Author Archives: david dykstra

Gem of a GEM!

 

View of Learning Methodology Student Engagement Weakness
Anchored instruction ·        situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers

·        helping students become independent learners

·        Giving students the ability to take control, explore, inquire, go back, rethink and rework

 ·     Video scenarios, problem-based learning

·     Using a digital “guide” to help students who are stuck is a wonderful way to provide students with assistance while maintaining their autonomy

·     Embedded data design and feedback

 ·     Mostly passive, followed by interactive problem solving

·     Increased motivation

·     Cooperative learning

·     Explorative inquiry

 

 ·     Students are lost or “get stuck”

·     Little independent discovery

·     Mostly stagnant platform

·     Goal is the “right answer”
SKI-WISE ·        science at its core is a process

·        students learn best by doing

·        make thinking visible, make science accessible, help students learn from each other, and promote lifelong learning

 ·     Embedded online activities

·     WISE is an organizational platform to support teacher’s use of inquiry activities

 ·     thinking, testing, figuring things out for themselves

·     go through process as scientist

·     student paced

 ·     Students must be self-motivated

·     Much is text based, quick response to info
LfU ·        3 step process: motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement

·        Authentic activities for deeper understanding

·        Varied methods of assessment

·        Learning cycle

 ·     Students are immersed in complex world of actual data using for eg. ArcGIS, draw conclusions, reflect on and reassess ideas

 

 ·     Curiosity demand drives desire to learn

·     Collaborative

·     Inquire, observe, reflect & apply

 ·     Assumes motivation

·     Raw data is not student collected

·     Perceived to be time intensive

·     May be overwhelming
T-GEM ·        3 step process: generate, evaluate, modify

·        Need visualization and exploration for conceptualization

 ·     Inquiry based learning through simulations

·     Generate theories, modify to fit new observations

 ·     Very high, student control,

·     interactive

·     collaborative

·     inquiry-based

 ·     no embedded context or real-world framing

·     need good models

To begin, I believe all four of these TELEs have something to offer, and any would have enriched my learning experience in school.  All four have an inquiry element of exploration and discovery, followed by generation of student ideas or models.  These models are then tested and improved.  All four also encourage more student direction and collaboration than traditional methods.  Where they become distinct is in the methodology.  Anchored instruction and LfU have the richest contextual foundation, designed around complex, real-world problems.  T-GEM is based on the principle that simulations can help students visualize concepts we couldn’t otherwise see.  Digital simulations are able to offer multiple, accurate data sets with variable parameters for discovery learning.  Both LfU and T-GEM prioritize working with actual data, with T-GEM utilizing student generated data.  They also share very similar theoretical underpinnings by visualizing learning as a cyclical process of creating student hypotheses to a driving question, then revising them on the basis of new data generated under new conditions and reflection.  SKI-WISE appears to me to be more of a platform than the others, and capable of supporting the others in setup.  If I had to choose between them, I believe LfU gives the best immersive experience, leading to the deepest situated learning, but T-GEM is more flexible for adapting to traditional teachers, and topical curriculum along with the time pressures we all face in our courses.  Slight edge to T-GEM, but I would want to do at least one LfU in a course if possible.  Ideally, I am convinced that the more different teaching methods the better.  Let’s integrate the best of TELEs into our teaching methods that are already effective.

Discussion:

  1. Is it feasible to teach a whole course (esp. content heavy ones like high school science) using the LfU model considering the many pressures we face?
  2. Can we integrate elements from each of these models? What would this look like to you?

Authenticating GEMs with Optics

When teaching the optics unit in grade 10 science, I have noticed that students often struggle with the concept of refraction, both in lab settings and when working with it in theory such as a practice question or test.  Snell’s Law is the question most often left blank on the exam.  I believe the main reason for this is a misconception of what light is and how it travels, what is happening at the interface between two different substances.  Favale and Bondani, (2014), concur, stating about optics that “These misconceptions are widespread and do not depend on the gender, the level, and the age of the students: they seem to depend on some wrong ideas and explanatory models that are not changed by the curricular studies at school. In fact, the same errors are present in groups of students before and after taking optics courses at High School.”  That’s a goal I have as I go through another optics unit this semester; I plan to utilize a T-GEM inquiry approach to help students work through this difficult concept.

PhET has many useful simulations in the various fields of science, and there is a particularly good one for refraction called “Bending Light” which can be found at https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/bending-light/latest/bending-light_en.html.   To follow the GEM model, I would get students to access the Intro tab of the simulation.  The default is a laser going from air into water; I would explain what the index of refraction is, and then let students play around with it.  While students are exploring the simulation, I would ask generative questions like: “What do you notice about the relationship as you move the light?  What effect does the index of refraction have on the light beam?  Propose an explanation for this.” Once they have had a chance to propose a model, and to test it with various different conditions and extremes, I would have them switch to wave mode and try to propose what is actually happening at the interface to cause this effect.

The next stage is evaluation- having students determine if their model works for various conditions, and to challenge it with scenarios that don’t fit.  Having the students reverse the situation to have light start from water and go into air will cause a cognitive dissonance when the light reflects instead of refracting at the critical angle.  This would cause them to have to rethink and re-evaluate their hypothesis, forcing the third stage of GEM – modification.  This simulation also allows further extension with the use of prisms of various shapes that can demonstrate total internal reflection for example, and extra tools to measure the specific angles, and even the speed of light through the various substances.

These provide many further opportunities for students to go through more GEM cycles as they continue to shape and build their understandings.  This methodology will support what the teacher said in Khan (2007), “I want them to learn chemistry, [but] I don’t want them to just understand the concepts—I want them to understand where to get the concepts and where they come from.”  Later he further explained the premise of the GEM model: “[teachers] lead them through the use of computer simulations in a fashion that lets them look at individual pieces of relationships at a time, and then lead them through putting [those pieces of relationships] together into an overall concept” (Khan, 2010).  Students reported rich benefits, including that “simulations helped them to critically analyze a problem, make unobservable processes more explicit, and contribute to their science learning in ways that go beyond textbooks”, (Khan, 2010).

Digital simulations like PhET can effectively help to support learning.  Khan, (2010), in her conclusion writes “digital technologies such as computer simulations can be particularly engaging for science students because they can manipulate variables in multiple ways and observe changes as a result of this interaction and make predictions”.  Further, simulations may “engage students in multiple GEM cycles in one classroom period, beyond what could be accomplished in the scientific laboratory”, (Khan, 2010).  Khan (2007) stated that “Students expressed enriched mental models of molecular structures when engaged in GEM activities”, that “GEM cycles promoted students’ engagement with generating, evaluating, and modifying hypotheses” and further that “both modeling and inquiry facilitate the development and revision of abstract concepts” all of which serve to emphasize that our students’ understandings can be well supported through a technology integrated GEM model.

  • Favale, F., & Bondani, M. (2014). Misconceptions about optics: An effect of misleading explanations? Paper presented at the , 9289 92891A-92891A-5. 10.1117/12.2070520

LfU – it’s good for you.

Last year, as a culminating activity for the grade 9 electricity unit, I co-designed a project on energy sources.  Students chose a city (from a given list) somewhere in Canada and were tasked with creating a plan to supply it with electricity.  They needed to research the benefits and disadvantages of each type of power plant, decide which were most appropriate for their location, and do a cost analysis indicating how they could supply the energy under the one-time building and monthly costs budgets.  GoogleEarth was used to search each location for geographical features that could be used for power generation.  The final product was a constructed scale map on press board (we used GoogleEarth to help) showing the types and locations of the various plants they chose to power their city, using different coloured lights connected to switches using parallel and series circuits.  Their choices needed to be connected to a legend on the map, meet the power demand and budgets, and be justified with written explanations.

The use of ArcGIS would give further options to this project – students could do an analysis of what type, how many, and where Canada has power plants, and which types of power generation should be expanded further.  Population data can be analysed to see which plants could be used to meet the needs of the region.

I believe this project could fit the LfU model.  This model consists of a 3 step process including motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001).  Edelson sees motivation as being caused by a need for new knowledge – a limitation or gap of the learner’s prior knowledge.  This project helps students to recognize that they need more information – about the city, the energy sources, and the financial costs.  Motivation can be separated into demand and curiosity, (Edelson, 2001), where a need for more information drives the desire to find out more.

Through this project, knowledge is co-constructed as the students research information, and incrementally build their knowledge on power generation and their locations.  Edelson, 2001, divides this step into observations and communication.  Communication is seen when students discuss the pros and cons together and work to develop a consensus of ideas and priorities.  I think observation could be expanded by using ArcGIS to determine current plant usage and populations as discussed above.

The third step of LfU is knowledge refinement which Edelson breaks into reflection and application.  Reflection is seen when students go back over their learned information to assess what their priorities are, and if they meet the stated parameters.  Application is covered by the project being imbedded in a real-world context, where students need to determine the best approach for that region or city.  Radinsky et al emphasize this as well, stating students need to be immersed in the “context of the complex, messy world of actual data”, (2006).

I could also make this project more inquiry based by assessing prior knowledge – asking students to make predictions about which type of power plant is most common, cheapest, or most efficient – to rouse their curiosity.  Additionally, starting with cities with known parameters, will allow students to assess the effectiveness of the current energy plan and energy sources and make comparisons with other cities in the region using ArcGIS.  Collected data and research information could be stored using portfolio-type software such as Progress Portfolio, discussed by Edelson (2001).

Radinsky et al (2006) researched the effectiveness of different assessment strategies.  I did already have a unit test on the material as well as the submitted project, but I think it would be good to add presentation and interview components.  There is great value in using triangulation of assessment to gain a clearer picture of understandings: “Each assessment allowed a somewhat difference glimpse into what students understood and how they understood it and could apply it. The system of assessments provided a more nuanced view of students’ understanding than what would have been possible with only one or two of these”, (Radinsky et al, 2006).  A presentation component enables students to share their ideas and justify their solutions to an audience, while providing evidence of what the group had constructed as a whole, and also some of the understandings of individual group members.  Finally, I would add an individual interview component.  The interview would consist of a series of structured questions to prevent leading questions or a giving away of the answers, and to allow opportunity for spontaneous sharing of understandings.  According to Radinsky, (2006), interviews are the best way of eliciting partial understandings, and this process often yields rich information about what students know.  Using a variety of assessment methods would give a better picture of students’ overall understandings.

  • 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.
  • Radinsky, J., Sacay, R., Singer, M., Oliva, S., Allende-Pellot, F., & Liceaga, I. (2006, April). Emerging conceptual understandings in GIS investigations. Paper about forms of assessment presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Available from Google Scholar.

 

 

WISE space exploration and colonization

The motivation of WISE was to engage students in inquiry learning with flexibly adaptive projects that can meet the needs of diverse teachers and students (Linn et al, 2003).  WISE is based on SKI methodology– (scaffolding knowledge integration), with 4 central goals for students:

(1) making thinking visible,

(2) making science accessible,

(3) helping students learn from each other, and

(4) promoting lifelong learning.

 

A typical process would begin with a topic, determination of the big ideas or learning goals, development of interactive activities, and then the development of supporting information, media, and assessment tools (quizzes, reflections, discussions, etc).  I think it is a lot more flexible than the Jasper project, as it can be customized by any teacher to fit their curriculum, needs, and teaching styles.  It is also more interactive and student directed, enabling students to explore the topic in their own way and pace, rather than in a more prescriptive fashion.  I could see myself using a WISE project in the future, once I have adapted it.

I chose to work with the Space Colony! – Genetic Diversity and Survival project.  This is a very comprehensive, in depth project that could work well in my Bio11U course.  It has connections to biodiversity, evolution, and focuses on genetics, so it could be a link between those units.  I added a karyotype page, with images, video, links to a google doc, and an interactive online simulation activity.  I found that while this project was extensive, much of it was static – text and images, followed by questions for students to answer.  I wanted to add some more interactive material.  Many of the questions and much of the wording would need to be modified as well, as they are quite simplistic for the level of my students.  I did modify a couple questions, but then realized that it would need a major overhaul to most of them.  To use this, I would also probably add a section on genetics problem solving with Punnett squares, and a section on ethics.  The technology for cloning and reproductive technologies is presented, but there is no discussion on its merits, or the value or morality of its use.  I added a discussion on the value of diversity – asking a question about the value of people with Down’s Syndrome set in the context of Denmark recently declaring itself “Down-syndrome free”.  I, for one, feel this loss with deep sadness and even fear about what genetic diversity will be targeted next.  It is important for students to not only gain information and skills, but also to reflect on their merits and the value of their use.

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

Relating Inquiry and Science

SKI WISE Forum

I found the articles about WISE very interesting and thought provoking.  So much of what we teach as “science” is not so much science as scientific information – facts and concepts of what we have learned and currently understand about our world.  But, science at its core is not information, but a process – a process of inquiry and discovery about ourselves, our world, and our place in it.  I found the WISE goal to make the process accessible to students of all ages a laudable one.  Too often what we consider learning in our students is rote repetition, rather than thinking, investigating, or drawing conclusions.  In contrast, Linn et al, (2003), put forward 4 SKI principles: (1) making thinking visible, (2) making science accessible, (3) helping students learn from each other, and (4) promoting lifelong learning-  to help students do science rather than remember it.  Williams et al, (2004), describe WISE as an organizational platform to support teacher’s use of inquiry activities in the classroom, and to allow students opportunity for self-direction.  I like the opportunities it provides, and feel it would be a useful tool to incorporate in my classroom.

What I found when trying inquiry activities is comparable to what was expressed by Furtak (2006), that students recognize they are not truly discovering something new, that the answers ARE known, and so they want to find out the “real” answer and compare their findings to it.  I’m not sure how to get past this.  Most of the obvious questions and answers around us have already been explored and students don’t have the knowledge or expertise to ask and investigate truly unknown questions.  The students recognize that they are in an artificial world of science, where what they are doing doesn’t matter to the “world of science” beyond themselves.

In science, there are “right” answers, explanations that fit the evidence better than others, so it is natural for students to want to measure their success to the known standards.  There is a trade-off here between the “desired understandings” and the “process of inquiry”.  I would argue that effective science teaching would find a balance between the two.  Teacher training is important to set up inquiry activities in an effective manner, and to provide support to teachers on how to interact with the students in an inquiry environment.  I think the approach that Doug took, (Furtak, 2006), is the best one, talking to them about the value of thinking, testing, figuring things out for themselves – the process of learning, as opposed to the information itself.  However, young children don’t have this level of awareness yet, so it may be a tough sell in lower elementary.  I also think it is wise to discuss and reflect on inquiry findings after the activity to support student understandings and avoid misconceptions.  I don’t see inquiry learning being used best in isolation, but rather interspersed with other learning and teaching strategies for a full, well-balanced learning experience.

 

  1. Can inquiry teaching be used effectively in isolation?
  2. Is science learning possible without inquiry?
  3. Which is the best description: science as inquiry, science is inquiry or inquiry build science?

 

  • Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
  • Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538
  • Williams, M. Linn, M.C. 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.

Anchors Aweigh – Creating an Anchored Adventure in Forensics

I found the Jasper series very intriguing, and I think it would have been a very effective educational tool if used correctly.  It is an excellent example of anchored learning where instruction is “situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers” (CTGV, 1992).  Further, one of the stated goals is the “importance of helping students become independent learners who engage in generative problem finding as well as problem solving” (CTGV, 1992).  I would have loved to have learned math in that format, and would have enjoyed the challenge and extension to real world problems.  Interestingly, a colleague will be working on a similar type project for secondary math through the CEMC (Centre for Education in Mathematics and Computers) at the University of Waterloo next year.  I’m a little jealous, but biology is my subject, not math, so I’m sure it’s for the best.

If given the opportunity, I would also love to be involved in designing a project like this in the field of biology.  I think a good story line might revolve around forensics, as it is prevalent in TV shows, and is of interest to most students.  I could envision a connection with preserving and identifying endangered species.  Some species of gray tree frog for eg. can only be distinguished by the frequency of their song and by their genetics.  Students would have to use various genetic technologies to identify the species, and then use taxonomy to classify them.  Materials to learn about biodiversity, preserving these frogs and their habitat could be put in the scenarios, along with designing an artificial habitat in a zoo.  For some extra excitement, perhaps convicting a gang of poachers based on the DNA, or an unknown disease that is killing them off and needs to be identified and treated.

While the tech, graphics, and fashion of the Jasper project are somewhat dated, I think it is a very effective model.  Even today, I am confident my son and daughter (grade 8 & 6) would prefer to do math in this way rather than traditional learning styles and would very quickly become immersed in the series, ignoring the datedness.  There was some serious brain power behind this series, which I couldn’t fully appreciate until a watched a whole episode.  I found myself scanning for information and clues like the map along the way.  Giving students the ability to take control, explore, inquire, go back, rethink and rework is a powerful model.  My biology adventure would be based on a similar design.  I thought the designers’ idea to start simple (stone age) was a wise choice, and their included updates (Adventure Player and teachable agents) were brilliant concepts that really enhanced the experience and dealt with perceived weaknesses very effectively.  Using a digital “guide” to help students who are stuck is a wonderful way to provide students with assistance while maintaining their autonomy, while also freeing the teacher to help in other ways.

Shyu (2000) and Biswas et al (2001) cite a number of benefits for the students of anchored instruction as demonstrated in the Jasper series, that I would also feel merited in any design I were to build:

  1. Situated learning activity (connections to culture, context)
  2. Complex, realistic problem
  3. Cooperative learning
  4. Explorative inquiry
  5. Embedded data design
  6. Inter-curricular and intra-curricular links
  7. Imbedded feedback (from characters or scenario eg in Jasper, plane won’t take off)
  8. AI coach (indicate if on the right track, or give hints or assistance if needed)
  9. Teachable agents (characters students need to explain concepts to, to complete a task)

These criteria would also afford the students with:

  1. Motivation, positive attitude towards science
  2. Problem solving skills
  3. Confidence
  4. Independent thinking
  5. Collaboration
  6. Knowledge retention and transfer
  7. Understandings of real life situations and other cultures
  8. Technological skills

Questions for discussion:

  1. Do you agree that “anchored instruction” meets the criteria for constructivist theory?
  2. In your opinion, what is the greatest benefit of anchored instruction?
  3. Ideas that I should add to my scenario or suggestions for methodology.
  • 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. [Retrieved October 22, 2012, from: http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~biswas/Research/ile/papers/sad01/sad01.html]
  • 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. 10.1007/BF02296707
  • Shyu, H. C. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69. 10.1111/1467-8535.00135

Best Practices and a Love for Learning

PCK and TPACK – best practices

When reading these articles, it really struck me that these authors really get it.  For a classroom or a lesson to be effective, the teacher has to not only know and be able to interact with the content, but also with the methodology that is most effective to the context of the topic.  For many years I taught high school math, and while I could explain well, I was never able to make it interesting or relevant to the students.  I wasn’t immersed in the context. 

For science, and in particular, biology that has not been a problem for me.  I have been interested in the world and creatures around me for as long as I can remember, and still find it fascinating.  To use anecdotes, analogies, and methodologies to make it interesting has just been an extension of what I already want to do.  While I appreciate the value of the PCK and TPACK model, I wonder if there is a lack of focus on the individual teacher as well.  Putting theory and practice together while combining TPC knowledge is a great skill to have and will undoubtedly improve the engagement and learning in the class.  I would argue, however, that a teacher with a love for their students and their course while lacking some framework may be just as effective if not more so, than a trained teacher without that love.  My favourite topics always seem to go over the best regardless of the methodologies used for them or other topics.

One activity I have done regularly is for the homeostasis (human body systems) unit in biology 11.  For this, I have developed a number of different medical scenarios or case studies.  Each group is assigned a “patient” with a medical situation that they have to diagnose and develop a treatment plan for.  They needed to research symptoms, request diagnostic tests and technologies, ask questions and interact with the patient and doctor via e-mail (it’s me) and create a tactful bedside manner report on what is ailing them and what they are going to do about it.  In addition to learning the body systems, they also learn many other skills – collaboration, responsibility, deduction, and technological skills like research, organization, and layout.  For the most part they are very engaged and thorough.  I believe this activity meets the criteria for the TPCK overlap, as the technology supports the learning of the content in a way that engages the students creatively and with collaboration.

I have also begun using WIKIs and digital artifacts as ways to have students construct their knowledge.  Once most of the topics have been addressed at least once, I think I would like to go the next step of designing their knowledge – give my students choices to design games or activities that demonstrate understandings of the concepts.  In ETEC510, we read a number of articles (Kafai, 2006; Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Brennan & Resnick, 2013; Kalantzis & Cope, 2010; Mouza & Lavigne, 2013) that emphasize the power of design for learning – first for the teacher, but also for our students.  Mishra and Koeler (2006) also used case studies from a MET program designing course that further elaborate this point.  Mouza and Lavigne suggest a needed shift from children as consumers to children as designers,  writing “as young people design interactive media, they go through an iterative process of imagining, creating, playing, sharing, and reflecting” (p. 11).  When learners are most involved is when they contribute the most – to their own learning, to the class, and to society at large.

When I first read those articles, I wrote “Playing is fine for younger kids learning motor and social skills, but high school must be more serious- there’s content, information, and skills to develop.  Can students really be trusted to learn for themselves?  What about the basic knowledge needed for future courses and the workplace?  Life skills?  Budgeting, tax returns, giving out change?  Safety?  Our bodies?  The 3 R’s?  What if it’s not what I expected, or wanted?  I must confess I REALLY don’t know.  I’m not even sure if I have any ideas.  I think I need to ask my kids!  Some small part of me is also saying “ask your students – talk to them – give them some say in their education”.  I think I will.  I have no idea where this will lead, it’s kind of scary, but maybe, just maybe, worth it?”

After reflection, I think I’m still in a similar place.  I still don’t have the answers, but my knowledge and willingness to learn and try things continues to grow, and I still believe it’s worth it!

Questions for Discussion or Reflection:

  1. Is being outside your comfort zone a good place to be?  If we are not the intuitive knowledgeable experts that TPACK is seeking, does this mean we should stick to more traditional methodologies?
  2. Interestingly, Apple’s philosophy appears quite similar as shown by their stated goals for Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow – Today.  How does this framework align with TPACK?  Is it a good thing for commercial interests to take this close of an interest in educational pedagogy?  What biases or influences would they bring on teachers or into classrooms?

Figure 1: Three major influences on 21st century learning.  Reprinted from Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow—Today: Learning in the 21st Century by ACOT2, 2008.  Retrieved from http://ali.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf.

Figure 2: Six Design Principles.

Reprinted from Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow—Today: Learning in the 21st Century by ACOT2, 2008.  Retrieved from http://ali.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf.

  • Brennan, K. & Resnick, M. (2013). Chapter 17: Imagining, Creating, Playing, Sharing, Reflecting: how online community supports young people as designers of interactive media.In C. Mouza and N. Lavigne (eds.), Emerging Technologies for the Classroom, Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies. New York: Springer Science &Business. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_17
  • Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.
  • Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.
  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Extending the Classroom

Technology is a tool – something that helps us improve or accomplish something we couldn’t do before.  It may be designed by us, it augments our own abilities, but is outside of ourselves.  An ideal TELE is one that immerses students into a deep learning experience into experiencing a concept that could not be shown otherwise, or in a new and collaborative way through the use of technology.  This experience must go beyond the traditional experience in some way.

For example, performing a virtual pig dissection is not really a TELE in my opinion, as it gives no extended experience, but doing a human autopsy would be.  Writing a digital lab report is not a TELE, but determining molecular shapes using a PhET simulation is.  Likewise, posting a reflection on-line or creating a slideshow are not TELEs, but having a knowledge forum discussion or creating a collaborative presentation would be.

Responsibility, Collaboration, Engagement

On Jan 18, 2018, I interviewed a colleague in Hamilton.   “Lucy” has been teaching physics, science and math for the past 10 years at the high school level.  She recently developed a self-directed unit in her grade 12 physics course, and I wondered what the effect of a self-directed unit would have on the engagement of her students.

I asked her the following questions: (her answers are summarized below)

  1. What are your main goals in implementing tech in your classroom?
  • L: I developed a student directed learning unit.  In it the students use technology for research and for simulations.  I want them to recognize the power of technology as well as understanding the responsibility that goes along with it.
  1. Every time a teacher undertakes to add new ideas and strategies (including tech) to their classroom, there are always barriers. What have been the biggest barriers for you, and how have you overcome them?
  • L: The biggest barrier was dealing with resistant learners who want notes and want to be given the right answers by the teacher.  I have found that students are losing memorization.  They rely a lot more on looking things up.  There is a lack of common and foundational knowledge.  I think I could do a better job of finding relevant activities and simulations that the students can relate to and learn from.
  1. Suppose I was a student in your class who learned effectively using traditional methods and was resistant to new technology in the classroom. What would you say to justify using tech for their learning?
  • L: I found that they grew through the process.  I received very positive feedback from the students (all the students) in a survey after the unit was completed.  They really enjoyed it, learned, and the marks were comparable.  A 90s student still scored in the 90s and a 60s student still scored in the 60s.
  1. What other benefits do you see for students that justify the use and expense of technology in your classroom?
  • L:  They develop strategies for their own learning, they have increased engagement.  I also have the opportunity to move around and interact with students, to help focus their learning and assist them with any difficulties.  We have a limited number of laptops, so the students share them.  This is best part of it – they have to collaborate.  Collaboration is the key, rather than learning on technology in isolation.
  1. What are your thoughts regarding technology replacing textbooks in the future?
  • L:  I think textbooks are helpful for reference.  I would want to keep using them.  I wonder about digital textbooks, I’ve never looked into them.  That might be something.
  1. Does digital technology allow you to do anything that isn’t possible using traditional teaching methods?
  • L: Certain simulations of theoretical physics (eg. Photoelectric effect lab allows you to measure the electrons that come off) and especially chemistry.  Lots of the chemistry modules can be visualized this way.
  1. Which students do you feel have the most to gain from using digital technology in class?
  • L:  The 70s and 80s students, the average students.  They really took on the challenges; were engaged.  They went above and beyond.
  1. Do you feel that some students are at a disadvantage because of your use of technology in class?
  • L:  Not really, this is a 4U physics class, so the students are pretty motivated.  It was very effective for them.  For some maybe the extra screen time.

Through this interview, we were able to address a number of issues that we both felt were important to the use of technology in science.

  1. Responsibility – Students learn to take responsibility for their own learning. Over the years we have been teaching (10 for her, 17 for me) we have both noticed a trend of neediness among the students.  The are becoming “lazy learners” who simply want to be spoon-fed the material that they “need-to-know” by the teacher.  They have lost a sense of the purpose of life-long learning and the value of learning for its own sake, as well as becoming accustomed to a lack of curiosity in favour of curriculum.  Self-directed learning helps students develop their own strategies for learning, for organization, and for taking responsibility for their own deadlines and education.  Students also gain confidence in their ability to find answers, solve their own problems, and prioritize what is important.  While they are often resistant at first (I found the same thing with students in my class) upon reflection, they realize that they enjoyed it and were engaged, while still being able to perform at the same level as more traditional methods.  Most also recognize the value and merit of this type of skill development.

 

  1. Collaboration – Student-directed learning brings out many of the best aspects of education, in particular the opportunity for collaboration. Collaboration teaches students that their ideas matter, they are valued, and that as individuals, they are important to the learning process.  Students begin to realize that they all have different skills, abilities, and perspectives, and that by working together we are stronger and can grow and expand our knowledge.  In this type of learning the teacher is at the side, assisting, not directing, which further emphasizes the value of student contributions and understandings.  It is very important not to work in isolation, as this may allow many misconceptions to occur, as was discussed with Heather in the first unit of this course.  Collaboration allows students to assist each other with using technology and developing tech skills, but also with supporting their understandings.  Finally, collaboration also helps to develop social and interactive skills which will give life-long benefits to them in future education, careers, and relationships.

 

  1. Engagement – Another key word for student-centered learning is engagement. A barrier that is often raised is that this methodology takes too long.  Our science curricula in Ontario is jam-packed, and it is difficult just to get through it each time.  However, I would argue that whatever small part of the content is missed or reduced (usually details like terms) is more than made up for by the added retention that a deeper level of engagement contributes.  For example in my class, if I had simply explained various biotechnologies they would likely forget shortly after the test.  If we did a lab they would probably have a better understanding, but when we did a RAFT activity, they are likely to remember far longer.  How long do you think you would remember doing a 12 days of microarrays carol by a science nerd band as one group did?  When students are more engaged, they also tend to go “above-and-beyond” as “Lucy” mentioned – they took on challenges and made them their own.  The real benefit here is not better grades but the interest and enjoyment, and the stimulation to best work.  When I asked a different colleague if unmotivated students would be more likely to fall between the cracks with student-directed methods, he said no.  His argument was that the teacher has more available time to direct and re-engage students who are off-task.

Technology and Motivation

When watching these video cases, I was struck by how many of the arguments and concerns raised then are the same today.  On the FOR side, tech is seen to give consistent, dependable results, and instant feedback, allowing opportunity for corrections (Teacher B); tech saves time from tedious data analysis and plotting to increase deeper learning (Teacher A) and gives the opportunity to engage students while developing motivation and transferable skills (Teacher F).  Teacher E talked about the opportunity for collaboration and the feeling of ownership.  On the AGAINST, issues that were raised were a loss or reduction of hands-on lab skills (Teacher B), tech as a barrier: needing to learn tech as opposed to learning the content (Teacher B, students 9, 11, 15), financial costs and support (Teachers F, D & A), and the greater time demands (cases 5&8).

For the most part, it seemed that the barriers were on the side of the teachers (uncomfortable with tech, no support, finances, limited time) while the benefits are mainly student oriented (engagement, higher order problems, deeper learning, collaboration, transferable skills), which leads me to wonder how could we not use at least some tech?  If we don’t, are we becoming barriers to the students education and engagement?

On the other hand, I see some practical questions that should be addressed:

  1. Using extensive tech requires students to learn many tech skills and programs. How do we maintain a balance between learning the tech without limiting the content?
  2. How can we engage all students with effectively with limited resources? Is there an ideal ratio between # of students and # of devices/tech?
  3. For level 3 classrooms, where students are self-directed, the common understanding is that students are suddenly motivated and engaged, because those are the ones who are interviewed. In my experience, there are always some students (usually teenage boys) who are not engaged, interested, or motivated about ANYTHING in school, regardless of subject, content, or teaching method.  Are they at greater risk or falling through the cracks, creating distractions, or needing management in this type of setting?  Some students do better in a structured setting… and for some the teachers want it!  Thoughts?

This year I have 8 laptops in my class, which I use a lot for collaborative work and digital reflections/discussions, etc.  I have found that it takes a LOT more classroom management to control the off-task behaviour of a few of my students, to the point where it almost ruins it for the rest.  Having teacher-centered gives that element of control needed for those individuals.  Halfway through the semester I gave a survey to my grade 12’s and they indicated that the best ratio is 2:1.  This allows for some collaboration, while not having any “fringe” people feeling left out or uninvolved.  As for motivation and engagement, I have found that the greater diversity of learning strategies, the better, but the amount of new tech/software should be limited, rather for the most part, existing tech skills should be built on and used in new and creative ways.