Category Archives: B. Synthesis

* 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.

Entering this module, I really did not have any formal knowledge about TELEs. I have definitely acquired tools that I can see myself applying in my future class.  I especially liked the WISE learning platform, because it easy to use as well as easy to edit.  Many sites that I come across are not ELL friendly and I have to do significant modifications to use them in my classes, WISE presented itself as straightforward and student friendly all while getting the necessary information across to students.  I won’t lie there are many times as a science teacher I am overwhelmed; the balance between covering outcomes and ensuring technology is introduced in class is always a challenging one.  Nevertheless, I am making it my responsibility to increase my use of technology enhanced learning environments in my classroom.  I really do believe that these environments allow students to enhance their thinking and take their science knowledge to another level.  Allowing students to make mistakes, reflect, and remodel their thinking on whatever topics are covered, allows students to grow in their learning.  I think as a teacher that we are rushing so much to cover and finish our material that we do not allow enough time for students to reflect on their learning and make the necessary changes to achieve maximum success.  Very interesting module, thank you.

The following is an analysis of the four learning environments that aid in using technology to teach math and science.  The analysis consists of similarities and differences between Anchored Instruction, WISE, LfU, and T-GEM.

As a direct result of analysis of these four learning models, important lessons have emerged.  The presence of math and science inquiry is vital in the classroom for students to truly understand and appreciate the ways experts and professionals essentially do math or do science.  These learning models are exemplary in guiding teachers to conduct projects in their classrooms that follow the scientific process and at the same time teach content as well.  I have learned through this analysis that content and the scientific process can be taught simultaneously instead of compartmentalizing them as instruction days versus lab days.

Synthesis of the Four Learning Environments Explored- table

The link provided (table) is the synthesis that I’ve created to compare and contrast the four learning environments. I look forward to any discussions that arise from this table, as I was feeling a bit unsure about a few of my presumptions after having explored each one. I did find MANY overlapping ideas/tenets and I also feel that as these learning environments change based on upgrades, new understandings and student/educator needs that more overlap is inevitable. I do think that each technology supported environment provides its own “positives” depending on the style of the educator, the needs of the students, the age of the students and access to technology. In addition, timelines must be considered and I believe each of these requires more time to allow students to find relationships, deepen their understandings, communicate with each other and reflect on their learnings, and even more time if they are to apply these understandings in real-world contexts. That being said it cannot be understated that these environments provide deep, rich understandings.  In addition, I would like to add that supporting and educating teachers to use these valuable resources should be a goal so that science/math education can continue to support deep, engaging and meaningful learning for students.

Since I am an elementary educator I would also liike to put forth that these should be used in the early grades so that students can begin to consolodate their scientific understandings before “the damage is done”, so to speak. What I mean is that it seems that many misconceptions re: science concepts are formed in early learning and providing for engaging science problem solving and investigations that address these misconceptions would go a long way in hopefully curbing this trend. That being said, just using “technology” to teach scienc e is not a panacea, as there is much misinformation represented in a variety of science vidoes, interactive games, etc. online that is purposely “dumbed down” to be accessible to younger students. In addition, the ideas about technology integration held by the educator cannot be overlooked, as these understandings can colour how the technology is implemented. We need to be cognizant of this as educators and work towards adapting sound technologically enhanced learning environments into our early elementary classrooms.

Visual Compare and Contrast of four environments on learning goals and theory: https://www.mindmeister.com/851561193/foundational-technology-enhanced-learning-environments

My concept map of the four technology-enhanced learning environments, I have noticed that many ideas of the different environments overlapped. As can be seen, connections are made between some related concepts and ideas. I realize that there are more connections to be made, which is why I chose a concept map so that I can continuously add more connections in the future. After exploring these four design of technology-enhanced learning environments, it has inspired me with a diversity of ways of integrating learning in the math and sciences for my students. In particular, I have learned that the skills students acquire in the learning process are more important than the content. Some of these skills include inquiring, reflecting, creating, critiquing, problem solving, collaborating, evaluating, generating, among others. For instance, teaching math has always followed a strict curriculum of different separate units but is not taught in ways that are applicable to students. However, Anchored Instruction integrates math into meaningful case studies that allow students to make connections between the math concepts with real life applications. As well, the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration emphasizes the importance of peer-to-peer learning experiences in learning. Another example is Learning-for-Use, which introduces the critical idea of motivation in learning that leads to knowledge construction. Finally, T-GEM is the use of technology-enhanced methods to engage in the process of generating, evaluating and modifying relationships in knowledge. It has impacted how I will teach in my own teaching context (i.e. Grade 6s and 7s) because it seems that the teacher’s role is to facilitate and guide students’ learning rather than directly teach content and skills to them. Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to be participate as a shared learner in the process. This frees the teacher from being the sole source of knowledge and be more available to students observe students’ processes and performance of learning. Overall, learning about these different technology-enhanced learning environments has opened up a plethora of possibilities to teach all types of students in authentic, meaningful ways.

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.