{"id":3113,"date":"2017-07-17T12:02:34","date_gmt":"2017-07-17T19:02:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/?p=3113"},"modified":"2017-07-17T12:02:34","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T19:02:34","slug":"synthesis-of-models-is-motivation-king","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/2017\/07\/17\/synthesis-of-models-is-motivation-king\/","title":{"rendered":"Synthesis of Models: Is Motivation King?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Comparison and Contrast
\n<\/strong>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!\u00a0 I conducted a review by re-reading the main literature surrounding the different frameworks, as well as reviewing our posts.\u00a0 It is interesting to note that the theories span from 1992-2007.\u00a0 In the context of changing technology, I think this is relevant.\u00a0 In comparing the four theoretical frameworks I found commonalities and stand-out features.<\/p>\n

Commonalities<\/strong>
\nAll of the approaches we studied are rooted in constructivism, inquiry, and collaboration.\u00a0 I would probably describe this to as a parent as \u201chands-on learning in groups\u201d and I\u2019m all in favour!\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The 8-12 years, and higher education are a different story and don\u2019t really fully adopt any of these features.\u00a0 Despite the \u201cflatness\u201d of knowledge that tech offers, my own high school remains highly prescriptive, fragmented, and individual at both the staff and student level.\u00a0 The movement to a more student-centered mantra is messy and filled with uncertainty.\u00a0 What are they learning?\u00a0 What if it isn\u2019t the same thing?\u00a0 How do I fairly assess students who are working in groups on differentiated projects?\u00a0 For my money, this revolution can and will only start with encouragement and pro-D investment at the teacher level.<\/p>\n

Stand-out Features (for me)<\/strong>
\n1)\u00a0 The features of \u201cAnchored Instruction\u201d seem flow from their focus on authentic problem solving<\/em>. \u00a0I found the Jasper Series a bit dated, but this could easily be mapped onto more modern tools or an entirely different delivery mode.\u00a0 I\u2019m not sure that the ideas need to rest on a video series at all.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 We experience a lot of failure in tying together the procedural and declarative, but we are making progress.<\/p>\n

2)\u00a0 The standout feature of \u201cSKI\u201d for me is the focus on misconceptions<\/em>.\u00a0 This was my least favorite approach, because it seems to presuppose that something worthwhile is being studied in the first place.\u00a0 Dealing with misconceptions is really important, but from my view of how learning works in the classroom, motivation to learn must occur first.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n

3)\u00a0 I really like the \u201cLfU\u201d model\u2019s focus on motivation<\/em>, especially this quote:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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\u00a0 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.\u201d\u00a0 (Edelson, 2000, p.\u00a0 378)<\/p>\n

<\/em>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 \u201clifeworlds\u201d of students and how they engage with school.\u00a0 This goes beyond \u201creal world\u201d and requires looking at what is relevant to students.\u00a0 No easy feat and I\u2019m not yet sure how to do it.\u00a0 Mostly we have been collecting surveys and reflecting on the choices students make when they are allowed to choose their own \u201ccapstone\u201d project topics.<\/p>\n

4)\u00a0 The stand-out feature of \u201cT-GEM\u201d for me was the focus on data driven models.<\/em>\u00a0 I really like how the approach is inquiry based, and iterative.\u00a0 This \u201caccretion\u201d or refinement method is a great way to expose and resolve misconceptions or contradictions.\u00a0 The only weakness is the extreme level of scaffolding required.\u00a0 The literature stresses \u201cexperienced teacher\u201d so many times that I wonder if it is perhaps not the best way to coax teachers into a more \u201cstudent centered\u201d learning stratagem.\u00a0 I personally find that time is the scarcest of resources.\u00a0 This model could be a disaster in our current \u201call go all the time\u201d K-12 system.<\/p>\n

The table below shows a review of the papers and posts, based on the terms and explicit focus given for each framework.\u00a0 I used this to organize my synthesis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Explicit Focus<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

LfU<\/strong><\/td>\nTGEM<\/strong><\/td>\nSKI<\/strong><\/td>\nAnchored Instr.<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Constructivist<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Inquiry<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Student-Centered<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Collaborative<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Real World<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Engagement<\/td>\n\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\nY<\/td>\nY<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Situated<\/td>\n\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Iterative<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Technology<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Lifelong learning<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Differentiated<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Complex<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

Y<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

References:<\/p>\n

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data.\u00a0Educational Psychologist, 27<\/em>(3), 291-315.<\/p>\n

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities.\u00a0Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38<\/em>(3), 355-385.<\/p>\n

Khan, S. (2007).\u00a0Model-based inquiries in chemistry<\/a>.\u00a0Science Education, 91<\/em>(6), 877-905.<\/p>\n

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration.\u00a0Science Education, 87<\/em>(4), 517-538.<\/p>\n

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge.\u00a0The Teachers College Record, 108<\/em>(6), 1017-1054.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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!\u00a0 I conducted a review by re-reading the main literature surrounding the different frameworks, as well as reviewing our posts.\u00a0 It […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49895,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1669396],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3113","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-b-synthesis"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3113","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49895"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3113"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3113\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3114,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3113\/revisions\/3114"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}