Apologies for the late post, and thanks in advance for understanding. Here is my contribution to the TELE Synthesis forum:
In reflecting on the four different TELEs for this module, it’s clear that the constructivist approach and inquiry based nature of all four is central to their pedagogy. One of the many benefits of this is the fact that teachers have significantly more opportunities to catch the misconceptions discussed at the beginning of this course, and develop ways to have students recreate/redefine rules for the information in front of them. The more students talk about their thinking and experiences, the more they elaborate on why and how things work the way they do. Should any problematic understandings come to light, teachers can either scaffold to help them adjust their misconceptions, or present them with data that proves their thinking is problematic, and have them modify their understanding.
For my own teaching practice, these different approaches help significantly in terms of resources and instructional design. The variety in the different models can help dictate how best to teach a topic; use a Jasper-like or Anchored instructional model for real-life, problem solving contexts, use an iterative T-GEM approach for inquiry and critical reflection of their thinking, etc. These different TELEs also make me reflect on the use of technology in my classroom, and the fact that while I sometimes wish I used more technology to enrich learning, I need to continue to focus on meaningful integration. Like any other well-design materials, best practice with technology needs to be thoughtful and meaningful to be effective- all of which I feel were represented in one way or another (or in many ways!) with these TELEs.
References:
Biswas, G. Schwartz, D. Bransford, J. & The Teachable Agent Group at Vanderbilt (TAG-V) (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI. In K.D. Forbus and P.J. Feltovich (Eds.)Smart Machines in Education: The Coming Revolution in Education Technology. AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo, Park, CA.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2009). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Dear Amanda,
I agree with your point about constructivism, how all TELEs are grounded in it, and how it affords the teacher more opportunities to set the stage for meaningful learning.
I’m curious if any of the 4 frameworks have prompted you to consider applying them in your classroom this year? I know in my case I am dying to try some of these out. I don’t teach in my school but I feel like it would be an interesting thing to relieve one of my teachers for a subject for a few days and try to apply one of these frameworks.
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for your thoughts- indeed I am planning on using the TELEs. WISE is a bit above my students (I teach 2nd grade), but I’m keen on using the GEM cycle and thinking about our upcoming unit on adaptations. Though it wouldn’t involve technology in my current brainstorm, I’m thinking about starting off with a provocation I’ve seen online with associating bird beaks with tongs, and having the students pick up different seeds with different tong sizes. Based on the amount of seeds they pick up/the kinds, I’d like to draw parallels to the kinds of food birds might eat and the environment we’d find them in. Based on conversations of their various experiments and a bit of research, they’d refine their understandings.
Thanks for your post!
Amanda
Hey Amanda,
I thin you make a great point about all of these TELEs providing ample opportunity to correct misconceptions. Your post got me thinking about how differently they set out accomplishing this. While some try to correct this through direct instruction, others focus on teacher input or peer-discussion. I would be curious to see further research on the best way of identifying and fixing misconceptions. Is discussing with peers enough when supplemented by digital information?
In my own experience, it is incredibly easy to help a student with a misconception when they present me with their flawed idea. Often a “but isn’t it supposed to….” sort of conversation. However, when they are working independently, I often find the wrong thinking persists until I ask them directly about their answers/work.
Hi Caleb,
I agree- the idea of how to target misconceptions is really intriguing. Given our discussions and having seen different styles modelled throughout these TELEs, I’d be inclined to say that direct instruction has a time and a place, but listening to students’ conversations, providing questions that allow them to further elaborate (and see the holes in their reasoning) would be a much more beneficial constructivist approach. Would be curious to see some data on that though!
Thanks for your insight!
Amanda