The Learning-for-Use (LFU) model was designed by Edelson (2001) and consists of three stages: motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement. Edelson (2001) pointed out that many teachers found covering both the process of scientific inquiry and content daunting. The model was designed to show how content and scientific inquiry could be taught in a complementary fashion together, rather separately. The idea being that the inquiry model itself could be used to foster knowledge acquisition.
I decided to use the grade 6 science BC curriculum to design a lesson using the LfU model. Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge Refinement were all taken into account.
Motivation
To facilitate motivation I would use a web quest, which can be very useful in introducing a topic and garnering interest. For my lesson I would likely develop my own but I came across one highly relevant to my subject matter that could be used: https://sites.google.com/site/mihmgruhlke/Home. Prior to students beginning they would record questions that would arise from there previous, in keeping with LfU model. The questions like, “how much do I weigh on the moon” would be posted on our LMS. This activity would happen before the lesson (perhaps on a Friday) so that I could ensure the answers to these questions could be found.
Knowledge Construction
After reviewing what they do know and determining what they what they do not by posing questions the students would engage in the web quest activity. The activities themselves would largely be determined by the questions they want to know. GoogleSky may be incorporated, for example, if students want to know how far we are from Jupiter. The students would explore and discover answers to the questions the pose.
Knowledge Refinement
In the last stage students would “apply their knowledge in meaningful ways” (Edelson, 2001) by reflecting on what they have learned. This would include a reflection on the web quest and the ways that they found knowledge. I would have the students complete online journal posts assessing whether they answered their questions, what they continue to wonder, and how they would assess themselves using a provided rubric. This would all students to “reorganize and reined their knowledge (Edelson, 2001).”
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. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:33.0.CO;2-M
Hi Ryan,
I like your breakdown of how you would use the Lfu model with the three-step process: Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge Refinement. Students would be highly motivated by the web quest as it is engaging especially the task of ‘Junior NASA position.’ In your ‘Knowledge Refinement’ section, I like that you stated ” I would have the students complete online journal posts assessing whether they answered their questions, what they continue to wonder, and how they would assess themselves using a provided rubric.” Reflection, for both educators and learners, is such an important part of learning as students examine their experiences and understand and gain new knowledge through reflection. This process also allows for critical thinking and if students were to share their reflections, the exchange between students allows for a comparison of experiences and opens up new conversations.
Thank you Sabrina,
I agree assessment on the teacher and learner side is invaluable. I know in my experiences as an educator I have never regretted the time I put in to helping students self-evaluate.
When I think of my undergrad I definitely see it as a worthwhile learning experience. I have to say though that the MET experience, which requires so much reflection, self-evaluation, discussion and analysis has broadened my thinking and made me enjoy education far more than I use to. In a similar way all projects we assign can be good learning experiences but if there isn’t a mechanism built in for a learner to reflect, challenge, and possibly change their thinking I don’t think is as valuable.
Hi Ryan,
very nice example of using LfU. Thanks for pointing us to this interesting “NASA” webquest – it looks quite motivating! The idea of webquests seems to be comparable to the idea of Etivities by Gilly Salmon (2013), a concept that we are working with for our online courses.
In ETEC 512, we already shortly looked at webquests, linking them to Dodge (1995). I found this idea fascinated already then. Both webquests and etivities are based on the idea of student inquiry, student activation, student cooperation and student motivation – all of this seems to resonate nicely with the constructivist approach of LfU, as you have pointed out.
Elske
References:
Salmon, G. (2013). Etivities – The key to active online learning. New York: Routledge.
Dodge, B. (1995). “WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based learning”. Distance Educator, 1(2), 10–13.
Thank you Elske,
I quite agree that web quests can be excellent learning tools. I recall dabbling a bit in ETEC 512 also but I have yet to put together my own web quest from scratch. I endeavour to try this in the not too distant future. Like you said it fits with a constructivist approach and something I believe in whole heartedly.
Hi Ryan
I like the fact that you shared the NASA Webquest. I know I like to create things myself — however, I do not have time and have to rely on others for help.
I wonder if there are tools teachers can use to create WebQuests?
A good next step might be to explain what should go into a WebQuests?
To keep the conversation going — make sure to respond to all learners that respond to your own post. When responding to other learners, expand the discussion.
Christopher
Thank you Dr. Rozitis,
All great ideas I will take into consideration.