Author Archives: catherine sverko

Knowledge Construction, Collaboration and Virtual Reality in Science Class

Speculate on how such networked communities could be embedded in the design of authentic learning experiences in a math or science classroom setting or at home. Elaborate with an illustrative example of an activity, taking care to consider the off-line activities as well

The use of virtual field trips and interactive virtual expeditions (IVE) are valuable tools that an educator can use to make science come alive in the classroom. While there is inherent value in students actually going on a field trip the logistics are often daunting. In my school district students arrive at 8:50 am and dismiss at 3: 30 pm. (asking for the bus to arrive early or return late is a logistical nightmare as 95% of our students are bused home and many come from homes with commuting parents or working farms. If we miss the home busses parents need to pick up their child at the school which often means we end up waiting up to 2 hours for parents who are late for the pick up).

We are located in a rural community in the Niagara region of Ontario. Often field trips become social outings rather than educational experiences. Students spend at least two hours on the bus in each direction, which leaves approximately two hours for exploration and lunch. The cost of bussing has become so high the average field trip costs in excess of 40 dollars per child an amount many of our families cannot afford. So, we must weigh the costs and benefits. Often time the costs outweigh the benefits.

Virtual field trips and IVE are life savers for schools like mine. Students enjoy them, learn from them and often continue to explore them on their own time. Niemitz et al (2008) report that “the use of interactive virtual expeditions in classroom learning environments can theoretically be an effective means of engaging learners in understanding science as an inquiry process, infusing current research and relevant science into the classroom, and positively affecting learner attitudes towards science as a process and a career (p. 562).”

The researchers report that studies have shown that virtual field trips can enhance learning (Cox & Su, 2004; Tuthill & Klemm, 2002; Woerner, 1999), achieve the same gains in student achievement as physical field trips (Garner & Gallo, 2005), and provide an effective supplement to physical field trips (Spicer & Stratford, 2001). As such, we can apply many of the best practices of effective virtual field trips (Klemm & Tuthill, 2003; Woerner, 1999) – purposeful trip planning, learner-centered experiences, active student learning, cooperative learning activities, teachers as guides who scaffold learning experiences, differentiated instruction, and multiple opportunities for learner success – to the field of IVE. (Niemitz et al, 2008 p. 566).”

Collaboration amongst students is possible on the virtual reality field trip as much as on a traditional field trip. Often collaboration in both settings provide students with the opportunity to question and test their hypothesis, discuss findings and eliminate misconceptions. According to Driver et al (1994) “Scientific knowledge is socially constructed, validated and communicated (p. 11).” While Lamon, Laferriere & Breuleux, (in press) reported that research shows that knowledge construction is rarely done in isolation but rather by creating and forming a knowledge building community and the goal for learning communities is that a group of students with focused common issues complete tasks better than any single person.

Working collaboratively in math and science requires three important personal characteristics:

INTELLECTUAL COURAGE: we should be ready to revise any one of our beliefs.

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY: we should change a belief when there is a good reason to

change it…

WISE RESTRAINT: we should not change a belief wantonly, without some good reason, without serious examination (Lampert, 1990 pp. 7-8).

Collaboration among students and access to virtual learning environments need to become integral parts of our daily classrooms. After exploring several of the websites this week GLOBE, Exploratorium and virtual field trips I was reminded of a project Trish Roffey and I created last term in ETEC 565A. This project required us to create a google classroom module for the subject and age group of our choice. We chose Engineering for grade three students ( this module could easily be used with almost any grade level). What I was reminded of was that given today’s technology we can create our own virtual reality digital stories and field trips.

Trish used a Ricoh Theta 5 camera that films in 3D to create a virtual tour of the amusement park at the West Edmonton Mall. Her module was based on an end project where students had to design a ride or “car” that would accommodate a special needs classmate. The classmate wanted to enjoy the amusement park as well. All kids could relate to that.

The video can be accessed via https://www.thinglink.com/video/850811682614673410

It is best watched using google cardboard or on a tablet (many laptops will not display it properly).

I created a video that took students to the plains in Africa where a young student had made his own wind turbine from found materials. This turbine solved many issues for his family including refrigeration and crop irrigation. In the video, studetns saw the geography, weather patterns and crop growth for the area. They like the boy in the story had to create a device from found materials that would solve a social justice issue in any area of the world.

All that being said what Trish and I found to be the best “gotcha” with the students is that they were not just expected to learn new information but they had to work together to solve a problem. This made the learning real and valuable and students saw the connections to real life.

Here are some screen shots of our Google classroom:

If you would like to look at it more in-depth or look at the entire module contact me and I will provide a user name and password.

Catherine

References:

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

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.

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.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American educational research journal, 27(1), 29-63.

Niemitz, M., Slough, S., Peart, L., Klaus, A., Leckie, R. M., & St John, K. (2008). Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: The School of Rock Expedition case study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 561-580.

Let’s Teach Geometry in the Gym

As a kinesiologist, I always look for ways to connect learning to movement. This week’s readings were right up my alley. Especially considering I had just tried Leap Motion technology and a 3D geometry activity with my class.

The question:

How could you use what is developed in these studies to design learning experiences for younger learners that incorporates perception/motion activity and digital technologies? What would younger children learn through this TELE (technology-enhanced learning experience)? Fit perfectly with what I was working on.

In the readings for week 11 a good foundation for using motion and perception with teaching in math was laid out. For example, Winn (2003) stated “once we start to think of cognition as the interaction between a person and their environment, it is necessary to consider how that interaction occurs. This, in turn, requires the consideration of how our physical bodies serve to externalize the activities of our physical brains in order to connect cognitive activity to the environment (p. 93).” Students need to use their bodies to interact with the environment and the concept they are trying to understand. Geometry, including 3D geometry is an excellent example of this. If students do not get a chance to understand how objects move in 3-dimensional space how can they be expected to learn this on their own? Looking at a rectangular prism on paper is much different than holding one in your hand and manipulating it by sliding, flipping it or rotating in in real space.

As modules continue students will scaffold their learning from concrete to abstract and then consolidate their actions into gestures so that deeper learning, as well as easier transfer and recall will occur. Novak et al. (2014) stated that “gesture promotes transfer of knowledge better than action, and suggest that the beneficial effects gesture has on learning may reside in the features that differentiate it from action (p. 445).” Lindgren et al (2013) reported “there is increasing evidence that body movement, such as gesture, can serve as a “cross-modal prime” to facilitate the retrieval of mental or lexical items (p. 447). Finally, Pouw et al (2014) found that:

Under certain conditions, perceptual and interactive richness can alleviate cognitive load imposed on working memory by effectively embedding the learner’s cognitive activity in the environment (Embedded Cognition claim).
Transfer of learning from manipulatives does not necessarily involve a change in representation from concrete to symbolic. Rather, learning from manipulatives often involves internalizing sensorimotor routines that draw on the perceptual and interactive richness of manipulatives (Embodied Cognition claim) (p. 53)

As a kinesiologist I have always benefitted from doing rather than imagining. My body is the instrument I use to understand my world and my place in it. As an educator, I want my students to rely on their bodies as a learning tool. If the use of manipulatives enriched learning, imagine the leaps and bounds that could be made if at an early age students kinesthetically understood what these terms implied? For example, with students as early as kindergarten and continued through primary education what if we take geometry on a cross curricular journey into the gym.

Using the technology of a white board or projector the teacher could introduce the idea of translations (sliding across a surface), rotations (spinning their bodies right, left, forward, backward) and flipping an object in the same manner. Students could use their bodies to change their shape, curl up into a ball, spread out into a star fish. Once the idea of the movement in three D space has been introduced large scale objects could be moved, such as yoga balls, large cardboard boxes, large cylinders. As students become more comfortable with the movement of the object the size of the object can be diminished until it fits in their hand. A final step would be to use technology (with programs such as the Leap motion 3d geometry app) to have students manipulate virtual objects. Following these steps would build and reinforce neural pathways and eventually students (as they mature) would be able to use this information to try and do the manipulation mentally.

Kim et al (2011) noticed that students in their study often naturally gravitated to using their bodies to mimic actions. They state “her thinking develops in and through her gestures, and her gestures further develop her thinking. Her gestures constitute the thinking with and about shapes and motion (p. 230).”

They found firstly “that children’s bodies (bodily orientations and gestures) constitute an integral part of knowing, thinking, and learning supporting the appropriate of geometrical concepts before the age thought possible (p. 233).” Secondly, the children’s co-emerging gestures allowed new concepts to be enacted for themselves and others and, thereby, for new concepts to become reflexive objects available to individual and collective inspection (p. 233).”

If students benefitted from using their bodies while seated in a classroom imagine the possibilities of using their bodies in the 3D space of a gymnasium.

Kim et al (2011) conclude that “as children think, develop, and express knowledge through their bodies, their bodily engagement needs to be realized as integral to student learning. Their bodies are necessarily engaged in coping with the abstractness of knowledge. Their bodies embody the knowledge of science and mathematics and become part of knowing itself (p. 235).”

As I noticed when my students tried the Leap Motion 3D geometry technology and app in the classroom (in groups) they were moving their bodies through space, helping each other visualize the end result of a manipulation in space. The collaboration seemed to help them solve problems and persevere more than when students worked alone. This coincides with the research by Hwang et al. (2013) that students were more successful when collaborating using new technology (p 318).

Finally, by observing students at each of the various steps outlined above there would ample opportunity for the teacher to evaluate or assess the students’ knowledge in a new way. Bodily movement and the manipulation of objects using technology can be assessed over a paper pencil test. This unit would also provide an excellent way for students to document their growth in the math using a digital portfolio, digital story or digital movie or interview. Can’t wait to give this a try.

Catherine

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

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

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:

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?

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:

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

Chalk and Talk is Dead…

Chalk and Talk is Dead …

How Do We Make Student Centric Learning Mainstream?

One of the problems in education is that we seem to be eternally in a circle of doing the next best thing. Bandwagon jumping should be an Olympic sport for consultants and administrators. While consultants are expected to show classroom teachers the new and exciting that often translates into abandoning older techniques that work. Administrators hear about a new idea from the consultants and believe it means drop everything and do this NOW! Why does common sense seem to fly out the window? I am constantly reminded of the phrase, “Common Sense is not so common”.

My role as an educator is to look at my curriculum, understand my student’s individual needs and decide how best to present the material. Yes, some days that does mean I do direct teaching. But I do not use this method all day every day for every subject, which historically has been how students were taught. Technology has afforded us the opportunity to open new worlds to our students. My school is very manipulative poor. I do not have the materials to run labs and simulations in my classroom for each subject. Technology to the rescue. I can do the next best thing, videos, animations and simulations on devices.

In our posts so many of us in the MET program talk about the same things: we need teachers to buy in to using technology WELL (Well here means to enhance lessons and expose students to new ways of thinking- it does not mean have students read text on the screen and answer in a private word document- at least in my opinion), we need training time for teachers and time to try the technology, we need decreased curriculum expectations so we can do justice to the material we are teaching and not feel like we are trying to sprint a marathon. We need reliable, accessible devices and lots of band width. If we take these things as agreed upon synthesizing the information from the four technology formats we have looked at becomes a little less daunting.

I spent a lot of time looking at Anchored Instruction (Jasper Woodley), the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) Project which uses Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI), Learning for Understanding (LfU) using the geographic visualization and data analysis environment (GIS) and the technology enhanced Generate, Evaluate and Modify (T-GEM) format of Chemland. While I realize, I viewed these processes from the point of view of an elementary educator of grades 6-8 I also tried to look at them from the point of view of a primary educator and a high school educator.

My first thought was this: Kids are always more capable than we give them credit for. In varied doses, I could see using each of these methodologies with every grade level. All four choices are based on constructivist pedagogy where students construct their own knowledge versus being told information and expected to regurgitate it on old fashioned assessments. While some examples that were provided in each lesson were perhaps grade specific the actual pedagogy could be adapted to all. I could see anchored instruction being successful with all grade levels.

A review of the four methodologies:

Anchored instruction is based on case-based learning (Hallinger, Leithwood, & Murphy, 1993), problem-based learning (Duffy, Lowyck, & Jonassen, 1993) and project-based learning (Dewey, 1933) (Khan, 2017. ETEC 533 Class notes, Module B week 5). Students solve problems based on real life situations that they can relate to “the assumption is that given an authentic context where mathematics is used students will develop a sense of agency that involves them in identifying and posing problems and systematically exploring possible solutions (Khan, 2017. ETEC 533 Class notes, Module B week 5).

According to our class notes (Khan, 2017. ETEC 533 Class notes, Module B week 5):

WISE stands for the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment.

The WISE research team’s goal is to help prepare math and science students to consider he Internet as a learning resource. But WISE researchers recognize that just making science and math facts available on the Internet does not necessarily mean that learning will occur.

WISE scaffolds student inquiries on pivotal science cases and allows teachers to author their own cases to fit with their curriculum.

The foundational principles involved in WISE include: the scaffolded knowledge integration (SKI) framework, cognitive apprenticeship, intentional learning, and constructivist pedagogy.

LfU and GIS

The goal of LfU is to incorporate real life problems into learning activities so that the material becomes meaningful and students are better able to recall what they have learned when it is relevant (Edelson, 2011 p. 356). The LfU model is based on four principles that incorporate constructivism, constructionism and situated cognition:

Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals.
The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use.
Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied. (Edelson, 2011 p. 357)

Learning for Understanding (LfU) uses My World GIS (Geographic Information System) a geographic visualization and data analysis environment

My World researchers have been exploring the hypothesis that scientific visualization, incorporated into inquiry-based learning, can enable students of diverse abilities to develop an understanding of complex phenomena in the Earth and environmental sciences.

According to our class notes (Khan, 2017. ETEC 533 Class notes, Module B week 5):

T-GEM using Chemland

Technology attempts to support and scaffold students’ making connections among various abstractions..T-GEM stands for Technology-enhanced Generate-Evaluate-Modify. T-GEM is a teaching and learning approach used to foster learners’ conceptual understanding and development of inquiry skills. These outcomes are fostered when teachers ask their students to generate rules or relationships, evaluate them in light of new conditions, and modify their original rules or relationships.

Chemland is a suite of computer simulations and interactive tools representing relationships of macromolecular phenomena in chemistry, such as the relationship between heat capacity and particular compounds.

Key words from each:

Anchored Instruction:

case-based learning

problem-based learning

project-based learning

authentic context

identifying and posing problems

systematically exploring possible solutions

WISE/Ski

scaffold

intentional learning

cognitive apprenticeship

constructivist pedagogy

scientific visualization

inquiry-based learning

construction

modification

T-GEM

scaffold students’ making connections

foster learners’ conceptual understanding

development of inquiry skills

generate

evaluate

modify

What do each of these methods have in common? They are all active learning scenarios where students construct their own knowledge in a given area. Each one has its strengths and is worth using in the math and science classroom in specific modules or units. Utilizing the strengths of each format would create a dynamic class where students actively learn and construct their knowledge. Each method also provides students with an opportunity to adjust their thinking and identify their misconceptions. The important part is that they all allow the student to be active learners.

How are each of these methods different? They all use a different format to allow students to construct their knowledge whether it be by video cases, simulations or using interactive maps to solve problems. Each has its own nuances, examples and structure.

How does all this impact my teaching? I can see using these methods in my grade 6-8 class. They are all effective methods for active learning in a given scenario and all seem like they allow for cross curricular connections. For example, I could see using the GIS maps to allow students to discover the Pacific Ring of Fire. They could manipulate the base maps and see what areas are highly populated and highly volcanic. No matter which base map they choose to use they could then do some integrated math by choosing different zones to draw on the maps and calculate the total area involved. Students could then zoom in on maps and plan an escape route for a highly-populated area. They could look at modes of transportation available and distances that would need to be travelled. Students could choose a method and look at the cost feasibility. You could follow the T-GEM model here allowing students to generate ideas about escape routes, evaluating their choice with specific examples and then allowing them to modify their choice if they feel another route is more desirable. This could lead directly into the Jasper Woodley unit on Trouble at Boon Meadow. This could lead into the unit on flight that would incorporate PhET simulations.

Totally exciting!

As a visual for this unit, I created an infographic. I used gears to represent content and methodology as they are parts of a whole machine that must work cohesively if the machine is to function at all.

The funnel leads into the active learning and from there sharing and collaborating. In the end, this machine creates collaborative, critical thinking problem solvers.

Synthesis Infographic

Catherine

References:

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80

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

(Khan, 2017. ETEC 533 Class notes, Module B week 5).

Khan, S. (2012). A Hidden GEM: A pedagogical approach to using technology to teach global warming. The Science Teacher, 79(8). This article was written about T-GEM with middle-schoolers.

A million points of light

Thoughts on Chemland:

I spent quite a while investigating the units on Chemland (General Chemistry Interactive Simulations). I found being able to change variables, predict outcomes and then seeing the outcomes very helpful. If my prediction was wrong I could test and retest my theories to help me build a new understanding of the concept. Chemland was interesting but the curriculum is far beyond anything that is ever tackled in my grade 6-8 classroom.

Seeing the interactive simulations sent me on a quest. I wanted to see what other science and math concept simulations were available for my grade levels. I have to admit I totally nerded out and spent way too much time “playing” with these simulations. Although I investigated a few simulation sites the one I found to be the most comprehensive, interactive and helpful was the PhET Interactive Simulations created by the University of Boulder Colorado.

The website is https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/category/new is free and registering provides you with access to lessons and other teacher add-ons.

Thoughts on GEM and T-GEM

GEM (Generate, Evaluate, Modify) and T-GEM (which includes technology) is a cyclical approach to science education. The image below explains how T-GEM can be used in the science classroom.

I feel a valuable component of the T-GEM approach is that students are not given explicit information about a science topic and asked to regurgitate these facts, rather students are expected to compile information, and generate a statement about how factors are related. Students are then expected to test their ideas and discuss their findings with others and the teacher. Students test and retest their ideas to see if they were correct. Students are also able to change the parameters of the tests to see what would happen in any given scenario. Being able to change the parameters helps students solidify concepts in a new way. Khan 2007 states that Inquiry is associated with an array of positive student outcomes, such as growth in conceptual understanding, increased understanding of the nature of science, and development of research skills (Benford & Lawson, 2001; Marx et al., 2004; Metz, 2004; Roth, 1993; Wallace, Tsoi, Calkin, & Darley, 2004) (p 877).

Khan 2012 quotes the science teacher in the case study:

A lot of the kinds of things we do with computer simulation could be done with pieces of paper. The thing that’s better about the computer part of it is, you can do a lot more exploring, so [the computer simulation] gives [students] more control over what they’re going to look at, as opposed to if I give them a sheet of paper with numbers on it. It’s like I’m going to look at this information, I’m going to come to some conclusion, I’m going to look at some more information, an I’m going to test those conclusions…So when I throw up an overhead, I’m doing the exploring and they [the students] are explaining it. And that’s ok, but when it’s a simulation and they are choosing things, then they are doing the exploring much more (p 225-226).

This quote highlights how students can have control over their learning when using simulations and through the iterative process can dispel their own misconceptions about scientific concepts.

Challenging concept in your field: Light Snell’s Law, Reflection and Refraction

State how you know it is a challenge for students (eg. practice, student tests, and research on misconceptions).

One of the challenging science units I have taught is Light (including Snell’s Law, Reflection and Refraction).

I know that Light is a difficult unit for students because it involves both scientific and mathematical concepts. Students voice their difficulty with the concepts during lessons and experiments. Often traditional test scores have been quite low and finally, students are not able to talk about or demonstrate their understanding of the concepts with any degree of certainty.

Plan a 3-step T-GEM cycle for this challenging concept in your field. Use a visual to assist in showing the plan.

T-GEM Approach to a science unit on Light

One of the challenging science units I have taught is Light (including Snell’s Law, Reflection and Refraction).

Plan a 3-step T-GEM cycle for this challenging concept in your field. Use a visual to assist in showing the plan.

T-GEM Approach to a science unit on Light

Select an appropriate digital technology that may work for this concept.

Below is a link to the simulation I chose to accompany this unit. Just click the image.

http://

Click to Run

References:

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Khan, S. (2012). A Hidden GEM: A pedagogical approach to using technology to teach global warming. The Science Teacher, 79(8). This article was written about T-GEM with middle-schoolers.

https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/legacy/bending-light

T-GEM and Chemland Readings

Hi Everyone,
If you are having difficulty finding the readings for module B lesson 4 (when you click on the links takes you to the site to pay for the reading) I managed to get them all by cutting and pasting the titles into the UBC library search (once you have logged in using the CWL) and all are available there. That was the only way I could find them in their entirety.
Catherine

Learning with esri using ArcGis and The Living Atlas

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

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

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

Below is the link to the Living Atlas homepage.

The Living Atlas

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

Catherine

When Will Change Actually Happen?

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

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

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

Catherine