Category Archives: B. Synthesis

I created this 3D space to display my thoughts, use your mouse to look around, here. Looking back at our posts through this session I have a better understanding of how each theory uses technology to place the role of the teacher into that of designer and the student into knowledge creator.  All theories are underpinned by the idea that we as teachers are at a point of major change where our role is becoming vastly different than it traditionally has been. Technology has changed the way information is exchanged and knowledge is gained.  We now have the tools to give our students power over their own learning, to help guide them in a direction that is meaningful and authentic to their lived experiences.

Overall LfU is an excellent theory that can be applied across all other theories as it’s step process is a well designed framework for designing lessons.

First in LfU looking at fostering motivation and creating demand  “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, D.C. 2001) This is where the WISE platform is an excellent tool for the delivery of online lessons, as it promotes autonomous discovery and structured guidance in the zone of proximal development. As Linn, Clark & Slotta (2003) state “if steps are too precise, resembling a recipe, then students will fail to engage in inquiry. If steps are too broad, then students will flounder and become distracted.” Digital simulations and models embedded in the WISE framework can increase intrinsic motivation and help to level the playing field with students who learn in modalities outside traditional methods.

Secondly in the LFU framework the program itself must elicit curiosity. This is where Anchored Instruction can be applied  “Video based presentation-moving images, access poor readers or ESL, dynamic images help students imagine the problem”(Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt 1992b).  As I stated “While the Jasper project seems dated by our present standards the basic premise that delivering knowledge to students and promoting critical thinking skills does not need to be a text based delivery system is innovative.  Visual representation of problems, especially in a dynamic moving form is a multimodal approach that will reach a much broader spectrum in the class.” VR is the next step in this process and is now accessible through Google Cardboard and creation tools like CoSpaces.

Thirdly Collaboration or fostering knowledge construction is two process under the LfU model “(a)observation through first hand experience, and (b) reception through communication with others”(Edelson, D.C. 2001). This also fits in with Anchored Instruction as that theory states  “Our findings indicate that, in the absence of instruction, some students will interact with their peers in ways that promote exploration of the problem space and its solution.”(Vye, Goldman,Voss,.; Hmelo, Williams, 1997) plays a key role in anchored instruction as well as constructivism.  As does intrinsic motivation through peer interaction “In work with teachers we consistently find that the opportunity to teach their peers is highly motivating and develops a strong learning community among the teachers.”(Biswas, Schwartz & Bransford 2001).

The final two phases are reflection and application.  This is where I believe the idea of Evaluate and Modify in T-GEM can be applied.  Students can look at what they have created and based on peer and self evaluation can decide on a path that will lead to modification and improvement on their previous design. Encouraging metacognition and self evaluation are key ingredients to creating self regulated learners. This leads to one of the key ideas in Anchored instruction that must be mentioned, and that is interdisciplinary inquiry learning. Looking back at what I stated “To develop a student’s curiosity about the world around us core subjects should not be taught in isolation. Rather they need to be weaved and combined to present the students with the rich tapestry that real world situations present in everyday life.”  I think as whole subject integration is a skill as teachers we should all be striving for as it is only inside our classroom walls that subjects sit in isolation.  Students experiences in their everyday lives do not reflect the rigid curriculum separation that we practice in our classrooms.

References

Biswas, G. Schwartz, D. Bransford, J. & The Teachable Agent Group at Vanderbilt (TAG-V) (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. In K.D. Forbus and P.J. Feltovich (Eds.)Smart Machines in Education: The Coming Revolution in Education Technology. AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo, Park, CA. [Retrieved October 22, 2012

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.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

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

James D. Slotta and Marcia C. Linn. 2009. WISE Science: Web-Based Inquiry in the Classroom. Teachers College Press, New York, NY, USA

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Vye, Nancy J.; Goldman, Susan R.; Voss, James F.; Hmelo, Cindy; Williams, Susan (1997). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads

Throughout Module B and the exploration of the Technology Based Learning Experiences I have come to understand that design framework requires a particular awareness not only of the desired outcome for student learning but for teachers as well. Each of the design frameworks explored focused on the role of the student in the learning process as well as the role of the teacher in the teaching design, as one cannot occur without the other. When I reflect upon my own teaching style, I often look to see how the learning engagements I have chosen provide opportunities for students to become, remain, and sustain motivation and curiosity.

Within the IB framework of inquiry based learning, I saw many parallels with the TELEs explored, drawing upon collaboration, inquiry based projects, and student centred learning. Anchored Instruction, provides students with opportunities to explore videos that are exciting, challenging, and interesting. Students in my own classroom would love the various challenges presented. Benefits of this design framework provide a differentiated approach where students of all abilities can find success, but more importantly can personally challenge themselves to excel through problem solving and critical thinking. Within my math and science classes, I would like to see a partnership between senior grades and intermediate classes creating videos together to be used in future classes (a possibility in a K-12 school). Real-world videos, as an example of visible thinking routines, leaves an everlasting memory for students to access this knowledge construction in the future.

The WISE framework also drew parallels with the IB inquiry based model of instruction. By providing opportunities for students to express their prior knowledge, myself as a teacher need to ensure that these learning engagements are not merely for show, but that students take time to complete, and that the teacher returns to this activity for reflection. Students learn best when they review what they have done, even if it is a KWL chart! Students construction of understanding and meaning was very much possible through the WISE project, something I would consider integrating into my own classes in science in the future. I especially found the use of technology critical for the action component in the inquiry cycle, as students can take meaningful action based on what others have done, and what motivates them.

The Learning for Understanding design framework provides students an opportunity to construct meaning along the way. This framework was one of my favourite as it took into account the fact that students learn best when they can communicate and collaborate with peers and teachers. When students are motivated and encouraged to take-risks in their learning by making predictions and thinking critically the best learning occurs. Again, this model supports the importance of teaching and learning from both the student and teacher perspective. In my own science and math classes I would continue to consider using technology that allows for opportunities of exploration as well as interaction with experts.

Finally, the T-Gem model also fits nicely with the IB model of inquiry based learning. Here both the role of the student and teacher are critical for the success of student understanding. Again, students play an active role in their journey towards understanding, and can many times offer insight for the teacher. In my own science classes I would continue to design learning engagements that involve this cycle of generate, evaluate and modify.

Reviewing each TELE allowed me to synthesize my own journey throughout this module by providing me with an opportunity to reflect upon my original knowledge, areas I wondered about, and now what I have learned throughout the process. This simple KWL learning engagement allowed me to meaningfully construct knowledge while reviewing what I had explored. Therefore, it is critical that teachers design learning opportunities that are motivating and engaging for their students. In today’s classroom, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity, and communication are the cornerstone of 21st century learning and very possible when teachers find ways to integrate technology in meaningful ways.

Included is my visual synthesis of each TELE explored.

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.

Hattie, H. & Timperly, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2005). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development.

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

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
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.

Kose, Sacit. Diagnosing Student Misconceptions: Using Drawings as a Research Method. World Applied Sciences Journal 3 (2): 283-293, 2008

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

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.

Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69

Williams, M. Linn, M.C. Ammon, P. & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.

Overall, the four TELEs that we’ve explored over the past several weeks have highlighted aspects of my own practice that could be deepened and strengthened to enhance student learning experiences. While some of my own pedagogical beliefs are very similar in nature to the foundational principles espoused by these technology-enhanced learning environments, I envision my learnings in this course as expanding my own repertoire of strategies, tools and approaches to student learning in Math and Science. If we design tasks and opportunities that are structured in a format that integrates appropriate levels of challenge within a reasonable time frame, our students are afforded opportunities to participate in rich learning experiences that significantly deepen scientific and mathematical concepts and content. The significance of developing learning experiences that are personally meaningful and engaging will serve to further promote the application of knowledge and skills beyond the context of the specific learning task, and enhance the importance of life long skills for learning.

Our students construct their skills, knowledge and perspectives according to the variety of different levels of exposure to learning experiences and opportunities that they’ve encountered through school and in their everyday lives. As Edelson (2001) notes, every individual’s knowledge structures reflect their own unique experiences, which in turn plays a crucial role in their learning. Perspectives on real world learning should allow for students to start from their own context and preconceptions, and then move into new areas of learning that bridge gaps in their understanding and ultimately expand on their worldview. As part of their practice and engagement in Math and Science, students should be repeatedly returning to their own, original ideas in order to continually revise and modify them. Through the implementation of technology enhanced learning environments, students will be afforded opportunities to apply knowledge and skills beyond the confines of a lecture, a textbook, or a classroom ultimately makes the content more motivating, engaging and relevant over the long term. As a fundamental component of TELEs, student knowledge and understanding must be incrementally constructed from experience and communication, as it cannot be transmitted directly from one individual to another.

I’ve created a visual that offers a summary and synthesis of some of the key concepts and ideas from the four foundational TELEs that we’ve explored over the past few weeks: TELE Takeaways

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.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

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.

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.

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

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Comparison and Contrast
I found that covering Anchored Instruction, SKI, LfU, and T-GEM in such a short time had them pretty jumbled in my head, so this was a great chance to sort things out!  I conducted a review by re-reading the main literature surrounding the different frameworks, as well as reviewing our posts.  It is interesting to note that the theories span from 1992-2007.  In the context of changing technology, I think this is relevant.  In comparing the four theoretical frameworks I found commonalities and stand-out features.

Commonalities
All of the approaches we studied are rooted in constructivism, inquiry, and collaboration.  I would probably describe this to as a parent as “hands-on learning in groups” and I’m all in favour!  I have four kids in the school system and I can honestly say that this appears to be how things are done in K-7 here in BC for the most part; there is a lot of social learning and project-based learning.  The 8-12 years, and higher education are a different story and don’t really fully adopt any of these features.  Despite the “flatness” of knowledge that tech offers, my own high school remains highly prescriptive, fragmented, and individual at both the staff and student level.  The movement to a more student-centered mantra is messy and filled with uncertainty.  What are they learning?  What if it isn’t the same thing?  How do I fairly assess students who are working in groups on differentiated projects?  For my money, this revolution can and will only start with encouragement and pro-D investment at the teacher level.

Stand-out Features (for me)
1)  The features of “Anchored Instruction” seem flow from their focus on authentic problem solving.  I found the Jasper Series a bit dated, but this could easily be mapped onto more modern tools or an entirely different delivery mode.  I’m not sure that the ideas need to rest on a video series at all.  In my own classes I have found that building real structures like greenhouses, and wind turbines are the authentic tie in to content that student find engaging.  We experience a lot of failure in tying together the procedural and declarative, but we are making progress.

2)  The standout feature of “SKI” for me is the focus on misconceptions.  This was my least favorite approach, because it seems to presuppose that something worthwhile is being studied in the first place.  Dealing with misconceptions is really important, but from my view of how learning works in the classroom, motivation to learn must occur first.  I found that most of what might be accomplish in SKI is also covered incidentally by any theory of learning that is constructivist, or iterative.

3)  I really like the “LfU” model’s focus on motivation, especially this quote:

“The problem with these traditional approaches is not that they attempt to communicate knowledge instead of giving students opportunity to construct it thought direct experiences, but that the  transmission approach does not acknowledge the importance of the motivation and refinements stages of learning and relies too strongly on communication to support knowledge construction.”  (Edelson, 2000, p.  378)

This framework is the strongest fit with my own experiences in teaching science and mathematics. Our STEM team at Templeton have begun asking a lot more questions about the “lifeworlds” of students and how they engage with school.  This goes beyond “real world” and requires looking at what is relevant to students.  No easy feat and I’m not yet sure how to do it.  Mostly we have been collecting surveys and reflecting on the choices students make when they are allowed to choose their own “capstone” project topics.

4)  The stand-out feature of “T-GEM” for me was the focus on data driven models.  I really like how the approach is inquiry based, and iterative.  This “accretion” or refinement method is a great way to expose and resolve misconceptions or contradictions.  The only weakness is the extreme level of scaffolding required.  The literature stresses “experienced teacher” so many times that I wonder if it is perhaps not the best way to coax teachers into a more “student centered” learning stratagem.  I personally find that time is the scarcest of resources.  This model could be a disaster in our current “all go all the time” K-12 system.

The table below shows a review of the papers and posts, based on the terms and explicit focus given for each framework.  I used this to organize my synthesis:

References:

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

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

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

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

Hi Everyone,

I have compiled my synthesis of the four main TELE’s using a mind map program called Venngage. Unfortunately, unless I was to upgrade to Premium I cannot add the image to this feed so if you could please follow the link, it’ll bring you to my work.

During this module we examined four different components of TELE’s; Anchored Instruction, WISE/SKI, T-GEM & LFU’s. TELE’s, Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, provide students with access to creative technologies that showcase new ways of learning information. I personally have learned a great deal and am excited to continue my own personal learning journey by adding to this diagram as I continue to come across different TELE’s.

My take home point to this synthesis of TELE’s is that while there are many different technologically enhanced learning environments that can assist in the construction of knowledge for students, it is important as educators to continue to remember that what we choose as a means of presentation must be meaningful at its core. TELE’s must be purposefully implemented and used for a specific reason and not just for the fact that it is there. With many TELE’s that we have come across in this module, they can overcomplicated student’s understandings of a topic if they are too complex for the age group. As such, educators must be cognizant of this and carefully pick which TELE’s to make use of and which to avoid until the right time/class.

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). 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, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403-417.

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.

T-GEM framework incorporates Technology into Generate, Evaluate and Modify cycles, paralleling scientific inquiry. Authentic science involves engaging learners with model-based inquiry to make sense of observations and find patterns in information. Learners construct mental representations, predicting before exploring with computer simulations, developing abductive reasoning (Khan, 2007) where constructed hypotheses from new concepts inform later hypotheses. Students harboring alternative conceptions might be addressed through visual representations and interactive media for enriched models. Being able to for example visualize molecular levels in Chemistry highlight macroscopic properties like ductility and malleability resulting from microscopic interactions. T-GEM uses extreme cases, analogy, surprise, discrepant information, confirmation strategies, problem-solving, comparisons and incremental values for learner-centred instruction (Khan, 2007). Researchers introduced merely enough background to understand what data represents, actually discouraging students from reading texts beforehand. Students generate rules explaining aloud, using spontaneous analogies to explain relationships, making comparisons to expand scope, coordinating theoretical models with empirical consistency. Discrepant information asks students to work back from the data, postulating hidden causal factors drawing conclusions from puzzling data. Students iteratively explore logical and conceptual modification to generate multiple relationships before identifying extreme cases. By not correcting initial models, anomalies enable GEM cycles to successively refine understanding to sustain inquiry. New GEM cycles begin whenever (sub)topics are changed, generating hypothesis wondering what would happen if. Cognitive models serve as personal representations of (un)observable phenomena, where T-GEM enables teacher-student-computer interactions, making explicit connections to prevent overload during experimentation.

Similar to WISE embedding inquiry maps to change representations, T-GEM fosters asynchronous dialogue, manipulating simulations rapidly testing ideas as independent tutors. There are both affordances and limitations in using computers to teach science regarding virtual presence, weighing social context and learning intent with empirical evidence. Through predicting-observing-explaining, teacher roles shift towards poser, provider, guide, assessor, actor, lecturer, modeler and helper (Khan 2010). T-GEM provides digital representation bounding case temporally and spatially, not intended to establish generalizable claims but only comparability and translatability. Jasper videos likewise employ anchored instruction present learning in authentic contexts. Not revealing problems until the end of video clips ask students to work together determining what information is pertinent and prioritizing optimal solutions rather than single correct answers. Although WISE provides intuitive authoring functionality, educators sacrifice considerable upfront investment to setup. Moreover students would readily need computer access to work through modules at their own pace, making individual assessment challenging. MyWorld is limited to examining geographical patterns, suited for curriculum involving for example global precipitation, population densities and energy transfer. While various layers can be superimposed on maps comparing times easily creating difference maps, traditionally content is presented as foundational concepts before real world application. For instance, we cover acid precipitation in discussing oxide reactions and buffers, only afterwards extending conversations to global issues. Even Chemland suite is not intended to replace laboratories, but provide environments to analyze data, find trends, push variables to generate relationships. Simulations visually draw attention to contrasts verifying predictions exploring data through graphical trends.

Technology-enhanced inquiry explores plausibility of ideas, explaining abnormal data based on empirical consistency and theoretical models. Simulations enable learner-directed exploration and control, choosing things to explore spontaneously reselecting variables. Teachers provide rough definitions, emphasizing that individual experimenters do tons of work to get a few little data points, modelling scientific community exploration. Technology should be used to augment not replace, making unobservable processes more explicit, evaluating consistency of what if relationships. Designing technology-enhanced learning environments provide alternatives to redirect already present resources to enhance understanding. Multiple simulations from Chemland suite overlap with school curriculum, potentially supplementing lectures prompting self-discovery. Simulations can be introduced during lectures to visualize paper phenomena, engaging learners in making visible the invisible. Simulations can also enable authentic inquiry with embedded scaffolding worked into design.

References

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

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

TELE Synthesis

   Prior to this module, TELEs were not something I was familiar with…and I have been missing out!  All Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELEs) focus on student-centered learning through enrichment and learning by doing. Students are not the passive recipients of information and each of these TELEs aims to motivate students. Technology itself can be motivating, however, these experiences allow students to construct and engage with curriculum material in new and more authentic ways rather than being a “consumer” of technology or via traditional pen and paper. These TELEs are all based on a constructivist theory of learning, valuing the building and integration of new concepts on previous knowledge, and collaborating with others to construct meaning. Utilizing real-life scenarios creates a natural “buy-in” for students – they are motivated and are able to “see” the context of these problems. Creating our own “Jasper Series” of math/science videos depicting “real-life” situations is something I would like to pursue next year with a group of teachers (and students) at my school. The individualized nature of the videos (which would also connecting to ADST – Digital Media) would engage our middle school students and provide cross-curricular opportunities (Language Arts, Math, possibly science or SS depending on the storyline). There are so many possibilities. I am curious to see how TELEs support our struggling math and/or science students. Have they (TELEs’ visuals, hands-on, scaffolding, etc) been successful in the past? What about our students who lack motivation? This is something I would like to further investigate.

   Overall, I can see benefits of using each of these platforms in the science and/or math classroom. Implementation of these TELEs would depend on a number of factors including teacher comfort (learning the technology, mindshift in thinking about knowledge acquisition), time (there is never enough, using TELEs instead of something else, time to learn these platforms), and the physical technology available (sharing the limited resources in the school). These platforms would provide opportunities for students to use technology to visually represent traditionally abstract concepts, and to manipulate data that may not normally be accessible in a science or math classroom. What an exciting time to be a student! The role of the teacher is one of guide/facilitator as opposed to “keeper of all knowledge”. However, allowing students to construct their knowledge as opposed to to just giving them the information is something that will be a challenge for some educators. In all TELEs, I believe that teachers need to create the technology enhanced learning “experience” with their students in mind. As I do not have my own classroom next year, my role will be to support teachers as they continue to implement inquiry learning in their classrooms. I am excited to bring my new knowledge of TELEs (even their existence!) to add to our teachers’ toolkit and I look forward to seeing what new learning opportunities and experiences we can create for our students in math/science.

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). 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.

Williams, M. & Linn, M. C.(2002) WISE Inquiry in Fifth Grade Biology. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 415-436.

As I reflect on the four foundational technology-enhanced learning environments (TELE) that we’ve looked at over the past few weeks, I notice a number of similarities in the foundational focus of each of them, while also noting subtle differences in their application, teaching methods and technology integration.

For a pdf version of the tele comparison table

Inquiry has been a contributing factor throughout my career as a teacher, and continues to be emphasized in all of these TELE’s, as they highlight the importance of inquiry in the construction of student knowledge. As we saw with the video “A Private Universe” early on, just like Heather, many students struggle with misconceptions towards scientific concepts that are not relevant to their daily lives or are inaccessible due to the unobservability of the phenomenon. Using a process of inquiry, student-driven learning supported by teacher scaffolding, and technology integration, students can overcome misconceptions and develop stronger scientific engagement and understanding.

In examining each of the TELE’s, I have gained a greater awareness of the diverse ways in which educators can support students’ conceptual understandings and begin to construct accurate representations in their minds. Technology plays a huge factor in making science accessible, whether it is through the Jasper series problem sets, simulations, or data sets using My World GIS or Google Earth. However, using technology and applying a framework to support learning around a technology are quite different. I have learned that proper integration comes with an intention. Students can’t properly learn to manipulate data in Chemland without a solid understanding of mass or temperature in the Heat Transfer Between Substances example. There must be a balance of scaffolding and open exploration, where teachers help guide students in what they are meant to observe or skills they are focusing on developing, while allowing them to explore the extremes of problems and phenomena.

Beginning this unit, we were asked to think about what we pictured as our Ideal TELE. Having explored the four foundational TELE’s, there are many attributes of each that I would apply to my own teaching practices, with the goal of students becoming lifelong learners. The anchored instruction approach presents realistic problem scenarios to create independent thinkers (Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992; Shyu, H., 2000) that I would like to make accessible to my students through video-based problems such as the Jasper Series or Encore’s Vacation (Shyu, H., 2000). I also liked the integrated communication aspects of WISE that allow students to engage in critique of other students’ work to better build their own understandings. Using visual “dynamic, runnable models” to examine causal and temporal processes of WISE (Gobert, J et al., 2002) would further allow me to help students make their thinking visible, not only to myself, but to themselves. This would contribute to the process of self-reflection of whether students are constructing and refining their mental models accurately. Finally, my ideal TELE would combine the aspects the T-GEM model and LfU framework, as I see many similarities between the two already. To best support relationship generation, evaluation and modification, I would include a motivation by having students experience curiosity and demand through their knowledge gap; construct knowledge through direct observation and evaluate their knowledge with peers; finally applying and reflecting on their understanding, all the while I would be supporting their efforts through guided questioning.

Although it seems like a bit of a daunting task, combining all that we have learned through the TELE’s, the take-away for me is that educators should help guide students’ construction of knowledge through meaningful, relevant and applicable scenarios, where technology helps to enhance the learning of STEM with an intention and a reinforcement of connections that students refine through sustained scientific engagement.

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.

Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.

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

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Shyu, H. Y. C. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.

Dear class,

I have read each of your syntheses and thought provoking replies to posts, realizations, and strategies to take forward into your teaching as discussed with your peers. In them, you undertook a comparative analysis of the four different TELEs of Module B, while folding in additional scholarship (c.f. from the International Journal of Science education, Computers and Education, edited books on GIS and AI, Educational Researcher) and making extensions to your personal practice in lessons that you have already tried out or plan to teach.

Bolded themes, color-coded cells and connectors found in integrated mind maps (Gloria), a Venn diagram (Anne, Josh), and collaborative c-Map (Mary) and a flowchart (Tyler). Tables were created with features; for several examples, check out comparisons on removal of scaffolding and identification of misconceptions (Michelle), scientific processes/mode of operation in the classroom (Vibhu), underlying theories of education (Haneefa), depth of tech integration (Lawrence), or specific affordances of the technology (Stephanie) to name a few. Imagistic representations also were constructed, including a key word search and infographic with symbols (Catherine), a wordle of abstracts in papers (see the size of particular words from Allison) and the Sway presentation by Dana (with images and comparative categories based on learning and knowledge). Collective, the depictionslent themselves very well to facilitating visual comparisons and interconnections among instructional approaches and teaching strategies for the class. Thank you for contributing these sound comparisons that could be used as a guide for the future on pedagogy.

A number of posts identified the constructivist nature of the pedagogies put forth in this Module (c.f. Anne, Darren, Josh), and indeed, they all stem from this epistemological standpoint. In this sense, the frameworks are a departure from pedagogies reflecting behaviourism (and content driven drill software) or technocentrism (and the limitations of AI and many CAI models) or pure discovery models (c.f Jerome Bruner by contrast with Ross Driver’s guided discovery). Our discussions came to life when specific math or science topics, learner preconceptions and misconceptions, and possible activities with students were raised.

There are almost few digital technologies that can (and some would argue should) tutor the student independently on math and science concepts or inquiry. At the same time there are few guidelines or approaches to teaching math or science with technology. The four Module B TELEs, as many of your posts suggest, each in their own way provide more specified guidance for teachers and multi-step methods for teaching science and math with (or without) technology than the common terms such as facilitate and guide on the side would suggest.

It was excellent to hear how several posts reflected on this by raising the role of the teacher as being integral to the design of the entire learning experience. Some of you extended this by highlighting the importance of the level of guidance enacted by the teacher. Others pointed to a teacher role in designing and enhancing collaborative experiences as a means to supporting the goals of the lesson. Jessica provided us with a series of circular representations and interconnections from the lens of a teacher’s TPCK that could be developed through the use of these TELEs.

Untethered from the software itself, the customizability of the TELE stretched beyond interfaces for many of you in your previous entries, to think about other digital technologies (or selecting no digital technology in some phases), school resources, and a spectrum of roles for students. Our pedagogical frameworks in this Module offer comparatively rare evidence-based models to integrate a variety of digital technologies with teaching methods and strategies applicable to STEM. It was enlightening to read the multiple ways such pedagogical frameworks could inform the k-16 landscape of teaching and learning contexts herein, Samia

Following is a collection of visual syntheses comparing and contrasting T-GEM/Chemland with the following technology-enhanced learning environments: Learning for Use (LfU)/My World, Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI)/WISE, and Anchored Instruction/Jasper. The visual syntheses contain a focus on TPCK and learner activity with the guiding TELE being T-GEM/Chemland, and all other TELEs being compared and contrasted through alignment with the T-GEM/Chemland framework.

Each one of these TELEs is developed on inquiry instruction and learning, with T-GEM/Chemland consisting of specifically model-based inquiry. Each one of these TELEs promotes a community of inquiry with purposeful teacher-student and student-student interactions. To emphasize the non-linear processes of inquiry, each visual synthesis is designed in a circular format.

Unique to T-GEM is the cyclical progress that the learner takes moving through the steps of the learning theory. Arrows are placed in each TELE’s visual representation to elicit the learner’s movement in comparison to the T-GEM’s model.

As a general mathematics and science teacher for elementary grade levels, the process of exploring, analyzing and synthesizing  the four foundational TELEs presented in this course has been transformational in my development of TPCK. Initially, the importance of CK (Schulman, 1986), and my self-diagnosed lack of CK, was convicting as I tend towards growing in pedagogical ideas and creative ways of implementing them. To further this conviction, my understanding of inquiry processes and the intricate role that the teacher facilitates in conducting a community of inquiry began to become clearer throughout the readings and discussions of Module B. Skillful inquiry instruction requires a facilitator who is saturated in CK, being equipped to prepare, respond, question, prompt, and guide with carefully considered PK. At this time, I am challenged as an educator to begin with one brave adventure in mathematics using an anchored instructional approach, and another brave lesson in physical science using a T-GEM approach. I am certain that I will be generating, evaluating and modifying all along the way.  

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, (40), 1, pp.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, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Linn, M. C., Clark, D. and Slotta, J. D. (2003), WISE design for knowledge integration . Sci. Ed., 87: 517–538. doi:10.1002/sce.10086

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.