Author Archives: david dykstra

Take aways

Thanks, all, for your contributions to my experience and learning, and for an engaging semester! I have learned a lot, and I think that looking back in the future, I will recognize that this course had a transformative influence on my teaching and pedagogy. Here are some of my key take aways from the course:

science is process, not information
how to use scaffolding to support and embed inquiry learning activities,
how to engage students in taking control of their own learning
how technology can support and sustain a community of learning in the classroom
why context is essential to engagement and preventing misconceptions
why and how we need to change our assessment strategies if we want learning to be a process rather than information
there is a whole virtual world out there that can network to our classrooms to give purpose, context, and engagement to our students
science has value and our students cannot only network with scientists, but can be scientists and contribute to the greater understanding right from our own classes!

Wishing you blessing for all your future endeavours!

Dave

PhETs Food: Simulated Nutrition for Learning

For information visualization software to be effectively employed in the classroom, it not only needs to address a particular topic, but it also needs to be accessible and engaging in order for students to make use of it. This is why software such as PhET is becoming so popular. The best types of learning are active, engaging, and inquiry-based. Not only does PhET allow opportunities for students to explore and visualize concepts, to manipulate variables, and collect data, it does so in an engaging, user-friendly and graphically enhanced manner, that is free and easily accessed. Many times students either work with theory or real labs but have trouble connecting the two. Simulations “scaffold students’ understanding, by focusing attention to relevant details”, (Finkelstein et al, 2005). At times, however, students miss the value of simulations and perceive them as “fake” (Srinivasan et al, 2006), wanting only “real experiments”. To avoid this problem, I would integrate simulations together with real labs and teacher directed learning so that they can appreciate the merits of the simulations while benefitting from their affordances.

Previously, I wrote about using PhET for optics, but I will use it for chemistry as well. Many students struggle with chemistry, I believe, because they can’t visualize atoms, bonding or chemical reactions. It is very hard to conceptualize how atoms interact with each other when we can’t even see them. In my chem unit, I have students use molecular modelling kits to build simple molecules such as carbon dioxide, water and methane. They also use them to demonstrate reactions and balancing of equations. My students also perform various chemical reactions in “real” labs, but may have a hard time connecting these experiments with the molecular models, but see them in a separate way as single substances rather than being made of billions of atoms. Simulations can help to bridge this gap, allowing students to see how the molecules interact with each other to form new substances. Finkelstein et al (2005), write “properly designed simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment”, as in this case, as students can visualize the process at the molecular level which would not be possible with lab equipment.

Lesson Topic	Methodology	Desired Learning Outcome
Atoms & Ions	Build an Atom PhET simulation	Understanding of electron orbitals, valence shells, formation of ions; Game-based assessments
Molecules	Molecular model kits, Build a Molecule PhET	Understanding of how electrons move to form ionic molecules, or are shared to form covalent molecules
Chemical Reactions	Lab experiments; teacher instruction; student made types of reactions brochure	Various atoms and molecules can react in recognizable patterns to form new substances by rearranging atoms already present
Balancing Equations	Balancing Chemical Equations PhET; practice problems; Level Up balancing game	When substances react, matter cannot be created or destroyed, so any atoms present before must also be present after, just rearranged

There are several PhET simulations I have or will integrate for use in this unit. I would use the Build an Atom simulation to assess their current understandings and to reinforce their understandings of an atom, its components, and how they relate to ions, bonding, and reactions. This simulation is ideally set up for inquiry learning and has assessment through four different games for engaging learners. I would then use molecular model kits to have them build simple molecules and to recognize how many bonds each atom is capable of forming, so that each valence shell is filled. After having the students perform experiments of various chemical reactions and make a brochure about the different reaction types, I would have them explore the Balancing Equations PhET.

What makes this simulation so effective is the visualization of the molecules as they balance, an immediate feedback mechanism that says if they are correct, or what the problem is, and a game with various levels to increase difficulty of the problems as they grow in understanding. This PhET meets the standards of effective use by Stieff and Wilensky, (2003), who seek “multiple representations of concepts at multiple levels, guided exploration with immediate feedback”. I have also created a paper game I call “Level Up” that I use in my class as well for balancing equations in a self-directed way with teacher feedback. Using a blended approach will allow students to move away from rote memorization and repeated practice to develop conceptual approaches to problem solving while using feedback-based reasonings to justify their answers (Stieff & Wilensky, 2003). Finally, the use of game-play and leveling up offers intrinsic rewards and incentives to motivate students to get to the next level and build on their understandings. It has a social aspect as well, as students can assist each other in working with the simulations, work together to support understandings, or engage in friendly competition to see who can level up the fastest.

Discussion:

Students sometimes perceive simulations as “fake”. How can we help students appreciate the value of simulations for visualizing concepts?
How should simulations be scaffolded to maximize their effectiveness?
Digital resources often serve to isolate if students work independently. How can simulations be used effectively within a learning community?

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 02, 2012, from: http://phet.colorado.edu/web-pages/research.html.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137-141.
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry – Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.

NetLogo vs. PhET showdown

Dynamic Information Visualization

This week I chose to explore NetLogo and PhET. Both of these are digital simulation platforms where students can explore and manipulate various simulations of scientific concepts. Stieff and Wilensky (2003) describe a model of connected chemistry to counter the prevalent misconceptions they witness in chemistry. While the concept is a good one, the study uses only 6 students, and they are senior undergrads or graduate students, not secondary students in a study designed to assess the effectiveness at a secondary level, so I would only view this as a preliminary study. However, they make some good theoretical points. Traditional methods rely too much on rote memorization and rigid protocols, while connected chemistry builds understandings and reasoning to solve problems. Connected chemistry makes use of simulations to give students opportunities to make and test predictions in a controlled environment, to manipulate multiple variables to test outcomes, and to receive immediate feedback from the program. Students must justify their conclusions using observable outcomes.

While not specifically connected chemistry, PhET could be used in a very similar fashion, though I much prefer PhET to NetLogo for a number of reasons. NetLogo has the big advantage of more variables to manipulate, is be better at generating data for analysis, and has a lot more options in the library. On the other hand, PhET has much better graphics, better visualization and engagement, and a friendlier user interface. So many of the NetLogo simulations seem similar, and are based on statistics. While they may be more useful for post-secondary or research, I think my secondary students would find them confusing and boring. PhET has a broader range of type and style of simulations and engages students better. The circuit building app is a great example of what is best in simulations.

Figure 1: Circuit Builder from PhET, Simple Kinetics from NetLogo

Finkelstein et al, (2005), performed an experiment comparing student mastery of circuits when taught through simulations or hands-on labs. This was a much more rigorous study than Stieff and Wilensky, assessing the progress of multiple groups or classes of students through a electricity unit. Not only did students working with the circuit simulation demonstrate a better mastery of the concepts, but surprisingly, they were also more proficient at constructing and discussing real circuits than those working with lab materials.

Many people argue that the biggest benefit of simulations is the cost, but I would argue that it is TIME. Simulations allow students to run multiple simulations in a very short time, and to manipulate many more variables than students working with lab equipment would be able to in the same time. This repeated experiment not only reinforces understandings better but gives more opportunity for exploration and inquiry. This is not to say that simulations are always better. Srinivasan et al (2006), note an unexpected finding, that while researchers could appreciate their merit, students perceived simulations to be fake, cheap copies of the real thing. It depends on the pedagogy of their use and the quality of their design. This is why I prefer PhET for my classes. “Properly designed simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment”, (Finkelstein et al, 2005).

For Discussion:

How important is graphic design for effective simulations?
Evaluate the statement that the biggest benefit of simulations is time.
What are the most important elements of effective simulations for the elementary or secondary levels?

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 02, 2012, from: http://phet.colorado.edu/web-pages/research.html.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137-141.
Stieff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry – Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.

Growing Young Scientists through Experiences

I believe that Exploratorium, Globe, and Virtual Fieldtrips and Web-based Exploration can all meet Bielaczyc and Collins’ (1999) criteria for a learning community. Exploratorium has many resources such as videos and activities for sharing with teachers, students and others in the scientific community. These resources are developed by experts in various areas, and new ones are continually added, building the collective knowledge of the community. Likewise, Globe, and Virtual Fieldtrips such as Students on Ice also support knowledge building by connecting classrooms with knowledgeable experts, by sharing a digital experience through resources, and by embedding it in a real-life context and a culture of learning – “engaging students… in authentic exploration and discovery”, (Moss, 2003). To me, the true value of the learning community is when students are “initiated into scientific ways of knowing… through the cultural institutions of science” (Driver et al, 1994). It is when students begin to experience science – the different ways of thinking, the process of growth, development of theories, gathering real data, that they become part of a scientific community, and are motivated and excited about contributing both now and perhaps in their future (Driver et al, 1994, Moss, 2003, Niemitz et al, 2008).

Contrasts:

While all of them fit the definition of learning communities, it is Globe and the web-based expeditions that emphasize the networking and interaction that truly characterize sense of community. While Exploratorium and Virtual Field Trips are interactive and embedded in a context, they are primarily a platform for imbuing knowledge content in a more engaging platform. What sets Globe, JASON, and other interactive virtual expeditions (IVE) apart is the students’ involvement in the process of science, and the real-time engagement with real scientist. Globe has students participate in data collection but has been criticized for using students as lab techs rather than involving them in all aspects of the process. JASON and similar IVEs have students interact with scientists in real time, sharing in their projects, their findings, and their excitement of discovery, albeit from a distance. I would modify Bielaczyc and Collins definition to emphasize the necessary interactivity of a community of learning by putting it as #1, rather than under the umbrella of #4.

Limitations:

My first instinct when browsing the virtual fieldtrips and expeditions was that students would perceive them to be boring. While the real-time element of some of the explorations would help, many of the sites were limited in interactivity and in design (one look at WhaleNet was all it took). The best ones had student participation – involvement in data collection for GLOBE, tracking of the ship in School of Rock and Students on Ice- as well as direct engagement with scientists and experts. “The greatest potential for learning occurs when students work at the elbows of practicing scientists while being closely mentored to think like experts within the context of a community of practice”, (Moss, 2003). It is one thing to watch a video, quite another to speak with someone personally and have opportunity for questions. This is even better when face-face opportunities are provided before and after an expedition to give personal connection and meaning to the students, “the connection between an active scientist and a learner forms a basic mentorship of a kind that has been shown to have benefits for student learning and motivation” (Niemitz et al, 2008). In the examples I saw, I am not convinced to try a virtual field trip but would be interested in some Exploratorium resources and in opportunities for working with GLOBE or real-time expeditions should there be a good fit with my class.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. 10.3102/0013189X023007005
Niemitz, M., Slough, S., Peart, L., Klaus, A. D., Leckie, R. M., & John, K. S. (2008). Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: The school of rock expedition case study.Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 561.
Moss, D. M. (2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 21-30. 10.1023/A:1022151410028

Role-play – physical analogy

According to Resnick and Wilensky (1998)1, while role-playing activities have been commonly used in social studies classrooms, they have been infrequently used in science and mathematics classrooms. It is my belief that role-playing activities are not as common in science because of the nature of the subject. Science at its core is supposed to be an objective study to find truth around us. Role-playing is when one assumes the role of another person, trying to put oneself into their proverbial shoes, which means taking on their beliefs, perspectives, and biases. Since scientist are supposed to be unbiased, this is perceived to be a poor fit. While I am not a big promoter of role-play for these same reasons, I think there is a place for it in science. Using brief activities to engage students, to have them move around, and to embody their learning is worthwhile. I have had students role-play chemical reactions, the movement of electrons in the Electron Transport Chain, enzymes, and the bonding of nucleotides in DNA. The content itself may also be a barrier, as science is not really interested in alternate or individual’s perspectives on something, but rather on find the best explanation available. Much of traditional science is fact based, which is not conducive to role play again. However, through constructivism, experientialism, and similar theories, people are becoming interested in these very things – all part of the process of science in contrast with the content of science.

Winn, (2003), makes a case for the embodiment of knowledge: “bodily activity is often essential to understanding what is going on in an artificial environment”. Niebert, Marsch, and Treagust (2012) fo farther, arguing that science needs embodiment for understanding: “thinking about and understanding science without metaphors and analogies is not possible”. They took another look at the use of analogies and metaphors to support understandings of scientific concepts, particularly those that can’t be seen by students. What they found is that the most effective use of metaphors and analogies is when they are “embodied, meaning grounded, in real experience”. I would place role-play in science in a similar mold – a creative way of building understanding of an abstract concept through a relatable, real-world conceptualization. Niebert et al see great merit in this type of thinking and development of cognition: “imaginative thought is unavoidable and ubiquitous in understanding science”, (2012). I agree. Much of what I teach in chemistry, optics, or senior biology can not be seen or understood just observation. It is very important for students to have access to model-building activities such as simulations or role-play, and embodied metaphors and analogies to help them visualize the components and the processes not visible to their eyes. Relating to the real world is essential to supporting their understandings and preventing misconceptions.

“To say that cognition is embodied is to say that it involves our entire bodies, not just our brains.”

– Winn (2003)

“Imaginative thinking tools, such as examples from everyday life, metaphors, and analogies, have to be embodied to be effective in understanding science.”

– Niebert, Marsch & Treagust (2012).

For Discussion:

Is role-play comparable to physical metaphor?
What is necessary for a role-play to be effective in science?

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.21026

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from:http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

Embodied Learning – Simple Technology and Rich Social Practices

For my topic, I chose to work with probe-ware on handheld devices. Winn (2003) states his premise that “cognition is embodied in physical activity, that this activity is embedded in a learning environment, and that learning is the result of adaptation”. He posits that learning is the reciprocal interaction between the external (embodiment) and the internal (cognition) embedded in the environment. His point her is that “learning is no longer confined to what goes on in the brain”. Our gestures, movements, and spatial positioning contribute to our understandings – for example we remember the movements and gestures of children’s songs even as adults. Role plays, too, can be very effective in supporting long-term retention of understandings, as they help us to relate to the roles and to see value and importance in it through empathy with our given role.

In a similar vein, Niebert et al, (2012), use the examples of metaphors and analogies to support learning beyond experiences and cognition. A metaphor or analogy properly used allows students to relate complicated concepts to their everyday life. I see this as a sort of mental role-play. Rather than acting it out, our brains visualize how the concept works through understanding the analogy. Niebert et al write “it takes more than making a connection to everyday life to communicate science fruitfully. We show that good instructional metaphors and analogies need embodied sources. These embodied sources are everyday experiences conceptualized in, for example, schemata such as containers, paths, balances, and up and down”, (2012). They use the theory of experientialism to boldly claim “thinking about and understanding science without metaphors and analogies is not possible” as support for the need for embodiment for students to relate to concepts that they can not physically experience.

Zucker et al, (2008), wrote the the use of probe ware with PDAs in the classroom resulted in “substantial learning gains” compared to instruction without them. They reported on a TEEMSS II project (technology enhanced elementary and middle school science) where hand held probes were used to collect, share and analyse date effectively while actively engaging the students. Roschelle, (2003), agrees, but also recognizes a number of significant challenges to the effective use of hand-held mobile devices in the classroom. He argues that for them to be used effectively, the teachers need to grow in their TPCK base. Technology can very easily be ineffective or even disruptive to learning, but also has great potential. He presents 3 case studies to demonstrate that “simple, well-honed technology and rich, pedagogically developed social practices” can greatly increase understandings while not allowing technology to control the students or driving up significant costs. The 3 case studies put forward are: classroom response systems, participatory simulations, and collaborative data gathering. All three use a specific, uniform technology to perform a simple well-defined function that the students can engage and interact with. The teaching and learning are supported by the tech, but occur outside of it through designing of experiments, critiquing, analysis of results, discussion of patterns, and explanation of responses. I find this approach very helpful, as the teacher can still direct the learning but in an engaging and effective way.

Roschelle indicated that one of the biggest challenges to handheld devices and probe ware is the lack of uniformity and compatibility in available technology: devices and apps. I found this to be a problem in my class last year when I experimented with BYOD. How can we as teachers support effective use of student-owned devices when there is such diversity of incompatible platforms and apps, and without mandating a particular one?
If, as Winn claims, “cognition is embedded in physical activity”, in your opinion, does the use of tech and personal devices support or counteract this claim?
The TELEs we looked at prior all involved learning being immersed in a tech environment, but Roschelle and Zucker see the use of tech as being embedded in the social practice of learning. Which of these models is better from a pedagogical viewpoint?

Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: A theory‐guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(5), 849-877. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/sce.21026

Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272. 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00028.x
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from:http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf
Zucker, A., Tinker, R., Staudt, C., Mansfield, A., & Metcalf, S. (2008). Learning science in grades 3-8 using probeware and computers: Findings from the TEEMSS II Project. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 42-48. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=28816389&site=ehost-live