Author Archives: allison greig

Factoring T-GEM

One of the most effective resources I explored this week was Calculation Nation via NCTM. One of the games that required the deepest understanding and most strategy was Factor Dazzle: https://calculationnation.nctm.org/Games/Game.aspx?GameId=A0537FC6-3B08-4AFC-9AD6-0CC5E3BC9B86.

Factor Dazzle allows you to challenge yourself or another player to a game of identify factors. You earn points based on the numbers you choose and the factors you are able to identify. This reminded me of a common misconception that students had when we started working with prime and composite numbers, factors and multiples. That is, since all even numbers are composite, all odd numbers must be prime.

The following lesson has been developed using T-GEM (Khan, 2007, 2010, 2012). While traditionally used in Science classrooms, Khan’s research has proven T-GEM to be effective at developing inquiry skills and conceptual understanding (Khan, 2012).

Generate:

Students complete a Think-Pair-Share about how they identify prime and composite numbers. Teachers will look for use of appropriate vocabulary.

Evaluate:

Students will individually play this version of Factor Dazzle.

On Popplet, they will write some of the strategies they used for playing the game.

In another web of Popplet, they will comment on their strategy for identifying prime and composite numbers.

Students view the following videos and practice links on their Khan Academy accounts. Results are emailed to the classroom teacher for formative assessment.

Finding Factors

Finding Factors & Multiples

Practice Factor Pairs

Modify:

Students will then pair up to challenge each other to this version of the game: https://illuminations.nctm.org/activity.aspx?id=4134

They will increase the difficulty of the game incrementally as appropriate.

Students submit a written response based on the change to their strategy of determining factors and multiples.

Khan, S. (2012). A hidden gem. The Science Teacher, 79(8), 59 – 62.

Adventure in Authentic Environments

How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities?

We learn best when it matters to us. When the topic and context is relevant to our lives. This idea is exemplified in the three articles I read this week. In adventure learning, Velestsianos and Kleanthous (2009) argue that meaningful learning is reliant upon relevant and authentic tasks and adventure learning allows students to “…learn by immersing themselves in participatory experiences grounded in inquiry” (Veletsianos & Kleanthous, 2009, p. 86). This connects to the ideas that have been prevalent throughout the course. The idea that inquiry, grounded in constructivist and situated learning theories, is best developed and honed through inquiry learning. Veletsianos and Kleanthous echo and cement these ideas even further by arguing that “While the AL approach may be grounded on constructivist notions of inquiry-based learning, teachers can repurpose the adventure learning approach according to their own needs and beliefs” (Veletsianos & Kleanthous, 2009, p. 93). This is the bread and butter of adventure learning; the malleability to meet students needs while creating an authentic context to make the most of student learning and skill development.

Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann’s (1985) study of mathematics in the streets prove that a need for skills and knowledge, and an immediate need for the knowledge and skills in an excellent indicator and motivator of learning. With little formal education, students in Brazil demonstrated active and masterful computation skills. These skills and knowledge were acquired by the students on the job, in the streets because they needed them. The context was authentic, the demand for the skills was high, and their learning was deep and meaningful.

How can we replicate this environment in our classrooms? By knowing our students. By connecting the curriculum to the world around them and by allowing them to make their own connections. By making the skills connect to contexts that matter to our kids. By solving real world problems using the math and science content we are required to teach and learn.

Carraher, T., Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.1985.tb00951.x

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 345-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00191.x

Veletsianos, G., & Kleanthous, I. (2009). A review of adventure learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 10(6), 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.755

Embodied Learning Styles

Embodied Learning is the idea that learning requires and should involve the whole body. Using and incorporating the body doesn’t just enhance learning, it is an essential part of the equation. In the Lindgren and Johnson-Glenberg (2013) article, they explain that “…human cognition is deeply rooted in the body’s interactions with its physical environment” (p. 446). When thought about in this way, this is how we learn. We see, hear, touch, and smell the world around us to make sense and learn how to survive. Historically, this is how we have learned anything and everything. The experiences with our senses are so foundational for sense and meaning making. Why would this be any different in a classroom?

In Lindgren and Johnson-Glenberg’s (2013) article they explore an idea that was thought provoking for me. They describe that embodied learning benefits everyone, even though learning styles or multiple intelligences tell us that some learners are more predisposed to learning kinesthetically. Taking issue with this, they argue that “…this idea obscures the fundamental relationship that body activity has to cognitive processes generally and the notion that prescribed physical engagement with learning content can be conceptual development benefits that apply to all students” (Lindgren & Johnson-Glenberg, 2013, p. 448). There are important developments and milestones all students need that are generated from embodied learning, from using the senses and our first hand, active experiences. By only offering these opportunities through multiple intelligence or learning style choices, students are denied meaning making in their own environment, with their own tools.

Over the last few years I have been giving a lot of thought to the ideas and notions around learning styles and multiple intelligences. Every once and a while, an article comes across my screen that tries to sway me one way or another but my feet seem to be firmly planted in Switzerland. I am curious about what your experiences are; have they been successful? Do you feel that multiple intelligences provide students with pathways to success that they might not otherwise have? Or do you think that they are another set of labels that pigeonhole students into making the same choices? What value is there is students knowing their learning styles and/or multiple intelligences?

If you are interested, give this article a quick read: https://www.edutopia.org/article/learning-styles-real-and-useful-todd-finley

Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by Embodiment. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189×13511661

Núñez, R. (2012). On the Science of Embodied Cognition in the 2010s: Research Questions, Appropriate Reductionism, and Testable Explanations. Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 21(2), 324-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.614325

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition And Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Personalized Synthesis

When I think about our learning over the course of this module, I remember more similarities than differences. I remember thinking about different routes to the same destination. With inquiry learning being the destination, anchored instruction, SKI, LfU, and TGEM are the different routes that Google Maps can provide. Which one is the fastest route? Which one is most effective? Which one is most efficient? Is the route selection the same for everyone? Should it be the same?

These four TELEs remind me of an ongoing debate we have in my PLC. As a Continuous Improvement Coach, I meet with other CICs on a regular basis. One of the conversations we have that can divide the room revolves around foundational skills versus foundational knowledge. Can students be successful by focusing more on skill development than knowledge development? Or are there pockets of foundational knowledge that all students need in order to be successful? What balance can we and should be strike? Regardless of the topics we explored in TELEs each week, we picked up on some common key ideas among them.

Skills Developed Through All TELEs

Independence
Problem-solving
Cooperation
Collaboration
Data Analysis
Making Thinking Visible
Reflection
Curiosity
Clarify Understanding
Modifying Thinking

The question I am left with is, is it enough that students develop these skills regardless of the content covered? More specifically, if students have these skills are they able to learn and work with any content?

Teachers are responsible for facilitating TELEs and making informed decisions based on the needs, learning styles, and interests of their students. As an instructional coach, I would like to say that I could make a recommendation about which TELE would be the best choice, etc. However, one of the most significant ideas throughout Module B is that content and context matter. We need to make decisions based on the content that is being taught/delivered/facilitated and who is receiving and learning the content. The TELEs are student centered and the expectation is that they are teacher facilitated. The actual students must be apart of the equation.

When I think about TGEM, I love the use of the words and steps – generate, evaluate, and modify. I think this is exactly what we want and expect students to be able to do; generate ideas, evaluate them based on new information or evidence, and then modify their understanding, opinions, data, etc. Upon reflection, it is not that different from the three steps in LfU – motivation, construction, and refinement. In designing my TELE for Assignment 2, I called my three steps ‘experience, evaluate, and personalize’. I think of it as exposure to the tool (Minecraft), exploration of examples of use in classrooms, and how they plan or would like to use the tool in their classrooms. I am eager to see how this goes with adult learners.

My use of the word personalize was very purposeful and is a synthesis of how I believe TELEs should be selected. Taking into consideration the content, the tool, the context, and the user, our decisions should change based on what we know.

Fractions Gem

One of my colleagues wrote about being drawn to T-GEM and I thought that was such a simple yet accurate description of my reactions and professional opinions as well. One of the things I appreciate the most is that the T-GEM cycle continues repeatedly throughout a lesson, unit, day, etc. This is the most reflective of what we actually do with information; we get or discover new information, understand it, and reorganize our knowledge, understanding and beliefs.

When I think about concepts or ideas that are challenging for students to master, fractions immediately comes to mind. Especially operations with fractions. When using technology to enhance understanding, I believe students need to see and experience a variety of representations and scenarios.

Generate

http://www.abcya.com/fraction_percent_decimal_tiles.htm

This fraction resource gives students an opportunity to explore and understand equivalent fractions, an important concept for adding and subtracting. They can drag, drop, and manipulate the fraction bars to generate an and reaffirm their understanding. Students are given a few simple practice questions to model and try. For example, 2/3 + ½

Evaluate

https://www.visualfractions.com/AddEasyCircle/

At this stage, students engage in more in-depth evaluation of the concept. They can manipulate more of the conditions to test their ideas and assumptions.

Modify

http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/mec/flash/index.html?url=Data/3/B/A3B3.swf&launch=true

Using the information and understanding developed in the first two phases, students can modify and confirm their understanding by exploring this lesson.

One of the most important components throughout these phases, is the dialogue between students, and between students and teacher(s). Alone, these resources and T-GEM does not have as amplified impact but combining the power makes it all more effective and efficient.

Understanding Refugee

Part of my role as an enrichment teacher has been about connecting curriculum to current content and to student lives. Edelson (2001) explains that that National Science Education Standards expect students to learn through experiences that require them to “…create explanations, make predictions, and argue from evidence…” (Edelson, 2001, p. 355). STEM enterprises infuse these skills into a variety of contexts. For example, one of the things I collaborate with teachers on is making STEM challenges relevant to content in other subjects like read alouds. As I explored ArcGIS, I was reminded of three journeys in Alan Gratz’s novel Refugee (2017).

Refugee (2017) tells the story of three different children, in three different time periods. Josef is a young boy escaping Nazi Germany in the 1930s via ship. Isabel flees Cuba on a makeshift boat with her family and friends, and Mahmoud is a young Syrian boy traveling on a journey with his family towards Europe in 2015. I searched ArcGIS looking at the areas these three remarkable stories take place; studying the oceans and waterways that Josef and Isabel would have traveled and the long paths that Mahmoud’s family took by foot. The vastness and depth was inspiring and impossible to visualize independently.

The Learning-for-Use model (2001) has three steps, motivate, construct, and refine. Edelson (2001) verifies that “…conceptual understanding [that] will be available to the learner when it is relevant” (Edelson, 2001, p. 356). Refugee provides a meaningful context for students to construct knowledge about ocean currents (Isabel & Mahmoud’s journeys). By exploring maps, videos (https://www.brainpop.com/science/earthsystem/oceancurrents/), and additional resources, students are provided with opportunities to observe and build new knowledge. They will refine this knowledge by building a raft and charting a course/plan from Cuba to America, just like Isabel’s family. Not only does this give students an opportunity to reflect on their own learning about ocean currents but they have a deeper understanding of the story and meaning of the book.

Edelson, D. (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://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.3.co;2-d

Gratz, A. (2017). Refugee (1st ed.). Scholastic Press.

Plate Tectonics Shifts My Thinking

This may be a bit of a scattered post as I try to organize my thoughts.

As I read and explored, and then read and explored more, I found I was constantly reworking and reframing my ideas and opinions around WISE. I am open and upfront about science not being my comfort zone and it has been this way since I was a kid. Anything that can help me teach science, I am game for! Early in my career, if I could away with teaching no science I would. However, I could plainly see how much kids loved the opportunities that science provided and knew I had to find a way to make it work. Inquiry was the way I bridged the gap between my lack of confidence, comfort, and knowledge and students insatiable desire to learn. Williams, Linn, Ammon, and Gearhart (2004) explain that “Inquiry teaching is challenging for many elementary science teachers, because it requires them to integrate and utilize deep understandings of science content, pedagogy, and technology” (Williams, Linn, Ammon & Gearhart, 2004, p. 190). As I read this I was not sure I agreed. Inquiry teaching did require me to have a deep understanding of the pedagogy and skills I wanted students to develop but I didn’t need an in depth knowledge of the content for the students to do deep learning.

As I explored the WISE project I selected on plate tectonics and admittedly, had difficulty answered some of the questions, I realized there was no way I could have facilitated this kind of inquiry learning in the classroom. I questioned myself; was I really facilitating inquiry learning? Throughout the project I continued to learn science content but it felt very cookie cutter. I failed to see where the students’ and teachers’ choices and voices would become a part of the process. Linn, Clark, and Slotta (2003) defined inquiry as “…engaging students in the intentional process of diagnosing problems, critiquing experiments, distinguishing alternatives, planning investigations, revising views, researching conjectures, searching for information, constructing models, debating with peers, communicating to diverse audiences, and forming coherent arguments” (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2003, p. 518). Nearing the end of the project, when the sections of the project came together, I grew to believe that WISE projects can support authentic inquiry projects established by students and teachers in classrooms. Alone, they do not engage students in enough planning, searching, and decision making on their own. Essentially the teacher and project designer has already made many decisions before the student has come in contact with the project. However, the graphics and delivery of content makes WISE an excellent vehicle to support authentic inquiry in the classroom.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10086

Williams, M., Linn, M., Ammon, P., & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to Teach Inquiry Science in a Technology-Based Environment: A Case Study. Journal Of Science Education And Technology, 13(2), 189-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:jost.0000031258.17257.48

Assignment One

This is just a post of curiosity. How many articles have you guys included in Assignment One? I’m getting to the end and feel like I don’t have “enough”.

Ally

Authentic Instruction

Prado and Gravoso (2011) explain that “Today, as we live in a world full of data and information that could be used in understanding, learning, and making informed decisions, the ability to analyze, interpret, and communicate information is considered an important skill” (Prado & Gravoso, 2011, p. 61). The Jasper series and materials was an attempt to create authentic learning contexts for students to learn and develop skills but also to increase engagement and self-efficacy related to mathematical concepts. Engagement is one of the most timely issues faced by educators in the 21st century classroom.

Members of the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992) write that the series was created to be an adventure, a specific word choice that I think is important to note. They further explain that the Jasper series “…provide[s] a motivating and realistic context for problem posing, problem solving, and reasoning” (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992, p. 65) Simply put, Shyu notes that “The Jasper Series was developed to teach mathematics, mathematical problem solving and critical thinking skills in fifth- to eighth-grade classrooms” (Shyu, 2000, p. 58). Keywords such as critical thinking, motivation, organization, reasoning, collaboration, and meaningful were a common thread woven throughout the articles.

Anchored instruction and the Jasper series highlighted and reaffirmed the importance of authentic learning experiences, where students see a connection between what they are doing in school to something that is important to them and/or something they do or will do outside of school. This lead me to wonder about how we as educators determine value and authenticity for our students. What is the difference between fun and authenticity? Do fun learning experiences provide the same results as authentic, realistic, meaningful contexts?

When I was still in the classroom a few years ago, BBC Bitesize videos (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks2/maths/number/) were some of my favourites. We participated in and viewed them whole class or individually. As I look back on it now, are these actually an authentic context or is it just fun? How do we tell the difference?

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research And Development, 40(1), 65-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02296707

Prado, M., & Gravoso, R. (2011). Improving high school students’ statistical reasoning skills: A case of applying anchored instruction. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 61-72.

Shyu, H. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00135