Category Archives: B. Synthesis

I find these four foundational technology enhanced learning environments and approaches to be similar in their core principles, but subtly different in their specific application and implementation.  At the root of these TELEs is an emphasis on student-directed learning through inquiry and skill development.  This is a movement away from a teacher-directed model of learning in which the students are the passive receivers of information.  Through these models, the students are the creators and discoverers of knowledge, while the teacher steps into the role of the guide, supporter, and facilitator.  This enables more personalized and individualized learning experiences.  For example, students can create their own personal hypotheses through a T-Gem activity rather than being told what they should be looking for.  They have the opportunity to test their own theories, which would also be similar to the LfU principle that students should use discipline-specific processes when working with concepts.  The value of community is also a common thread, as students learn from their interactions with others online or face-to-face, and educators can connect as well through databases of projects and ideas.  The ultimate goal is for students to engage in authentic and meaningful learning experiences that foster understanding, growth, and further learning.

The role of the technological tool itself can differ somewhat between the approaches.  For example,in the Jasper video series, the videos are not customizable and provide the context for the problem solving.  The story-based design engages interest and sets up the need for new learning, but the manipulation and experimentation occurs outside of the tool.  In Chemland, the technology allows students to visualize and manipulate concepts that would not otherwise be observable in a classroom environment, but the goal of the technology use is to develop theories and experiment with them.  Chemland is both the context and the exploration area for the learning.

Working with technology enhanced learning environments in this module has expanded my understanding of the options that are available to students and to teachers.  My approach to learning through guided and independent inquiry and student-led learning was validated by the goals and approaches of the theories and programs we explored.  These models, however, have provided me with more specific frameworks in which to design and situate learning experiences.  I have also been able to envision new technology tools I can use in my senior mathematics classroom, as well as new ways I can apply the technologies I already use with my students.  For example, when working with statistics, the authentic contexts provided by the scientific modeling programs can provide valuable and real experiences for my students to develop a better understanding of the actual meaning of what they are doing.

An important overall takeaway for teachers integrating technology is that while technology enhances learning experiences and environments in each of these approaches, it does not replace the personal relationships of learning.  TELE is not about putting a student in front of a screen and walking away, but rather, it is about leveraging technology to provide students with better learning experiences that support their learning needs, while also engaging students in collaborative discourse.  While the role of the teacher may change, it does not become diminished.

After exploring these 4 TELE’s, it is clear that they all are built on the premise that learning is constructed through experience – by moving through cycles of dissonance, integration, and resonance.  These shared roots in Constructivism serve to guide each tool/framework toward student-centred, reflective, and collaborative learning. In addition, inquiry has some implicit or explicit role in each approach.  Another theme that emerged was that content is not as meaningful without a context.  Each one of these TELE’s, to varying degrees, aims to make learning relevant and meaningful, contextualizing it and attempting to create (or have students create) problems they are motivated to solve.

Personally, experiencing these TELE’s has been very inspiring to the science teacher in me, and created longing in the math teacher inside me.  The science based TELE’s provide not only theoretical and philosophical frameworks for enriching learning, but also specific ways to reimagine the lab experiment experiences of our students.  The math teacher in me still pines for authentic, inquiry/project-based experiences for my students.  The benefits of some of the frameworks, especially T-GEM, are clear: using models to identify and modify misconceptions (I think of examples like modelling how subtracting a negative is the same as adding a positive or how area models can help explain visually the concept of multiplying fractions) is a powerful strategy.  However, when I try to create a web-based inquiry environment for math, I continually stall.  This is likely a lack of imagination on my part, and I can’t help but feel that my students are the poorer for it.  I am determined to continue searching, creating, tinkering, and collaborating until I can provide the same rich TELE experience for my math students as I now can in science.

References

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

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

Khan, 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.

OK… Perhaps not a “smackdown” but “TELE Comparison” just doesn’t have as much punch. (ba-dum-bum!)

Please click here. 🙂

The past few weeks has been enlightening for me with regards to seeing the range of TELE’s available and the possibilities of their integration.  I summarised my understanding of them in the table below, with particular reflection on how they each used technology as well as the depth of which they used technology.  I felt it was important to consider how much of a learning environment the technology contributes to, as it provides some sense as to what a teacher’s role may become in that environment.  For example, a WISE-based learning environment can become the primary lesson type for a unit, which allows more student independence in their learning.  If this is the case, then the teacher takes on more of a guidance role.  On the other hand, Anchored Instruction, using the Jasper series as an example, only uses technology as a means of content delivery and much of the student work will take place in a more traditional classroom setting.

Technology in the classroom can take many forms, from secondary or even tertiary roles of content delivery to primary roles of create an immersive learning environment.  Looking at T-GEM, WISE, Anchored instruction, and LfU, it is clear that technology’s breadth of abilities translates into an equally broad spectrum of possible uses.  While each method provides its own unique advantages and benefits to learning, I find myself aligning mostly with the T-GEM and LfU approaches, which are both inquiry-based methods that leverage simulations in order to demonstrate phenomena to students.  In both, there are constructivist components that require students to formulate and refine theories as they progress deeper into the concepts.  With science in particular, the inquiry-based approach to understanding the world underlies the scientific method and there is enormous benefit to having students hone this skill through their science career.

The other advantage is that technology provides an alternative to complex and/or expensive lab experiments.  In a traditional classroom, labs and demos are limited by the resources that a teacher can access.  But with technology, simulations can bring the labs and demos to the students in a cost effective and accessible way so that students can experience the science.  These approaches help to expand a teacher’s available tool set.

To show a synthesis of my learning from Module B, I chose to create a Wordle inspired by my most influential readings from each week. I chose to take keywords from the abstracts of these articles: Pellegrino & Brophy (2008), Kim & Hannafin (2011), Edelson (2001), and Khan (2010).

Although some words I was tempted to hyphenate (such as ‘problem solving’) so that they would appear together, I decided to write the words in as they were and see what happened. I chose this particular font because it reminded me of old foundational stone that was used to create many of the world’s oldest buildings. To me, this represents that although the newness of colour and word clouds may seem flashy, the ideas are set in foundations of research, experimentation, and experience. I found it particularly interesting that design was one of the most popular words amongst the four articles.

The impact on my teaching that the exploration of these learning theories is already evident. As I mentioned in an earlier post after exploring Anchored Instruction (Pellegrino & Brophy, 2008), I decided to create some real-world math problems incorporating my grade 3 students to “help them conceptualize environments where problems tend to reoccur and it becomes useful to invent ways to deal with these reoccurances” (p. 283). I try to allow some choice within the problem:

Today’s problem: Payton has $___ to spend at La Lune Candy Shoppe. If he buys 5 _____ for $0.50 each, how much money will he need? How much money will he have left after he buys them? 

In addition to the problem, I provide a photo of the student displayed on the Smart Board that shows them acting out the problem. I allow students to work within their desk pods and have only stepped in to guide the presenting of answers in sentences and to review mathematical concepts (i.e. regrouping with addition and subtraction).

Whereas anchored instruction is all about situating learning in our learner’s environment, scaffolding (Kim & Hannafin, 2011) consists of staging achievable steps that are within reach but just slightly out of the comfort zone that are appropriate for the individual learner. Taking my math problems, it may be necessary for me to intervene and guide more with some students than others. Another idea could be to extend the same problem for advanced students.

Learning-for-Use (Edelson, 2001) integrates the above but focusses on retrieval. This is where my math problems come into play because they are taking math concepts we have explored already this year and calling upon the retrieval of these concepts. By showing students. Designing and interweaving “well-defined, guided investigation activities” (p. 362) throughout my math instruction will help to embed these concepts for many students.

T-GEM (Khan, 2010) is where I feel that I can bring this in altogether. Now that we have done a few weeks of these problems, I am having students generate ideas for their own math problem. Together, we are going to evaluate the problem they would like to create and that it is solvable. Students will be required to create an answer key for their problem and evaluate whether they have a one-step, two-step, or three-step problem. After peer and teacher review, students can modify their problem to make sense for the class and capture a photo, utilizing technology, that showcases their problem and the people in it. Finally, inspired by a project that students described in one of the videos we watched in Module A, this project will be compiled into a class book and sent home for “homework” over spring break. Trust me, grade 3’s get VERY excited about homework at this stage :).

It has been very engaging for myself and my students to see this evolving project emerge in our classroom. I look forward to completing it with my students and appreciate the synthesis of my learning throughout this module that has emerged.

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.

In reviewing the four pedagogical theories, several common threads are noticeable throughout.  First and foremost, all of the theories are rooted in the theory of constructivism – the notion that learning occurs through an active process, not a passive one.  Students construct their own learning through specific, active and repeated experience and activity, not by simply being told the information (Fosnot, 2013).  It is upon reflection of these novel concepts that prior understandings and ideas are consolidated into a single, new understanding.  The role of the educator is primarily as a guide, assisting students along their path through the exploration of these exercise and activities and not as a conveyer of information, dispelling information through lecture and notes.  Through these process, students are able to acquire a deeper understanding, typically, through inquiry.  Another similarity among the four pedagogical techniques is the use of technology to motivate and engage the student.  Motivating students is a commonality amongst the four theories as this single factor helps facilitate and inspire the learning one hopes for in a classroom.

The primary difference amongst the four pedagogies is how they intend to specifically accomplish the overall goal of changing student learning.  While each of the theories are inspired and propelled by constructivism, they each have specific tenants that differentiate among them.   For example, anchored instruction (and Jasper) is situated in the context of a problem-solving dilemma (Cognition and Technology Group, 1992).  In this regard, students are faced with the task of utilizing new theories, concepts, and principles to guide their thinking.  The scaffolded knowledge integration framework (and Web-based Inquiry Science Environment) takes on a more research-based approach in which students complete a technology-based project to access, support, and challenge their ideas (Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J., 2003).  The Learning-for-Use model (and MyWorld) also utilizes an inquiry-based approach with educational software (Edelson, D.C., 2001).  However, this model combines the subject content and its associated processes, for instance, through the use of geographic visualization and data analysis.  Finally, T-GEM (and MyChem) is experimental-based and uses a cyclical pattern of generating, evaluating, and modifying hypotheses to refine student concepts (Khan, S. 2007).

It is evident that technology and web-based activities can be used in a great variety of methods to accomplish effective learning.  Students need to be guided through their learning by the instructor and in doing so, are also provided a multitude of activities and experiences that allow students to challenge their preconceived notions.   Any of the above pedagogical models can be successful in inspiring and engaging students with materials, but the choice of which to use in any lesson will likely depend on both the material being taught and the availability of resources to assist in learning the material.

References

Fosnot, C.T. (2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

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.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 516-538.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-90.

ETEC 533 – Synthesis Forum – Compare and contrast T-GEM and Chemland with Anchored Instruction and Jasper, SKI and WISE, LfU and MyWorld

Chart:

As I just learned about the Cmap program from our T-GEM readings (Khan, 2012) I attempted to use that platform for my synthesis chart. While it worked on some levels, I feel that the overall effect is less cohesive and more scattered looking than I would have liked, which is a good learning experience for me. In the future, I think I would try to use a different platform for a compare/contrast piece (or perhaps I just need to develop my experience and knowledge of the Cmap program further).

Cmap 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.

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.

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

Synthesis Forum Response:

In his book, World Class Learners: Educating Creative and Entrepreneurial Students, Yong Zhao (2012) addresses the fact that “the new survival skills – effective communication, curiosity, and critical-thinking skills – ‘are no longer skills that only the elites in a society must muster; they are essential survival skills for all of us’ (Wagner, 2008, p. xxiii)” (p. 8). Zhao explains that Wagner (2008) “observed that the longer our children are in school, the less curious they become” (p. 10) and references separate data demonstrating a decline in students’ creativity once they enter the school system, and a continued decline in creativity as students get older (Gardner, 1982; Land & Jarman, 1992 as cited by Zhao, p. 10-11).

These are points that I feel are addressed well within the four technology-enhanced learning environments that we have explored in Module B. While I recognize that each learning environment is unique, I feel that many of the overarching intentions and goals were very similar in the way they addressed student learning through inquiry. As Edelson (2001) points out, “traditional educational practice emphasizes achievement-based motivation and assumes that such motivation carries over to all content” (p. 373); however, the four environments presented in Module B instead establish inquiry-based learning environments for students, rather than a more traditional system based on imparting knowledge through repetition and memorization of facts and concepts delivered.
In all cases, the learning environments had the potential to be adapted to support various academic subjects, as well as being accessible for students of varying grade levels, from elementary to college/university level. While T-GEM appeared better suited to a single concept or theory, SKI/WISE, LfU, and Anchored Instruction all seemed to apply well to projects involving multiple concepts or theories, and had the potential to allow educators to incorporate cross-curricular content more easily. Throughout the development of each learning environment, students were encouraged to examine and question data and information, and learning was student-centred, with the teacher there to guide, rather than to impart knowledge. All four learning environments promoted exploration of data and collaboration between peers, as well as inclusion of all students present in the diverse classrooms of today.

There are some key concepts that have stood out to me above the rest, and that will continue to impact my teaching beyond the parameters of this course. In terms of Anchored Instruction, I realized that I have tended to “coddle” my students too much, rather than allowing them to immerse themselves in multi-step problems and work through those problems collaboratively with their peers. I realize now that students must be given the opportunity to explore multi-step and abstract concepts and problems, regardless of the fact that they might find them “too difficult”. As Hasselbring, Lott, & Zydney (2006) point out, students “need to acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable them to figure out math-related problems that they encounter daily at home and in future work situations” (no page number available). Moving forward, I am going to try to allow students to struggle more often in an attempt to help them feel comfortable with the uncomfortable feeling that struggling may create for them. If we consider life, we all struggle at one point or another, so it makes sense that students should be given that ‘real life’ opportunity early on when we are able to guide them as needed within a safe and controlled environment, while at the same time building inquiry skills, along with perseverance and resiliency.

In relation to Learning-for-Use, the emphasis by Edelson (2001) and Bodzin, Anastasio, and Kulo (2014) on making learning environments not just accessible for students but also more applicable to ‘real life’ situations stood out for me. Concepts cannot be taught in a way that students then only associate their learning with the classroom; we must teach to connect students with their lives and experiences outside the classroom so that they will be able to access and recall information they have learned as it applies to various situations within their lives, rather than storing facts through memorization that they may not remember in the future when needed (Edelson, 2001).

While I had never used WISE before, I was very impressed by the potential of the projects posted and of projects that could be created using the WISE learning environment. It reminded me that every subject I teach, especially as I now teach at an elementary level, has the potential to become a cross-curricular project that involves most areas of the curriculum. Science can so easily be combined with aspects of social studies, language arts, physical education, and art. I am still working to build more cross-curricular units to avoid the traditional single-subject teaching approach, and I feel that the incorporation of WISE projects could help me both with this transition, as well as increasing engagement and motivation in my classroom through the introduction of a technology-based learning environment.

Finally, in the T-GEM learning environment, the concept of promoting a cyclical pattern of inquiry and learning discussed by Khan (2007; 2010) was what impacted my thinking the most. Instead of simply providing students with the information they will need to know, the T-GEM model allows students to collaboratively generate ideas (perhaps correct, perhaps incorrect), and then to interactively create hypotheses as they examine and evaluate data, then re-examine and modify relationships between data and ideas/hypotheses generated on a given concept. While the T-GEM examples examined by Khan were based in a post-secondary setting, my own exploration was for a grade 4 science concept, showing the adaptability of the T-GEM model.

I find that I still stop short of creating a truly inquiry-based learning environment in my classroom because I continually worry about time constraints. However, by integrating or even combining the learning environments explored in Module B, I believe I will ultimately be able to cover more concepts (by integrating content from across the curriculum into various tasks) while at the same time creating a student-centred, inquiry-based learning environment in my classroom. Ultimately, what appealed most to me about these four learning environments was the way they all created inquiry-based, technology-enhanced learning environments that made learning memorable by connecting student learning inside the classroom to ‘real life’ experiences and issues outside the classroom. In the words of George Veletsianos, “what is the value of a learning activity if it’s not memorable?” (Veletsianos, 2011, p. 43).

Response 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

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2006). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Washington, DC: CITEd, Center for Implementing Technology in Education (www.cited.org). Retrieved from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/6291/

Khan, S. (2012). A Hidden GEM: A pedagogical approach to using technology to teach global warming. The Science Teacher, 79(8), 59-62.

Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing opportunities for transformation with emerging technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46. Retrieved from http://www.veletsianos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/designing-opportunities-transformation-emerging-technologies.pdf

Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

In module B we explored four foundational technology-enhanced learning environments (TELE). These were Anchored or Situated Instruction featuring the Jasper Series, Web Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) and Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) using the science and math based WISE projects available on their website, Learning For Use (LFU) model with MyWorld GIS and ARCGIS mapping systems, and Technology – Generate, Evaluate, Modify (T-GEM) demonstrated with Chemland.

The advantage of TELEs is the affordance to provide creative technology integration that supports effective pedagogy in the science and mathematics classroom. Technology proficiency for students and the integration of technology into the classroom is critical for today’s 21^st century learners. However, in order to maximize positive results, the pedagogical approach of technology should be encouraging students to make the activity and the content personally meaningful (Barab, 2000), which these four foundational learning environments accomplish.

This synthesis compares and contrasts the four TELEs explored throughout this module in different ways.  First I created a graphic web using Inspiration, in order to organize my ideas and understanding into categories. This allowed me to synthesize the roles and affordances of each TELE. The second comparison took the form of a Venn diagram allowing me to consolidate the similarities and differences between the four TELEs. These diagrams are included below (follow the link for readable copies).

Technology Enhanced Learning Experience pictures

The Jasper Series was based on providing a real life context for solving mathematical challenges for students. It allows for a much more student centred approach to using mathematics than traditional text book lessons. This series also addresses the age old question of “why do we have to learn this?” as the math is embedded in the stories and within the challenge. This method promotes a method of learning which is rooted in reality and anchors the concepts to problem, providing students with a real purpose to understanding the math rather than just learning it out of context and by rote. The video itself is not customizable, however I think the challenges could be changed or modified in different ways to suit the information provided in the video.
(I tried out the Rescue at Boone Meadow video with my class of grade 7 students and found they were engaged in the story (context) and were quick to figure out what mathematical information was required in order for them to try to solve the problem. None of them whined about it being too hard or too much for them).

WISE and SKI – was a specific platform providing a wide range of topics that made science accessible to students and made thinking visible through simulations and models. It allows for collaboration as well as a student paced model as they can work through the project at their own pace or one suggested by the teacher. Teachers can modify the projects to fit their own classroom expectations. Although there is a wide variety of projects available on WISE, they are all specific in nature and generally address a specific scientific concept.

LFU – MyWorld GIS – is a framework which allows for many constructivist principles, such as learning through constructing and modifying existing knowledge, learning is initiated by the learner therefore the learner is engaged in order to build upon pre-existing knowledge and understanding. This platform is easily modified by the student or the teacher just by choosing different data sets with which to manipulate the maps. In Learning for Use platforms, the use is quite specific in that the data here is specifically around maps, mapping, and geographical information. These premises could be integrated into other areas of curriculum, but still with a specific purpose.

T-GEM – Chemland is a specific platform aimed at secondary or post-secondary students. The ideas are sophisticated and although the students can manipulate the simulations to some degree, they are focused on one aspect of the concept. Teachers cannot modify the simulations to suit the conditions in their own classrooms. The T-GEM framework is easily adaptable to other types of simulations where students can manipulate the data, evaluate, and modify their understanding as more information is acquired.

Reflection

As a middle school teacher in an elementary school setting, I found some of these platforms intriguing and suitable for use with my students, and others I found way too difficult for them to manage without frustration, or the concepts were too advanced for the curriculum. However, all of them followed the tenets of constructivism and problem solving. These approaches such as anchored instruction, problem solving, scaffolding, knowledge construction, and evaluative reasoning, should not be limited to just mathematics and science, but could be applied to all areas of the curriculum. One of the greatest affordances of the TELE is the power of visualization and being able to add a visual image, model, or simulation to the students learning experience.

Two key concepts in my evaluation are student misconceptions and constructing new knowledge. Misconceptions are identified, created or dispelled by constructing new knowledge and modifying thinking to adjust for the new understanding. With guidance from the teacher, along with built in reflections in the technology, misconceptions can be corrected or modified. This is an important step in order to make sure that misconceptions are not perpetuated or new ones created. I now have a much greater awareness of how students create misconceptions, and how to find efficient, meaningful ways to dispel these misconceptions.

The incorporation of TELE is something all teachers can benefit from, particularly those in math and science disciplines. Pedagogy matters when it comes to any instructional tool and why the implementation of any TELE should be rooted in effective teaching strategies and not just something used without purpose. My pedagogical approach and purpose for using technology is the most important factor when it comes to choosing a platform to use with my students. Teachers must use technology with intention and purpose, the ability to modify some of the TELEs speaks to this, whereas others would need to be chosen carefully to make sure they fit the parameters and meet the needs of the lesson and the students. Although I strive to make this a priority in my own teaching, I realize that there is so much more out there than I can integrate to make my students learning environment much richer.

Anne