At the beginning of ETEC 533, we had discussed a video on misconceptions related to seasons. I therefore chose “planetary motion and seasons” (http://wise.berkeley.edu/previewproject.html?projectId=23117) for my analysis. It is designed for grades 6 – 12 and uses instructional scaffolding to help students use evidence to generate a well-supported explanation for seasons. The estimated workload is 8 – 9 hours.
Honestly, I find this WISE lesson really good, and I had difficulties to find aspects to improve it. Let me start with a short assessment, based on the quality criteria that we have discussed in the course and that are reflected in the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework (SKI). I also analyzed of how misconceptions are addressed, how PCK is visible in this WISE lesson and how instructional feedback is given:
Making thinking visible (SKI): To make students thinking visible, prompts can be used that invite student to report on their ideas (Linn, 2003). The WISE lesson indeed provides both metacognitive prompts as well as knowledge integration prompts. Metacognitive prompts foster students to criticize own thinking processes. Knowledge integration prompts ask students to link and connect ideas. Indeed, this WISE lesson presents a lot of these prompts. For example, as metacognitive prompts, the WISE lesson offers an “idea basket” that appears several times. In this idea basket, students can put their ideas on several questions. Later, they are asked to reflect on their ideas, to drop “not helpful” ideas and to use the other ideas to explain seasons (e.g. “Review the ideas in your basket. Which ones are HELPFUL for explaining seasons? Which ideas are NOT HELPFUL or are you UNSURE about using to explain seasons?”). This idea basket also serves as knowledge integration prompts, as students are often asked to bring evidence together from various parts of the lessons (e.g. “What is the relationship between tilt, latitude and hours of daylight?”).
Making science accessible (SKI): The WISE lessons makes sciences accessible in several ways: First, students are put in the role of a “detective” and they are asked to develop inquiry questions. Also, pivotal cases (examples from well-known cities) are used. All units are developed in an explorative way. Students are asked to collect evidence and to reflect on this. Overall, the WISE lesson shows the students how a research process should be done: Define a research question, develop hypotheses, collect evidence, analyse evidence, develop answers, revise them, and finally find the most convincing answer to the research question.
Help student learn from each other (SKI). There are some “discuss with your partner” exercises in this WISE lesson. Also, towards the end, students are asked to do a peer-review of the explanation for season given by another student.
Dealing with misconceptions: This WISE lessons address typical misconceptions on seasons. For example, the lesson shows what “other students” have said, and the student is then invited to think about it and criticize the opinion of these other students (e.g. “When asked to explain seasons, here is what one student wrote and drew: … Do you agree or disagree with this student’s explanation for seasons? Why?”). These “other students” hold typical misconceptions on seasons. So by inviting students to critically assess these misconceptions, the student may overcome own misconceptions. Also, students are asked several times to collect own reasons for seasons and prioritize these. As this is repeated over time, the student will see changes in his reasoning based on accumulated evidence. This shows the student how he can overcome misconceptions.
I hope that these examples show that this lesson is strongly based on the SKI framework and on scientific inquiry. In my opinion, also by addressing misconceptions, it really shows PCK! I was not able to identify a strong weak spot.
I wonder whether all WISE lessons are designed in a comparable way? What did you find?
References:
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538
Dear Elske,
The organisation reflects your thorough understanding of the pedagogy utilised by WISE designers.
I agree that this WISE project includes metacognitive prompts and knowledge integration prompts to scaffold student learning. I also noticed that there were some reflective question prompts as well. What are some offline communication scaffolds will you supplement the learners as they work through the WISE project?
Cheers,
Alice
Hi Alice,
thanks for your feedback! Regarding your question: I am not sure whether I understood it correctly. Do you propose to add some offline scaffolds? Indee, I would think that it is good to have some face-to-face discussion inbetween the WISE lesson. The WISE lesson I chose is quite long (8 – 9 hours), so some milestones could be set to discuss preliminary findings and open issues in class. This would also make sure that students have a througoh understanding what they did in WISE. Were these your thoughts, too?
Elske