TELE Takeaways

Apologies for being late on this; it’s been a crazy week! I tried to summarize this Module’s learning in the table below. I took inspiration from a few of you fellow classmates for the structure of the table. I found it very tough to settle on one but I suppose there’s not always a “best” way! Without further ado…

TELE

Key Takeaway

Fundamentals

Strengths

Weaknesses
Anchored Instruction and JASPER Problem solving using authentic scenarios.
  • Video-based format
  • Narrative with realistic problems
  • Generative format
  • Complex problems
  • Embedded data design
  • Related, cross-curricular “adventures”
  • Teaches in domains rich in content and application.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992)
  • Videos are ideal for conveying learning objectives effectively in a short time span (Eades, 2015).
  • Meaningful content anchored in real-world scenarios helps motivate students.
  • Constructivist nature allows students freedom to make sense of the content in their own way. Model is especially conducive to group work. (Vanderbilt, 1992)
  • Students given chances to correct initial misconceptions.
  • Teacher used as a resource or guide, not authoritative provider of knowledge.
  • Digital video is the predominant tech, so there’s less chance to engage with the teacher than with fellow students.
  • Lack of direct instruction could be very challenging for some students.
  • Historically speaking, most “educational” videos don’t age well, although it may be better now that almost all common cameras are of good quality.
SKI/WISE Tackling misconceptions through scaffolding.
  • Heavily weighted toward scaffolding.
  • Key pieces are instruction, experience, and reflection.
  • Tenets are to 1) make (student) thinking visible, 2) make science accessible, 3) help students learn from each other, and 4) promote lifelong learning.
  • Strong focus on misconceptions.

(Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003)
  • Strengths of constructivist approach are amplified by having prior knowledge assessments and an inquiry approach built into the framework.
  • Each lesson follows a standard structure that has been shown to be effective for student learning.
  • Opportunities for collaboration, reflection, and feedback are fundamental to the approach.
  • Heavy focus on scaffolding and misconceptions may not motivate students if they are not interested in the given subject matter.
  • Teachers may find the structure overly prescriptive and difficult to adapt on-the-fly.
  • Time-consuming for teachers to determine if a topic or subject could fit into the WISE template.
  • Doesn’t really offer many advantages over other constructivist frameworks.
LfU Motivating students through integration of content and process.
  • Focus on three stages: 1) Motivation, 2) Knowledge Construction, and 3) Knowledge Refinement.
  • Motivation is the driving force for the model.
  • Highly constructivist in nature.
  • Heavy focus on lesson design and ensuring that learning activities meet the learning objectives.

(Edelson, 2001)
  • Motivation and refinement stages of learning, often sideswiped by attempts to communicate knowledge, take centre stage in this model.
  • Focus on helping students experience the “need for knowledge”.
  • Process knowledge is as important as content knowledge.
  • Students are provided opportunities to see how what they are learning could be used.
  • The framework includes a simple yet extremely detailed table on how to apply LfU.
  • LfU’s flagship activities are showing their age or are inaccessible, a reminder that building lessons on specific tech could eventually render the lesson obsolete.
  • There remain numerous topics in traditional K-12 schools for which it would be extremely difficult to apply LfU.
  • Teachers must be masters of the topic approached using this method in order to comfortably and effective balance the investigation-discussion cycle.
  • PD on how to use the tech required to design elaborate LfU lessons may be required.
T-GEM Model-based data-driven approach.
  • Inquiry-based and iterative approach using a data-driven model.
  • Students compile information then 1) Generate a relationship, 2) Evaluate the relationship, and 3) Modify that relationship.

(Khan, 2007)
  • Students are steeped in learning activities that emphasize critical thinking and reflection.
  • Students are encouraged to think like scientists and gain experience working with real data.
  • Approach is student-centred but requires an extreme amount of work on the teacher side to ask the appropriate guiding questions to effectively scaffold each student.
  • Teachers must be highly experienced in the subject being taught.

 

The most obvious threads I perceived to be weaving through each model are, in alphabetical order, collaboration, constructivism, inquiry, motivation, and a focus on connecting activities to “real life” contexts. Well, maybe not so much with T-GEM, as it’s slightly more concerned with relationships between data than real-life contexts, but still. I can honestly say that every single one of the models, if used even partially appropriately, would likely be more beneficial to students than any traditional chalk-and-talk for an appropriate topic. So much time and effort has clearly been poured into ensuring that these models/frameworks/whatever-you-wanna-call-’em take into account the unique students who are there in the classroom to learn. Misconceptions are noted, explored, modified or totally quashed. Scaffolding is an inextricable part of each model’s lesson design. Tech is leveraged in a meaningful way with a strong focus on visuals. And speaking of visuals, I was quite gobsmacked by the amazing tables and visuals you all created for this posts. I hope you don’t mind if I steal them!!

I must say that I really, truly enjoyed this Module. The number of practical takeaways was exceptional, and the LfU model resonated so strongly with me that I still can’t comprehend how I didn’t know about it sooner.

However, in the face of all of these great resources, each with clear benefit to students, we still see it so rarely in the average class. Why is this? Perhaps it’s the teacher’s inexperience with branching out in such a student-centred, constructivist way? Perhaps it’s being too settled into a routine where “the resources are all ready” and it’s a one-size-fits-all model where the teacher feels the lesson has been “perfected” even before they meet the students who will be engaged in the lesson? Perhaps it’s simply the absolutely massive amount of time, skill, effort and cyclical revisions required to make these lessons successful, and ensure each student gets the full benefit of the material? I don’t know the answer. I will certainly be thinking about this going forward, both in my TELE design as well as in my job as a Math department head. Is there anything I can do to convince/motivate my teachers to do things a little differently?

-Scott

(sorry for the weirdly-formatted table I couldn’t figure out how to align it to the top and left-justify it!!)

 

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

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.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

4 comments

  1. Hello Scott,

    I like the detail you put into your table. While it might not be formatted the way you like it does contain good data.

    You bring up an excellent point about the average class and why we do not see this more regularly? I think the biggest thing is the perception of extra time and effort. I would theorize though that the initial time and effort into understanding a framework well would present long term benefits, including saving time.

    Because the belief about tech integration in the classroom and lack of time are so prevalent I would love to see a peer reviewed study that tests this. Specifically I think it would be interesting to see a study that dealt with teachers who taught the same courses over a year using TELE frameworks vs those that don’t and compare the experience. My guess is the planning time for TELE teachers would not be higher and perhaps be significantly lower, as they have a guiding framework to use.

    Reply

    1. Hi Ryan, thanks for your comments!

      You’re probably right in suggesting that the initial time and effort placed into understanding the framework would present long-term benefits, although understanding a framework and utilising a framework to design excellent lessons are two entirely different things. Also, the average teacher likely does not encounter these frameworks (had most of us, prior to this course?). How do we convince them to 1) spend the time learning the frameworks and 2) take a leap and try designing lessons based on their perceived benefits? Perhaps being the devil’s advocate here… who can say… 🙂

      I like your proposal to run a study dealing with teachers teaching using TELE frameworks compared to those that don’t. I feel like such a study could already exist, in some form of another. perhaps not using these frameworks, but certainly other “TELE”-style lessons under another name. I still think the time poured into them by the instructor to PLAN would be higher, especially initially; it takes an extreme time commitment to design something excellent (although we should always ensure that a life-cycle exists for future revisions). That said, the effort of the teacher “should” be significantly lessened once the lesson is underway, assuming it is student-centred. Perhaps this is where the time is saved. I can’t decide.
      The fact that tech changes day-by-day makes me question the lifespan of efficacy one given lesson has. Perhaps this is something that has to be considered during the design process: “How future proof, or generalizable, is my product?”

      -Scott

      Reply

  2. Scott I absolutely loved your table (seriously though why a perfectly formatted table gets all weird in WordPress I have no idea!! It happened to mine too). What I truly appreciated about your summary was not just a rehashing of what we researched and read about. Two little words made this a gold mine…KEY TAKEAWAYS. Your bringing to focus the gift that each model provides can give educators a concrete rationale and starting point as they begin to reimagine these traditional environments that focus on the transfer of knowledge. You ask what it will take for teachers to make the change. I think the only thing that will sway the tide is impact. Eventually when the world wakes up and we stop establishing merit based on test scores and begin to realise the need for hands on creative problem solvers ready for these real world problems we will have no choice but to be accountable for our methods that have the most impact on our students. Like any good snowball on the top of the mountain, instead of asking educators to climb that frightening mountain, we roll the snowball down. It starts with one passionate educator, it begins the momentum, it continues to pick up speed and more educators along the way, until finally it even grabs hold of those firmly at the bottom. You are so accurate in what you said about the fear of facing the “massive amount of time, skill, effort and cyclical revisions required to make these lessons successful” but I firmly believe our inspired educators will take on this challenge (much as I image you doing every single day in your school) and then suddenly these become the “ready resources” for others. We just need to find those willing to lead the charge.

    Trish

    Reply

    1. Hi Trish, thanks for the kind words!! As for formatting I figure that there is some clever html code that could be implemented to fix it up, but I just didn’t have the time or patience to delve into that prior to posting 🙂

      Thanks for noticing the power of a single statement for giving teachers to “go to” when they’re feeling desperate. Although one sentence is almost never sufficient to summarize an entire framework’s complexity, it certainly gives guidance to those looking for it (including myself when reviewing these frameworks down the road).

      And your words on how to enact change (and face the accompanying fear) are inspiring. I’ll copy and paste what you said into my “words of wisdom” document for future reference 😀

      I’m not confident that I can be that snowball for my department at the moment, as even with dedicated instructors working with me there are so many other hurdles existing in my current situation. I do hope that, in future, once I’ve left this job and found another, that I’ll find myself within a larger group of motivated and inspired educators and then I can hope to make a larger, more meaningful impact.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *