Category Archives: B. LfU

The Learning for Use (LFU) framework consists of a three-step process consisting of Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge Refinement (Edelson 2001). I have chosen to apply such a framework to the grade 10 Space Science unit about the big ideas of the Big Band Theory and star system formations. There are several technologies which can aid in the LFU framework implementation with this unit such as Stellarium, and Universe Sandbox. Stellarium can be used to analyse stars and planets with scientific accuracy and locate these phenomena in the sky. Universe Sandbox on the other hand allows to interact with planets and star systems, many of which begin as factual, observed systems. This interaction can be anything from adjusting climate, rotational speed, to creating new planets, moons, and collisions.

Motivation

Both technologies include factual information about celestial bodies around us. Students tend to have a natural curiosity about the world around them and these programs can help to scaffold their previous knowledge. Looking at the gravity (and in comparison, their weight) on different planets can begin to have students gain a deeper understanding to the scale of celestial bodies while linking it to their experiences on Earth. The further affordances of Universe Sandbox allow students to create the scenario of placing planets close to each other to see what the result would be (i.e. which would be the satellite, Earth or Mars?). The ability to play with this content means we can effectively merge motivation with knowledge construction.

Promoting Knowledge Construction

Through interacting with their previous knowledge, students can build new pathways and commit new information to memories. The more interaction with such tools can provide students with a greater understanding of how start systems function and can be perturbed. Being able to physically change variables of celestial bodies in Universe Sandbox allows students to physically interact with such concepts and to promote new knowledge construction. Some of the most notable experiences with such a program, is when students discover they can collide planets with asteroids, moons, other planets, and black holes. In an interesting parallel with the CERN Supercollider, students report on gaining interest and knowledge quite rapidly when they can smash celestial objects together.

Refining Knowledge

“Reflection and application both make important contributions to the inherently cyclical nature of learning” (Edelson, 2001). Universe Sandbox allows students reflect on previously learned concepts on orbiting celestial bodies to apply this knowledge to construct new star systems; very quickly students realize that star systems are not easily constructed. This process of knowledge application can help reinforce knowledge for future retention and use.

I find that the process of LFU can be easily applied to games which keep students learning and exploring through their own self-interest. Using large online databases, games are beginning to merge scientific accuracy with entertainment. This creates a golden opportunity for technology in the classroom which can spark the learning process.

References 

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.0.CO;2-M

What I really liked about this week’s reading was the direct connection between Edelson’s Learning-for-use technology-supported design framework and the parallel with IB Inquiry based curriculum. Edelson notes that for learning to take place, students need to construct meaning. The constructivist approach to teaching and learning is research based and clearly best practice when it comes to engaging students in the learning process. Edelson continues to note that”Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals.” This to me is exactly what backwards by design thinking includes, teachers and students need to know what exactly they are working towards. Often students are working towards completing projects where they have a general idea of what they need to do, but the most important part is their unconscious understanding of what needs to be found, explored, and only occurs as they continue through the inquiry cycle. Edelson also points out that “the circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use” and “Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied.”
When the 3 steps for learning-for-use are woven into the inquiry cycle, student investment in their search for understanding grows. Students as Edelson state require motivation, knowledge construction, and links to previous knowledge.

Understanding the framework lends itself to the IB model of inquiry based instruction, where students guide their curiosity towards understanding. I would consider using this design framework for my migration unit. Not a typical science or math unit, but I see the value in using the My World GIS when connecting math concepts such as distance, longitude and latitude, and overall geographical understanding when students are exploring the patterns of human migration. When students can explore the patterns, areas, and go further in their search for data and understanding do they then become motivated to find out their missing information. This would be particularly useful when students are working towards their summative assessment and then can explore the specific geographical pathway of their ancestors or major groups of migrants. I found it interesting the My World GIS is also partnering with the University of Illinois to teach American History, and bringing Historical Census Data Alive. As Perkins (2010) states, “A spatially literate workforce and citizenry able to access, manage, visualize, and interpret information, also capable of multidimensional thinking, are vital to advance science and technology and address the world’s complex problems.” Therefore, through this hands-on tool, students are not only motivated to construct knowledge, but they are curious to explore the links to previous knowledge of their family and relatives, making the connection to learning even more meaningful. Perhaps with a personal connection to the hard realities of mass human migration, especially today, will students begin to take meaningful action.

References

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.

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

Edelson (2001) discusses the overwhelming pressure for inquiry to be built into science classrooms. He mentions that one of the pushbacks from educators that are finding inquiry difficult in the modern day classroom is the lack of time. While I can certainly understand that time is precious and not overly plentiful, I think this is where educators need to be especially saavy. Combining curriculum expectations and designing a unit that brings science, math and language together in one unit will help teachers jump the hurdle that is time. Solely dedicated time to science and science alone is not realistic and I can see why some educators are having difficulty with the concept especially when educators are being asked to “teach more content more effectively, [and] devote more time to having students engage in [inquiry] practices” (Edelson, 2001, p. 355). Edelson (2001) continues to say that another problem in schools is the fact that computers are placed in classrooms but educators are not shown how to use them to their benefit.

The same can be said for other technology or programs that are available to educators nowadays. There are endless amounts of programs (including My World GIS, ArcGIS & WISE) that can be used for science inquiry in classrooms but the education to educators is not being provided. Again, this raises the issue of how, or rather when, educators are to teach themselves these programs? Should this be done in their free time or during PD? The Perkins, Hazelton, Erickson & Allan (2010) article discussed a study on GIS systems and how they can be used in classrooms to increase spatial sense in students. They mentioned how the teachers at this particular school where specifically given a day-long workshop, presumably on a Professional Activity Day, to be trained in the Schoolyard Tree Inventory My World GIS curriculum.

This is a true concern for educators and should be taken seriously by boards that are pushing certain expectations, such as more inquiry with technology in classrooms. If boards want certain methods to be used in the classroom, they must back it up with mandatory training for teachers that will allow educators to feel comfortable with the programs so that they can teach students without feeling uneasy about doing so. When specific time is given to educators to learn certain platforms, wonderful learning can exist and therefore be transmitted to the classroom setting for students to be engaged with.

Reading the articles and learning more about GIS helps me to start forming ideas for my final project. Next year I will be teaching Grade 1 and would love to do an inquiry unit on living things that include humans, plants & animals. Utilizing the LFU principles from Edelson (2001),Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge Refinement, we could use GIS such as Google Earth to explore different ecosystems in and around our community bringing the outside into our classroom. We could specifically look at an endangered species in our area using GIS-mapped natural heritage areas such as the Dundas Valley, where my school is located. Utilizing GIS will help us to narrow in on where this species is located and help us establish what can be done to protect it.

I would love to utilize the outside on a daily basis, money and time restrictions do not allow for it. That being said, if by utilizing Geographic Information Systems in addition to other technology that would allow for me to bring the outside in, I can engage my students and create relevant learning.

References

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

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

According to Edelson (2001), LfU is based on 4 theories of learning, which are:
1) learning takes place through construction and modification of knowledge structures
2) knowledge construction is a goal-directed process, guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding of goals
3) circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use
4) knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it is applied.

These principles underlie the LfU model, which is a three-step process involving
1) motivation
2) knowledge construction
3) knowledge refinement

In terms of technology, it plays many important roles within the LfU model. For example, it can play a role in eliciting curiosity (motivation), help students interactive with phenomena not possible in the real world which aids with knowledge construction and refinement.

So how would I apply it to a topic that I teach? The one thing that comes to mind is pelvic anatomy. Students tend to struggle with pelvic anatomy because it is quite complex and has multiple layers to it. I would start off by presenting students with a case of a patient who underwent surgery and shortly thereafter developed leg weakness and pain (this is actually one of the patient that presented to me early in my career). I would then have the students come up with theories based on their current knowledge level, regarding the cause of this pain/leg weakness. This is to draw their attention to their current level of knowledge and to have them recognize their limitations and thus increase motivation to learn. This would also create a context in their memory for integrating new knowledge (Edelson, 2001). Then I would use AnatomyTV, which is an interactive 3D anatomy resource (available through UBC at http://resources.library.ubc.ca/page.php?id=888) as my software of choice. This interactive resource that allows students to manipulate the body in 3D (select 3D Atlas —> Pelvis, then click female pelvis and perineum ~ tumble under 3D views from menu on the left to try it out!), which is really helpful, as most textbooks only present the learner with the upright position of the human body. This is not practical because in most gynecologic clinical practices, we examine patients and operate on them in the supine position, and thus knowledge of anatomy in this position is much more applicable. This program also allows the user to strip away all layers of the body and add them one by one, which allows students to understand how each layer relates to the other. I would also have student work in small group to promote interaction and discussion as this also aids in knowledge construction and refinement. Finally, I would have the students reflect on their initial theories, make any changes they feel are needed and present it as a group to the class and further apply their new knowledge to come up with a management plan for the patient. In this way, I believe I have applied the LfU principles to this topic.

References
1. Edelson DC. Learning‐for‐use: A framework for the design of technology‐supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2001;38(3):355-385. doi:10.1002/1098-2736

• In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

My World seems like a very useful tool to teach geography using technology in a classroom.  Similarly, Google Earth shows to have similar potentials as well. Both great tools to use when teaching LfU based activities. It is very easy to see how these tools would be effective in math or science lessons. I, myself, used Google Earth in ESL to teach a bit of geography as well before. It gives students a chance to “see” the world without having to actually physically go to the place. Especially useful, when I was teaching students about the Wonders of the World,  Google Earth gave me a chance to show students real-life up to date photos in 2D and 3D of the great wonders which was better than regular photos, searchable online. I also used such tools to demonstrate the concept of distance to my ESL students before, when introducing countries to them, and where their country is located.  To visually show them the relative distance. These tools serve the function of motivating and engaging students to learn from their own curiosity.

If I was to apply similar Learning for Use activities in math or science, I would likely use the tools as a database of current information that students can gather from to produce results. It seems like using such tools, serves the purpose of data analysing more than presenting a concept, to be a tool to help students make connections more than anything else.  As Edelson stated “The LfU approach recognizes that for robust learning to occur, the learner must be motivated to learn the specific content or skills at hand based on a recognition of the usefulness of that content beyond the learning environment” (Edelson, 2014).  

My science LfU lesson could possibly look at using the data provided by these tools to make comparisons to present a concept. For example, the size of a country in landmass,  population,  and location. Explore why certain areas on the globe would be more ideal for agriculture, and some not. Why population varies greatly between big cities?  Have the students pick countries of their own interest to answer their own questions. My lesson would likely be climate/science related but would probably connect with socials studies as well. Teachers in the lesson would most likely be the facilitators or be a researcher like the students as well.

Reference:

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning Earth and environmental science. In Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Springer Netherlands.

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.

After I reviewed LFU (Learning For Use) framework, I would apply the framework to any introductory algorithm classes utilizing technology – visualization software and flow charts (draw.io) – based on LFU three-step process – motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001).

Encouraging students to get motivated to learn programming: It is vital to engage the students in learning activities that include algorithmic tasks that are close to students’ real life issues/tasks. This demonstrates the usefulness of the algorithm programming process and makes students curious, inquisitive, and hungry for new knowledge. To motivate the students to acquire new knowledge and be aware of their own challenges and how to solve them, I would apply different forms of scaffolding  – questions and group discussion regarding real life algorithm examples and programming experiences.

Promoting Knowledge Construction

Learning activities that utilize algorithm visualization (https://visualgo.net/en) may guide students toward activating their existing mental model and subsequently toward modifying it. For example, we can ask students, at first, to predict the results of simple algorithm exercises individually or as a pair and then address the results as a pair or within a group.  These activities will encourage new knowledge construction through pair and group communication. Also, it will provide students with an opportunity to observe other students’ knowledge construction process.

Knowledge Refinement

Edelson (2001) states that refining knowledge can be supported through the processes of reflection and application. The refining process enables the students to reorganize their knowledge and to link the newly acquired knowledge to existing one. In addition, the refining process supports knowledge retention, future retrieval, and use. For example, modifying a simple program appropriately, according to the software requirements, can bolster the refinement process through meaningful application (Edelson, 2001). Also, a peer review activity of code/algorithmic flowcharts can facilitate reflection through collaboration.

Reference:

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:33.0.CO;2-M

The LFU model consists of a three-step process which includes: motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001). If I were to design a lesson using the LFU model, I would choose a Big Idea from BC’s new curriculum grade 6 science; The solar system is part of the Milky Way, which is one of billions of galaxies.

To promote and foster motivation within the LFU model, I would either design or search online for a webquest about science. For this purpose, I have found an already made webquest using the following link:  https://sites.google.com/site/mihmgruhlke/Home  Edelson (2001) states that within the first step of the LFU model, motivate, students need activities that require their previous knowledge on the topic presented. I would have students write questions about space they may have and post them on our “I wonder wall.” Can life exist outside of our solar system? How much would I weigh if I were on the moon? How hot does Mercury get? This allows for the student’s curiosity to set in and allows for the teacher to see where their knowledge is at the beginning of the unit.

The second step, knowledge construction, will come from the many webquest activities. What this particular webquest doesn’t have that I would incorporate into one if I did make a webquest, would be to include a space map such as GoogleSky. Closely resembling My World GIS, GoogleSky allows users to explore the universe and see constellations, planets and to zoom in on anything they want to delve deeper into. How far away is this constellation and what is it called? The students can explore their inquiry questions they came up with on the wonder wall using GoogleSky and through the webquest.

For the last step in the LFU model, the refine stage, students would be reflecting on their webquest journey. Did they find the answers to the posted questions? Did they find answers to their own inquiry questions? What could they have done differently?  They would self-assess their activities using a rubric that is on the evaluation page of the webquest. I would also include an area where they can view each other’s posts using something such as Padlet. Like Edelson (2001) states, “In addition, in the knowledge refinement stage, there is increasing evidence that application and reflection are both critically important to the development of useful knowledge” (p. 359).

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.

Edelson (2001) proposes the Learning-for-Use model (LfU) which is a design framework that promotes student’s construction of “deep, interconnected content knowledge and inquiry skills through activities that incorporate authentic scientific inquiry” (p.365). Based on learning principles shared with constructivism and situated learning theory, its goal is to “overcome the inert knowledge problem by describing how learning activities can foster useful conceptual understanding that will be available to the learner when it is relevant” (Edelson, 2001). Student learning is guided by a process involving motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement.

While reading the Edelson article, I reflected on how a design project I typically teach could be redesigned using the LfU learning principles and steps. During the project, students design and build vehicles in engineering teams to accomplish co-constructed goals. We investigate math and scientific concepts related to the design and performance of the vehicle. My grade team typically had a representative from a robotics design competition come in. However, the content was taught didactically through lectures and focussed on memorizing content. Like the article explains “the focus on memorization leads to “inert knowledge” that cannot be called upon when it is useful” (Edelson, 2001). Students were not able to apply the knowledge when provided the opportunity. We changed the instruction a few years ago but the LfU design could further improve the experience.

Motivation

By creating design challenges that are just beyond the current ability of the students to accomplish it “creates a desire (motivation) to address the limitation by acquiring new knowledge, and it creates a context in memory for integrating new knowledge” (Edelson, 2001). The challenge could be to increase the speed of the vehicle by improving handling or to design the vehicle to move a specified load. The basic design of the vehicle they build is not effective at engaging in either task.  Like in the Jasper Series, new information becomes a useful tool as opposed to an isolated fact.

Knowledge Construction

As students begin the design process they will construct mathematical and scientific knowledge relevant to the goals they are attempting to achieve. Working in small groups, students investigate the relationship between distance, time, and speed. They use digital scales and a variety of materials to experiment and determine the effect of weight and friction on the speed and control of the vehicle. When designing attachments to help move the load, students consider various likely scenarios and adjust their use of materials accordingly. They record their observations and explanations using OneNote and can revisit them after. The teacher role during this stage is to highlight relevant experiences, encourage reflection and facilitate collaboration between students.

Knowledge Refinement

During this step, the design goals can be connected. The students must design their vehicles balancing a variety of considerations. The goal we used this year was students had to complete against another robot to move a load out of a designated area. It was a combination of earlier goals and required the students to design vehicles with the speed, control, and materials necessary to effectively accomplish the task. Students must articulate their understanding of math and science concepts and explain how their designs take them into consideration. Knowledge is “reorganized, connected to other knowledge, and reinforced to support its future retrieval and use” (Edelson, 2001).

A variety of hardware and software tools can be integrated throughout the experience.

• Google Sketchup can be used to design vehicle before using physical materials.
• Explain Everything can be used to articulate conceptions and revisit them later. It also helps them present their thinking to other students.
• Excel Online can be used to record data and collaboratively investigate relationships.
• OneNote can allow students to keep a record of their experiences related to their designs.
• Video can be used to analyze the movement of the vehicle and accurately determine its speed.

References

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/

In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

The Learning-for-Use framework developed by Edelson (2001) is based on knowledge as being a “goal-directed process” in which knowledge is constructed and shaped by the application of the knowledge, either consciously or unconsciously. For Edelson, the procedural knowledge is just as important and connected in the knowledge construction process as declarative knowledge Furthermore, the LfU model consists of three key steps to ensuring students “foster useful conceptual understanding that will be available to the learner when it is relevant”; Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge Refinement. (Edelson, D., 2001).

Therefore, in considering an LfU-based activity for upper elementary students in math, I would focus my efforts in following the three key steps of the model. In addition, from the evidence presented in the case study ‘Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property’ (Radinksy, J., Oliva, S., Alamar, K., 2009), I would aim to incorporate several opportunities for communication as a way of constructing knowledge as a whole group, utilizing shared modeling, shared contributions, and negotiation to reinforce conceptual understandings.

The unit I would be presenting using the LfU model would be related to Time Zones in math, as this can be a challenging concept for students to understand when not made relevant to their lives.

Motivate: In the beginning of the unit, I would introduce students to the idea that one of their classmates would be traveling during part of the school year to Toronto followed by Paris, France. This fellow classmate wants to skype in to the class at least twice to see how things are going. Students would need to figure out when would be an appropriate time to skype their classmate. As I have had a few students in the past travel during the year and want to skype in to see the class, this can be both a relevant and motivating activity for students to engage in. This introductory activity would also elicit curiosity, as students might quickly determine that 7am is too early and 6pm too late, but they would likely come to realize, through discussion with each other, that they may not know the exact time difference to Toronto, from Vancouver, and then again to France. Given a map of the world, students would need to identify the times appropriate for Vancouver, then challenge themselves to fill in the gaps of the time zones for Eastern Canada and France. They would fill in their reasoning in written or oral form. Teacher facilitated discussions would help students see the gaps in their knowledge, before beginning the construction phase of building connections.

Construct: Students would be introduced to Google Earth, using the layer of Time Zone Problems, downloaded from www.realworldmath.org. From there, they would observe and take notes in a Google Classroom spreadsheet, recording the time zones and making notes of the relationships they notice. Again, teacher prompts and other students’ prompting can help collectively piece together the conceptual understanding. With the spreadsheet acting as a collective journal, students could collaboratively come up with the ‘rules’ for identifying a given time across the world, including time origin, EST, PST, UST, etc.

Refine: Finally, a class schedule come be drawn up with all the possibilities. By leveraging peers’ language to clarify their own reasoning and negotiating language and representation to develop a shared explanation (Radinsky et al., 2009), the class would use the spreadsheet to create a schedule for when to skype the student on holiday, keeping in mind what might be accomplished on the holiday and knowing which times need to be avoided (during the day that student might be visiting a museum or at the beach, without access to their computer). To better assist in their final explanation, paths, pins and image overlays could be drawn on Google Earth and presented.

The entire process incorporates the LfU model by constructing knowledge by making it applicable, but also incorporates the aspect of communication as a way of constructing a shared understanding to avoid individual misconceptions that might go unnoticed without intervention.

References:

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.

Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2009). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642.

Edelson (2001) developed a model called LfU or Learning-for-Use model that incorporates these four principles and creates a three-step process that is made up of motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement. As Edelson (2001) identifies that teachers were overwhelmed by trying to cover content and develop the scientific inquiry process in their students. The goal of the model was to show how teachers could use the inquiry model to build and support knowledge acquisition in students and the two did not need to be two separate units.

In planning a lesson that followed the LfU model in Science I am focused on the conclusions that Radinsky, Oliva, & Alamar (2009) examined of a science classroom that supports a “co-constructed nature of scientific knowledge and work.” (Radinsky, Oliva, & Alamar, 2009) For example:

Motivation
In this unit students are developing an understanding of how simple machines work together. The challenge is in teams to come up with a plan to lift a car using the materials provided that all can be used to create simple machines. As Edelson (2001) notes this activity creates a demand for knowledge and experience curiosity by developing a problem that they can’t currently solve. In this activity teacher is in the role of facilitator asking key questions and being an observer. Students capture knowledge from peers and build their understanding through hearing other students’ experiences with lifting the car. It would be expected that, like Camila (Radinsky, Oliva, & Alamar, 2009) students will start to incorporate other thinking into their observations.

Knowledge Construction
As students realize that they do not have enough information to complete the task we move into knowledge construction. Here is a more active phase where students rotate through a series of stations that allow them to explore each simple machine in detail. Radinsky, Oliva, & Alamar (2009) identify this stage as theory-building and data exploration. This stage is characterized through small and whole group discussions that lead to small-group work and skill-building lessons. The goal is to build new knowledge structures (Edelson, 2001) and attach them to existing knowledge.

Knowledge Refinement
Here students apply the new knowledge learned to complete a task. The final activity has students move a basket of bricks. Edelson (2001) calls this as an opportunity for “learners to apply their knowledge in meaningful ways.” Finally students create a learning journal that has them reflect on what steps were needed to lift the car to provide an opportunity for students to “reorganize and reindex their knowledge.” (Edelson, 2001)

Reference:
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:33.0.CO;2-M

Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2009). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20354