Chalk and Talk is Dead \u2026<\/p>\n
How Do We Make Student Centric Learning Mainstream?<\/p>\n
One of the problems in education is that we seem to be eternally in a circle of doing the next best thing. Bandwagon jumping should be an Olympic sport for consultants and administrators.\u00a0 While consultants are expected to show classroom teachers the new and exciting that often translates into abandoning older techniques that work. Administrators hear about a new idea from the consultants and believe it means drop everything and do this NOW! Why does common sense seem to fly out the window? I am constantly reminded of the phrase, \u201cCommon Sense is not so common\u201d.<\/p>\n
My role as an educator is to look at my curriculum, understand my student\u2019s individual needs and decide how best to present the material. Yes, some days that does mean I do direct teaching. But I do not use this method all day every day for every subject, which historically has been how students were taught. Technology has afforded us the opportunity to open new worlds to our students. My school is very manipulative poor. I do not have the materials to run labs and simulations in my classroom for each subject. Technology to the rescue. I can do the next best thing, videos, animations and simulations on devices.<\/p>\n
In our posts so many of us in the MET program talk about the same things: we need teachers to buy in to using technology WELL (Well here means to enhance lessons and expose students to new ways of thinking- it does not mean have students read text on the screen and answer in a private word document- at least in my opinion), we need training time for teachers and time to try the technology, we need decreased curriculum expectations so we can do justice to the material we are teaching and not feel like we are trying to sprint a marathon. We need reliable, accessible devices and lots of band width. If we take these things as agreed upon synthesizing the information from the four technology formats we have looked at becomes a little less daunting.<\/p>\n
I spent a lot of time looking at Anchored Instruction (Jasper Woodley), the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) Project\u00a0which uses Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI), Learning for Understanding (LfU) using \u00a0the geographic visualization and data analysis environment (GIS) and the technology enhanced Generate, Evaluate and Modify (T-GEM) format of Chemland. While I realize, I viewed these processes from the point of view of an elementary educator of grades 6-8 I also tried to look at them from the point of view of a primary educator and a high school educator.<\/p>\n
My first thought was this: Kids are always more capable than we give them credit for. In varied doses, I could see using each of these methodologies with every grade level. All four choices are based on constructivist pedagogy where students construct their own knowledge versus being told information and expected to regurgitate it on old fashioned assessments. While some examples that were provided in each lesson were perhaps grade specific the actual pedagogy could be adapted to all.\u00a0 I could see anchored instruction being successful with all grade levels.<\/p>\n
A review of the four methodologies:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n WISE stands for the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment.<\/em><\/p>\n The WISE research team’s goal is to help prepare math and science students to consider he Internet as a learning resource. But WISE researchers recognize that just making science and math facts available on the Internet does not necessarily mean that learning will occur.<\/p>\n WISE scaffolds student inquiries on pivotal science cases and allows teachers to author their own cases to fit with their curriculum.<\/p>\n The foundational principles involved in WISE include: the scaffolded knowledge integration (SKI) framework, cognitive apprenticeship, intentional learning, and constructivist pedagogy.<\/p>\n The goal of LfU is to incorporate real life problems into learning activities so that the material becomes meaningful and students are better able to recall what they have learned when it is relevant (Edelson, 2011 p. 356). The LfU model is based on four principles that incorporate constructivism, constructionism and situated cognition:<\/p>\n Learning for Understanding (LfU) uses My World GIS (Geographic Information System) a geographic visualization and data analysis environment<\/p>\n My World researchers have been exploring the hypothesis that scientific visualization, incorporated into inquiry-based learning, can enable students of diverse abilities to develop an understanding of complex phenomena in the Earth and environmental sciences.<\/p>\n T-GEM using Chemland<\/em><\/p>\n Technology attempts to support and scaffold students\u2019 making connections among various abstractions..T-GEM stands for Technology-enhanced Generate-Evaluate-Modify. T-GEM is a teaching and learning approach used to foster learners\u2019 conceptual understanding and development of inquiry skills. These outcomes are fostered when teachers ask their students to generate rules or relationships, evaluate them in light of new conditions, and modify their original rules or relationships.<\/p>\n Chemland is a suite of computer simulations and interactive tools representing relationships of macromolecular phenomena in chemistry, such as the relationship between heat capacity and particular compounds.<\/p>\n Key words from each: <\/u><\/em><\/p>\n case-based learning<\/p>\n problem-based learning<\/p>\n project-based learning<\/p>\n authentic context<\/p>\n identifying and posing problems<\/p>\n systematically exploring possible solutions<\/p>\n scaffold<\/p>\n intentional learning<\/p>\n cognitive apprenticeship<\/p>\n constructivist pedagogy<\/p>\n scientific visualization<\/p>\n inquiry-based learning<\/p>\n construction<\/p>\n modification<\/p>\n scaffold students\u2019 making connections<\/p>\n foster learners\u2019 conceptual understanding<\/p>\n development of inquiry skills<\/p>\n generate<\/p>\n evaluate<\/p>\n modify<\/p>\n What do each of these methods have in common? They are all active learning scenarios where students construct their own knowledge in a given area. Each one has its strengths and is worth using in the math and science classroom in specific modules or units. Utilizing the strengths of each format would create a dynamic class where students actively learn and construct their knowledge. Each method also provides students with an opportunity to adjust their thinking and identify their misconceptions. The important part is that they all allow the student to be active learners.<\/p>\n How are each of these methods different? They all use a different format to allow students to construct their knowledge whether it be by video cases, simulations or using interactive maps to solve problems. Each has its own nuances, examples and structure.<\/p>\n How does all this impact my teaching? I can see using these methods in my grade 6-8 class. They are all effective methods for active learning in a given scenario and all seem like they allow for cross curricular connections. For example, I could see using the GIS maps to allow students to discover the Pacific Ring of Fire. They could manipulate the base maps and see what areas are highly populated and highly volcanic. No matter which base map they choose to use they could then do some integrated math by choosing different zones to draw on the maps and calculate the total area involved. Students could then zoom in on maps and plan an escape route for a highly-populated area. They could look at modes of transportation available and distances that would need to be travelled.\u00a0 Students could choose a method and look at the cost feasibility. You could follow the T-GEM model here allowing students to generate ideas about escape routes, evaluating their choice with specific examples and then allowing them to modify their choice if they feel another route is more desirable. This could lead directly into the Jasper Woodley unit on Trouble at Boon Meadow. This could lead into the unit on flight that would incorporate PhET simulations.<\/p>\n Totally exciting!<\/p>\n As a visual for this unit, I created an infographic. I used gears to represent content and methodology as they are parts of a whole machine that must work cohesively if the machine is to function at all.<\/p>\n The funnel leads into the active learning and from there sharing and collaborating. In the end, this machine creates collaborative, critical thinking problem solvers.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n