Category Archives: B. LfU

After reading and reflecting on the aims of LfU (Learning for Use) I believe there are a number of ways that LfU has the capability of supporting students who are experiencing conceptual challenges understanding Earth Science. The main goal of LfU experiences are to seamlessly integrate content and process activities so that students achieve robust and useful understandings that are deep and accessible (Edelson, 2001). In particular, technology supported inquiry learning provides an opportunity for these students to be supported throughout their learning. The Create-a-World Project which includes the use of the programs WorldWatcher and Progress Portfolio demonstrate a robust example of how technology can be used to support these learners. WorldWatcher provides a geographic visualization and data analysis engine whereas Progress Portfolio provides a place to record and monitor investigations and capture the ongoing work done in Worldwatcher.

The objective of the  Create-a-World Project is to have students investigate relationships between temperature and geography from a climatic perspective. Since this project is designed with the LfU model it follows certain protocols. Most importantly LFU focusses on the application of knowledge and through a knowledge application task LfU creates demand for learning and offers space for refinement as students apply knowledge they have learned (Edelson, 2001).  Reflection is also built into this process and a necessary part of the learning cycle. LfU is similar to the traditional learning cycle in which students are involved in an exploration or activities that help them understand a concept. This includes hands-on observations, measurement and gathering of evidence. Through this process, students begin to explore relationships and concepts and/or discuss findings and finally additional observations are discussed, noted and shared then applied and refined.

Examining a knowledge application task will illustrate the process and how technology can support the aims of LfU. In the introduction of the Create-a-World project students are inspired to begin to think about global temperature through guessing and colouring in the average temperatures in the world in July. This is to start the discussion about the concept and to promote communication. The LfU reasoning for this is to elicit curiosity and to have students confront limitations in their understandings (Edelson, 2001). It is noted in other literature that students are not likely to change their understandings in science until they notice contradictions to existing ones and that constructing relationships is a way to breach this divide (DeLaughter, Stein, Stein & Bain, 1998).

In step 2 students compare conjectures using WorldWatcher using real data. They use visualization and analysis tools to compare their own maps with actual July temperatures around the world. The LFU reasoning for this is that this allows students begin to observe patterns of temperature variation and to elicit curiosity in their causes (Edelson, 2001).

In fact, deeper more robust learning occurs when we encourage students to pursue a concept in a variety of contexts and examples until these new models are integrated. The students need to understand why they are pursuing the problem and this is best achieved  when students encounter information in the context of pursuing larger problems and  issues that they find intriguing (DeLaughter, et al., 1998)

In step 3 the students invent their own worlds using a paint interface and data sets. The LfU reasoning is to create a demand for student learning. Students must have an understanding of temperature to create this world.

In activity 4 students begin to explore the relationship between geography and temperature using WorldWatcher tools. The maps created are inputted into the Progress Portfolio program and they are able to annotate the relationships they see. Then they engage in group discussions in which they further refine their understandings. In this way they acquire additional knowledge construction.

In activity 5 the students begin to explain findings through discussions and have the opportunity for hands-on laboratory explorations of concepts thus explored. At this time the teacher can offer explanations or address misconceptions.

Finally, in activity 6 the students create temperature maps for their created worlds based on all the factors they have studied. They also document the rules they are using while creating these maps and record these in their progress portfolio. Then they present to their classmates and explain their work and have an opportunity to discuss the reasoning behind their choices.

So after outlining this example, here are the ways that I believe that LfU has the capability of supporting students who are experiencing conceptual challenges understanding Earth Science. Firstly, LfU design creates demand for learning and eliciting curiosity. In the Create-a-World project the students are required to create a fictitious world, and this would be the impetus for learning about temperature and climate. The technology used in WorldWatcher allows them to paint data and manipulate data for this purpose. So technology is supporting this type of learning.

In addition, eliciting curiosity through identifying potential misconceptions and for activating existing knowledge is achieved with technology. Technology provides simulations which may be unavailable to direct observation (Edelson, 2001). Technology may also provide ways to articulate and demonstrate concepts using, for example, drawing programs.   Eliciting curiosity may not happen with traditional style lecture or through textbooks which often tend to be outdated or misrepresent scientific concepts.

As students continue to discover more about scientific concepts and delve deeper with their understandings, technology can assist with data collection and analysis, modeling, and prediction which may be hampered without these technology tools due to time constraints, lack of resources or complex data management capabilities.

The computer is also used as a communication tool which provides the ability to present information in a wide variety of formats, which may not be possible in traditional presentations. This not only allows for differentiation but also allows for students choice, both aims of educational reform.

Finally, technology provides a place for reflection. It supports record-keeping during inquiry and also provides for the possibility of ongoing discussion threads for communication as well as presentation tools. In addition, investigation tools are provided through visualization and analysis capabilities, artifact construction, expressive and record keeping data collection and tools such as annotation as well as drawing capabilities.

I look forward to your reflections.

DeLaughter, J. E., Stein, S., Stein, C. A., & Bain, K. R. (1998). Preconceptions abound among students in an introductory earth science course. EOS Transactions, 79 (36), 429-436.

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

I really enjoyed exploring GIS platforms this week and exploring ways they could be integrated into the classroom.

If I were to develop something to use in my grade 3 classroom I think that I would utilize Google Earth. My reasons for doing so would be that this is a mainstream platform that is user-friendly and easy to access from home as well. While I do see the importance and relevance of using platforms developed specifically for educational practices, I also see the necessity to show students mainstream tools that they can easily use on their own time and access from home (Bodzin, Anastasio, & Kulo, 2014).

Curriculum connections using maps are endless. With the push towards integrating more place-based learning and environmental education, the ability to easily access all different kinds of maps of our local areas is exciting. In grade 3 in particular, these maps could be utilized to investigate biodiversity and the local habitats of our plants and animals; how wind, water, and ice change the shape of the land; as well as measurement and construction of 3D objects, to name a few specific outcomes.

If I were to choose one activity to develop I might focus on using these maps for measurement and geometry. I liked the Google Earth activity of adding paths and polygons and how it could relate to our “Frolicking Friday” adventures. Every Friday we take our learning outside to our local area. Often this is in the form of treks down in the gully beside our school, and walks to our neighbourhood gardens and parks for various activities connecting to the science, socials studies, language arts, arts education, physical and health education, and math curriculum, thus beginning to foster spatial thinking by guiding these outings to be cross-curricular (Perkins, Hazelton, Erickson, & Allan, 2010). When I searched maps of our local area (Kimberley, BC) there were not many landmarks noted on our small town. It would be a worthwhile activity, then, for students to use these maps and add landmarks important to them and then measure distances using the measurement tools to begin to form an understanding of how long these distances take when we are walking them during our Frolicking Friday time. This activity would meet the four principles of the LfU model of construction and modification of knowledge structures (actual distance between local landmarks such as school and community garden), conscious and unconscious understanding of goals (calculating how long it would take to go to a local landmark and if we would have time to walk there during Frolicking Friday), the circumstances of knowledge construction (using the local environment that students experience daily is relevant to their construction of knowledge), and constructing knowledge in a support form (using maps found in Google Earth of the local area and then applying it during our outings) (Edelson, 2001). It would follow the foundation of the LfU principles that “understanding must be developed incrementally through the stepwise elaboration of knowledge structures” (p. 357) as well as the motivation understanding that “the motivation to acquire specific skills or knowledge within a setting in which the student is already reasonably engaged” (p. 358). Using “well-defined, guided investigation activities” and “interweaving…investigations and discussions” (p. 362) through our class blog and student digital portfolios, this activity could also lead to the creation of new motivation for learning.

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).

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.

It is important for teachers to find ways to LFU is a way for teachers to support learners by allowing them to situate their knowledge so that concepts will be easily accessible when they require it (Edelson, 2001). Using place based education has benefits beyond simply learning new software. Students need to be able to bridge the gap between the real and digital worlds (Perkins et al, 2010).  It is valuable to teach students how to use GIS when it comes to place-based learning because it gives them a tangible experience that they can relate to. It is important that students establish spatial awareness.  Perkins et al (2010) demonstrates that students are able to improve their understanding on spatial awareness and grasp geographical primitives using place specific exercises with GIS. Perkins et al (2010) further states that GIS can be used as an effective classroom tool to topics in areas such as ecology.

The Create-a-World project is an activity that I wish to explore a bit more in my own teaching practice. The goal of the Create-a-World project is to have the students formulate a hypothesis and collect and evaluate data as well as create visualization of that data using data analysis tools. As Edelson (2001) explains, Create-a-World  allows students to refine their inquiry skills and participate in guided investigation activites. As a result, students will be engaged in something meaningful to them that incorporates a wide variety of skills sets.

Fortunately, I had am quite familiar with GIS software, as I took a few courses in this area in my undergraduate degree. I used ArcGIS at the grade 7 level to map out ancient civilizations with my students as well as for making maps to visualize environmental issues. When I first took GIS and digital cartography courses, the software was not very user friendly, and it would take hours of trouble shooting to get the right projection that you were looking for.  There seems to be an explosion of GIS software now that is very intuitive and user friendly. Creating GIS maps is something that does not require a professional anymore.  Learners are able to experiment with GIS at a very young age and develop some very interesting maps.

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.

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.

Learning-for-Use (LfU) activities offer students a deep and robust conceptual understanding of the topic at hand (pg. 355).

The model is based on four principles that are shared by many contemporary theories of learning:

1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.

2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals.

3. The 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 can be applied

Edelson (2001) describes four principles of the LfU model on page 357:

1. Learning takes place incrementally and constructively.
2. Knowledge expands both consciously and unconsciously.
3. Content must be taught in the right context, so that the knowledge can be retrieved later in the future during a similar context.
4. Knowledge learned must be used right away so that when such knowledge is needed in a new situation in the future, it can be used to solve problems.

The three pillars of the LfU model are described as:

1. Motivation – students need motivation to learn.  Motivation is created when students perform an activity that highlights voids or gaps that might be present in their current knowledge, and the need to fill these voids.
2. Knowledge Construction – through scaffolding activities, knowledge is processed to fill the voids created by the motivation activity in step 1.
3. Knowledge Refinement – in this final step the knowledge learned is used in the correct context, so that it is readily available for future retrieval.

Here in the United Arab Emirates using GIS is a rather new phenomenon. Never the less as Math and Science teachers we are taking baby steps to include these activities in our classrooms with the limited technology that we posses.  Since my students live in a remote area, their geographical knowledge is limited.  I often try to motivate my students even thought this can be hard when almost half of them with get married after graduation from high school and not pursue university.  Nevertheless, I remind them that the world is a large place that is fascinating and ready to be discovered, this at times is enough motivation to get students going.

One activity that is possible is taking a look at the houses in the community (since most times many family live on compounds together) and guessing the area of the compound.  We can get them look at GIS images and physically calculate the square footage of their houses or even other buildings such as our school.

This puts the information into context.  We can then expand and take a look at iconic building in the UAE such as Sheik Zayed Grand Mosque in Abu Dhabi and the man-made Palm Jumairah and compare their square footage to their homes.

We can then take time to discuss and reflect on what we have learned.  In this way students can be engaged in what they are learning because it is relevant to their lives and the teacher can act as a facilitator, guiding them in whatever manner that they need.

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.

LfU: Learning for Use

The LfU framework seems fairly “user-friendly” in that different educators can adopt the framework, yet still allow their own pedagogical styles be honoured. Using combinations of high tech, low tech, modern and traditional, as long as educators create an environment that creates opportunities for learners to be “mcr-ed” (“motivated”, “constructive” and “refiney”) with their knowledge, they are towing the LfU line! The key take away for myself was that LfU focuses on the application of knowledge as opposed to specific inquiry or learning models. (Edelson, 2000)
For those of us who have drank, er guzzled, the EdTech Kool-aid, technology use in combination with the LfU framework is unquestionably going to be a good time. Although prior to ETEC 533, I was utilizing LfU principles unknowingly, what is distinctly different now, is that I am choosing activities with more purpose, as opposed to simple hunches. It is not the first week during my MET experience that I have read about the affordances of constructivism, situated learning and reflection, however, what the LfU framework does, is it packages these principles up in a clear, understandable way. (Similar to Newton’s Three Laws! At least for me…)
So, the topic that I would like to touch on is one that I have taught for my entire career of 18 years—linear equations. I haven’t taught it the same way in all of these years; as technology has evolved, my approach has definitely evolved! Once we have already reviewed the concept of Cartesian Coordinate System, graphing with a table of values, domain/range and a bit of slope, I then move towards equations of lines beginning with horizontal and vertical.

1. Motivate — Experience Demand and Curiosity
   • Desmos Faces: Through an inquiry process, students eventually construct a simple face using horizontal and vertical lines. There is a collaborative component to the pre-made, online activity, as well.
2. Construct — Observe and Receive Communication
   • Not gonna lie— I utilize “Direct Instruction” to introduce slope-Intercept Form. In combination with Desmos simulations, my students practice from textbook questions. I show them how to use Desmos to their advantage, when completing their work.
3. Refine — Apply and Reflect
   • Desmos Art Project: Students recreate a graphic of their choice using a minimum of 75 equations. Students may choose to use higher order functions (curves), but linear equations can also be used entirely. 10% of their mark is based from their Reflection that is publicly posted on the Class Blog. I will say that the Reflections have been better quality when I have provided students with topics to discuss.

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.

Imagine how LfU principles might be applied to a topic you teach. Now switch out the My World technology. What other domain specific (and non-domain specific) software might help you achieve these principles while teaching this topic? By domain-specific, we mean software designed for STEM education, and by non-domain specific, we mean software or other forms of technology that could be used generally in multiple domains (eg. Wikis). Other GIS software can be selected for the switch.

Traditional images of education usually involve a teacher lecturing in front of a group of students, didactically transmitting knowledge to students.  There are also images of students in labs or activities, taking their learned content and engaging in activities that more often than not are designed primarily to confirm and reinforce said content.  This view that the teaching of content and engaging in process are opposed to each other is challenged by Edelson’s Learning for Use (LfU) theory (2001) which contends that inquiry can be means to help students understand content.  Edelson’s LfU is based on 4 main principles:

1. Learning occurs through constructivist methods.
2. Construction of knowledge is a goal-driven process that is guided by an understanding of the reasoning behind the goals.
3. The constructed knowledge is used as a foundation for building subsequent knowledge.
4. Knowledge must be constructed in a meaningful and useful way before it can be applied.

In doing do, Edelson argues, inquiry-based activities can be used as a means to both deliver content and reinforce concepts.  LfU theory also outlines how these learning processes should be designed and highlights three important areas of consideration: motivation, construction of knowledge, and refinement of knowledge (Edelson, 2001).  In this process, motivation first helps students recognize the need for more knowledge and serves to drive their engagement in the activity.  The construction of knowledge occurs when students develop an understanding and then use it as a basis for further knowledge construction.  Finally, the refinement of knowledge allows students to connect and reinforce learned ideas in order to make them useful.

One topic that I have taught that fits neatly with LfU theory is the bridge building unit in my Science & Tech 11 course.  The overall theme of the unit is to understand the shapes and structures commonly used in bridge building and culminates in a popsicle stick bridge building challenge.  To aid student understanding of basic bridge structures (namely, trusses), a domain specific bridge building simulator can be used to allow students to test and verify their ideas.

Reading Edelson’s description of the LfU process, I realised that my unit plan could be separated into the three stages discussed above.  With Edelson’s LfU process applied, the unit progressed as follows:

Stage 1: Motivation

• The unit starts with showing students various bridges from the around the world with a discussion regarding how the different architectural and engineer designs set out to solve some problem.  The students are provided with some materials and challenged, as a class, to build a suspension bridge to see how much weight can be supported.
• In the classes following the introduction, a discussion on structural shapes and force distribution is followed by taking the students to the computer lab where they can begin using the bridge simulator.  The cartoon-y design and gamified approach the simulator has helps to motivate and engage students.

Stage 2: Construction of knowledge

• The students are asked to draw a diagram of every successfully bridge they design as they progress through the game.
• The students are given two classes to advance as fair as possible through the game.  At the beginning of the second class, students are asked to share their successful bridge designs and the teacher asks guiding questions that eventually lead to the highlighting of triangular truss structures and their role in supporting bridge forces.
• The students can use this knowledge and more actively think about their bridge design as the game becomes more difficult.

Stage 3: Refinement

• The students continue to use their understanding to build more complicated bridge designs.
• Once complete, the students are given their final project – a bridge built of popsicle sticks.
• They are tasked with first sketching and planning their project using the knowledge gained from the simulator, and then proceed with the build and test.

Edelson’s LfU theory and process provides a rather pragmatic approach to unit design that not only allows for the tighter integration of content and process, but also offers a measured approach to its implementation in the classroom.

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.

British Columbia’s New Curriculum lends itself to project-based learning as it allows educators to incorporate various “big ideas” and curriculum content areas. Along with this, project-based learning allows for increased emphasis to be put on student-centred learning, rather than on the teacher simply imparting knowledge through memorization and recitation that the learner is then often unable to access when needed (Edelson, 2001). Learning-for-Use promotes higher-level thinking skills as students are encouraged to apply both their prior knowledge and the new knowledge they are in the process of acquiring to integrate a framework that accesses the varying levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, from knowledge and comprehension, to application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of the world around them (Moore, n.d.). Daniel Edelson (2001) points out that “educators have traditionally seen content and process as competing priorities” (p. 355), with content and inquiry “taught separately through separate learning activities” (p. 356), as opposed to being taught (or considered) as intersecting domains as shown in Mishra and Koehler’s work (2006). In contrast, “recent education reform initiatives emphasize the significance of developing thinking skills, data analysis skills, understanding real-world applications, and utilizing the power of technology in teaching and learning (International Society for Technology in Education, 2000; National Research Council,1996; North American Association for Environmental Education 2000)” (as cited in Bodzin, Anastasio, & Kulo, 2014, p. 2). By using a framework like Learning-for-Use, content and process are integrated as students are given the opportunity to learn through their own inquiry, experience, and discovery by allowing students to engage in situated learning environments through the following principles as outlined by Edelson (2001):

1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding
goals.
3. The 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 can be applied
(p. 357)

Supporting these principles of Learning-for-Use are the beliefs that students learn through a process of constructing new knowledge through personal experience and communication, rather than having knowledge transferred to them; through goal-directed learning initiated by the learner; through the creation, elaboration and accessibility (storage) of knowledge; and through the understanding of and ability to use factual knowledge and then transform that knowledge into procedural knowledge (Edelson, 2001; Radinsky et al., 2006).

When considering Learning-for-Use and working with GIS in terms of my own classroom and teaching, the first unit application that came to mind was around natural resources/rocks and minerals. When exploring ArcGIS through searches like “mineral exploration in British Columbia” and “natural resources in British Columbia” a variety of titles related to geological features, mineral occurrences, mineral potential, major natural resource projects, natural events, and so on were found. While there are many classroom and community-based activities that are applicable to natural resource management and mineral exploration in the area where I live, it can be difficult to help students understand the “bigger” picture. The introduction of interactive maps could help bring natural resources and mineral exploration “to life” for students, as well as having them really consider how British Columbia both contributes to and is affected by the harvesting of natural resources. Students could not only identify areas of mining, logging, and so on, they could also then layer on bodies of water nearby to discuss effects on waterways; they could layer on towns and cities to discuss how to process the resources most effectively/economically; they could look for other areas of potential resources; and so on. In addition, when reading Bodzin, Anastasio, and Kulo’s (2014) article on Google Earth, I wondered about having students use this program as a way to identify how the management of resources looks from a “bird’s eye view” in terms of location, environmental disruption, and land reclamation.

Finally, the opportunity that Learning-for-Use and GIS environments offer in terms of inclusive environments and accessibility of materials for a diverse range of learners is an important feature for classes today. Bodzin et al. (2014) discuss the incorporation of “design features in instructional materials so that low-level readers and low-ability students can understand scientific concepts and processes in addition to learners whose cognitive abilities are at or above the intended grade level” (pp. 13-14). Radinsky et al. (2006) emphasize the importance of differentiated assessment in order to assess students in a variety of ways, pointing out that each assessment allows a different view of students’ knowledge and comprehension. Our learners today are diverse, with significantly different expectations than students had in the past, so our classrooms must adapt to our changing learners as well as to the changing world around us. Learning-for-Use and GIS environments provide new and innovative opportunities for student-centered, inclusive and accessible learning to appeal to our learners of today.

References:

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning earth and environmental science. In MaKinster, Trautmann, & Barnett (Eds.) Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/research/Bodzin_GE.pdf

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.

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

Moore. S. (n.d.). Bloom’s taxonomy: Teacher planning kit. Blogsomemoore: Teaching and Empowering ALL Students. Retrieved from https://blogsomemoore.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/blooms-questions.pdf

Radinsky, J., Sacay, R., Singer, M., Oliva, S., Allende-Pellot, F., & Liceaga, I. (2006, April). Emerging conceptual understandings in GIS investigations. Paper about forms of assessment presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua_Radinsky/publication/242390299_Emerging_conceptual_understandings_in_GIS_investigations/links/54eb39670cf27a6de11763ab.pdf

Edelson (2001) provides a refreshing read on connecting content learning and science inquiry when in many science classrooms, the two are often isolated.  “In these classrooms, content is taught didactically…scientific practices are taught through structured laboratory experiments” (Edelson, 2001).  So in an attempt to unify the two structurally and temporally different practices, the LfU model was described and applied to the project WorldWatcher.

Edelson (2001) describes 4 principles of the LfU model:

1. Learning takes place incrementally and constructively.
2. Knowledge expands both consciously and unconsciously.
3. Content must be taught in the right context, so that the knowledge can be retrieved later in the future during a similar context.
4. Knowledge learned must be put to use right away so that when such knowledge is needed in a new situation in the future, it can be used to solve problems.

The three pillars of the LfU model are described as:

1. Motivation – students need motivation to learn.  Motivation is created when students perform an activity that highlights voids or gaps that might be present in their current knowledge, and the need to fill these voids.
2. Knowledge Construction – through scaffolding activities, knowledge is processed to fill the voids created by the motivation activity in step 1.
3. Knowledge Refinement – in this final step the knowledge learned is put to use in the correct context, so that it is readily available for future retrieval.

With these ideas in mind, I imagined it would be interesting to design a project of my own similar to WorldWatcher with the a balance of computer and non computer activities.

Project: Save Your Patient

Activity 1 (Motivation)

Students are shown a dramatic video of an ER ward where hospital staff requests for some units of a specific blood type.  The teacher opens up the discussion asking students about the different blood types students know.  During this brainstorming session, the different blood types are put on the whiteboard.  The teacher puts students in groups and instructs them to find out the blood types of their peers.  The teacher opens up a second class discussion on why we have the different blood types that we do, the reasons for them, and why blood types might be important leading back to the original video on why the hospital staff wanted that specific blood type for the incoming patient.  Ideas are listed and discussed on the board.  This activity is done so that students become curious about blood typing and blood transfusions.  Once enough discussion has been achieved, the teacher launches into activity 2.

Activity 2 (Knowledge Construction)

Edelson (2001) describes knowledge construction as “…the raw material from which a learner constructs new knowledge [that] can be firsthand experience, communication with others, or a combination of the two.  Activity 2 is a teacher-led discussion on the concepts of red blood cells, antigens, and antibodies using analogies like donuts and sprinkles, animations and videos for visualization purposes, as well as manipulative models using tools like Play-Doh so that different learning styles are touched upon during the activity.  This is a good chance for students to compare their hypotheses from activity 1 and understand how their initial thoughts matched with the knowledge of blood typing and blood transfusions.

Students are then taken to the computer lab where they all have access to the Blood Typing game (2017) presented by https://www.nobelprize.org that helps students practice blood transfusions on fictitious patients in attempt to save their lives.  This activity connects well with the initial dramatic video shown to students and it further puts this knowledge in the right context for students (Point 3 of the 4 LfU principles).

Activity 3 (Knowledge Refinement)

Knowledge Refinement must follow knowledge construction.  It is vital for students to take the declarative knowledge from activity 2 and turn it into procedural knowledge: a point well made by Edelson (2001) that “…to insure accessibility and applicability, refinement must follow construction” (p. 359).

In activity 3 students are put into pairs and each pair is asked to create their own alien beings that have their own set of blood types.   They are now free to name their own antigens, their own antibodies, and most importantly, create blood transfusion rules correctly as they learned them in activity 2.

In the second leg of activity 3 – each pair of students swaps the alien blood type and transfusion data with another pair and creates patient scenarios for the other pair’s alien hospital in which different patients are rushed into the hospital in dire need of alien blood transfusions.  Once patient scenarios are created, the original pairs then solve the problems of giving their new patients the right type of blood transfusions.

Thus in activity 3: students use their knowledge form activity 2, create problems that then must be solved using the rules correct rules of blood transfusion.

This paper was a very interesting read in allowing an intertwined pairing of learning content and then using that content to solve problems.  This is important as knowledge is learned in the right context, used in the right context, in hopes that it can be retrieved in those familiar contexts in the future.

Question for peers:

I may actually try out this project with students either online (with adjustments due to the nature of distance online learning) or in a brick-and-mortar classroom.  Suggestions, feedback, and critique would be very welcomed on this project.

Thanks,

Vibhu

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.

The Blood Typing Game (2017). Retrieved from: https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/bloodtypinggame/

LFU is to support learners in developing knowledge in a way that will be easily retrievable when needed in the future (Edelson, 2001). With teachers being asked to more content more effectively and to foster “deep” and “robust” conceptual understanding in students there needs to be a change in the way science is taught in the classroom. The didactic model of lectures and reading, with separate learning activities only serves to provide students with inert knowledge that cannot be called upon when it is most needed (Whitehead, 1929). We have all had those students who cannot seem to remember anything that had been previously taught to them, mostly because the information was not relevant to them. This shallow understanding of scientific concepts leads to student misconceptions and unreliable information for future understanding.

The LFU model, based on four basic principles of learning, support constructivist, cognitive, and situated learning perspectives. These principles put the learning firmly in the hands of the learner, allowing them to set goals, make deep and new connections between knowledge structures, and retrieve the relevant information in the future.

One aspect of the LFU model that resonated with me the most was the evidence that application and reflection are both critically important to the development of useful knowledge. In many traditional models of learning the task was assigned, students met the requirements by doing the task, the task was graded, and it was never re-visited again, making it difficult for students to see how knowledge connects across the curriculum or across different disciplines. Mathematics and scientific concepts are not applied in isolation in the real world, and yet, that is how they are taught traditionally in the classroom. The LFU model emphasizes time to reflect upon the acquisition of new knowledge, and how that knowledge connects to what they already know, and how it can be applied to problems or relevant situations. This was evident in Camila, the Earth, and the Sun when the students shared their ideas and understandings with their peers in an open discussion, allowing all of them to reflect on the information being given, and to reform their ideas with the new knowledge. I find it is one of the things that many teachers do not take the time to do in their classrooms, give the students opportunities to reflect on their learning, both formally as in a written response, or informally as in an open discussion or small groups. It was one of the aspects of the WISE projects that I appreciated, there was time for the students to go back and revisit some of the information and reflect on what they had learned.

Since I teach all the content subjects to my class, I am always interested in finding ways to integrate the subjects to help make the topics more relevant to the students. I was particularly intrigued by the Create-a-World project, especially as new planets have been discovered which may sustain life similar to that on earth. Using these types of programs students could determine how different landforms were created, climate patterns of different areas, the water cycle, and environmental issues which may arise with civilizations. Although My World and World Watcher seem to be optimal for this application, I do not think they are supported by my Board and would have to seek out alternatives for the project. Google Earth is supported and could easily be used to investigate a variety of landforms around the world, it does not seem to have all the affordances of the other programs. Our Board does support Gizmos through the Explore Learning website (https://www.explorelearning.com/) which has many interactive lessons on specific math and science topics which would allow students to explore such concepts as Weather and Climate, Tidal Effects, Seasons, and Topographic Maps. Students can choose which Gizmos they would like to explore relevant to their project. These interactive lessons allow students to explore things of interest to them motivating them to learn, they construct new understanding using previous knowledge and new knowledge to form new connections, and they have time to reflect on how these concepts fit with their world requirements.

In keeping with the STEAM movement, I like to add a creative aspect to the project, much as Camilla used the drawings of her perception of light on earth to demonstrate her learning. Students could create a physical model of their planet, showing the different landforms and various eco zones using colour and texture. They could create a series of drawings to demonstrate their understanding of weather, climate, precipitation, landforms, etc. They could create an evolution video on how their world was formed using iMovie or other similar software applications.

Having been exposed to these different types of GIS applications and the principles of LFU, discovering other software or programs to support this type of learning will become a focus for the future of my classroom.

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.