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Proceedings (14th, Denver, Colorado, June 24-29, 2002); see IR 021 687. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Integrating+handheld+Technology+and+web-based+science+activities%3a+New+educational+opportunities&id=ED476962

Núñez, R. (2012). On the science of embodied cognition in the 2010s: Research questions, appropriate reductionism, and testable explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 324-336. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.614325

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on March, 2017, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

3D Geometry with Leap Motion: A lesson in interpretive Dance

Like Dana, I was sucked into the vortex of reading about Embodied Learning. In total, I read seven articles. I started down a path of inquiry and I just kept exploring. The great thing is I learned a ton, the downside is how do I make it concise?

Winn (2003) discusses how cognition is the interaction between a person and their environment, and that it is necessary to consider how that interaction occurs. We must consider how “our physical bodies serve to externalize the activities of our physical brains in order to connect cognitive activity to the environment. This physical dimension of cognition is referred to as “embodiment.” Once this direct connection between cognitive action and the environment is established, we must acknowledge that cognitive activity is far more closely coupled to the environment than many have hitherto acknowledged. This interdependence of cognition and environment is referred to as embeddedness (p.93).”

This excerpt, while an excellent explanation of the interplay between cognition, environment, embodiment and embeddedness reminds us of how complex learning really is. I was fascinated by Pouw et al. (2014) article on the use of manipulatives with children in math and science and how the type of manipulative affected learning. Students who used symbolic representations of an item (for example pie pieces to learn fractions) were less able to transfer that knowledge to other scenarios while transfer of learning was higher for students who learned with arbitrary symbolic representations such as blocks (p. 64).

Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013) report that embodied learning relies on multimodal encoding methods and recent studies are showing that learning activities that involve high levels of embodiment lead to a greater chance of retrieval and retention (p. 446). Lindgren uses the term mixed reality to define embodied learning with immersive technologies (p. 445). The article directly mentions Leap Motion technology, a technology I got as a Christmas gift and started exploring it more in-depth this week.

Leap Motion (technology that allows your hands to become three dimensional devices to interact with the platform: see e-folio for more on Leap motion to be posted this weekend) has some 3-D virtual reality units for math and science. I became fixated on the 3-D geometry app. While learning to use the app I found myself gesturing with my hands but also trying to visualize (by moving my head) and contorting my body how manipulating the blocks would help me place them in an ideal location. My methods tied directly into the research by Hwang, W. Y., & Hu, S. S. (2013) in their article: Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving and the article by Kim, M., Roth, W. M., & Thom, J. (2011) entitled Children’s gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry on using embodiment to teach geometry. Kim (2011) found that grade two students often naturally use embodiment on their own when trying to understand three d geometry. Hwang et al’s (2013) research demonstrated how embodiment was taken one step further and more connections were made when students collaborated.

When my students tried the leap motion 3-d geometry app in groups (taking turns to be the hands) I watched as almost all of them, even when observing and guiding others, used their hands or whole bodies (at times my class looked like an introduction to interpretive dance) to try and move in three-dimensional space to understand how to manipulate the blocks.

Questions:

  1. Learning to use new technologies is time-consuming (it took some time to learn to use the leap motion- many students were frustrated by the experience) how do we fit into our curriculum the time to learn these technologies before we even get to the material we are trying to teach? Is it possible? Is it worth it? Can we justify it?

 

  1. Many of the papers I read discussed how embodiment helps students understand concepts more deeply and that they are able to use embodiment to demonstrate knowledge when questioned by experimenters but assessment has not changed to incorporate embodiment. How can we adapt our assessment (moving away from paper and pencil) to allow students to demonstrate knowledge in less conventional ways?

 

 

References:

 

Hwang, W. Y., & Hu, S. S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education, 62, 308-319.

Kim, M., Roth, W. M., & Thom, J. (2011). Children’s gestures and the embodied knowledge of geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 207-238.

Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452.

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.

Pouw, W. T., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51-72.

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