ETEC 533 – Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom
Hello everyone,
Thank you all for the conversations we had this term! To wrap this course up, here is my final post highlighting my TELE, Anchored3D, which focuses on integrating 3D printing in the K-12 (science) curriculum with anchored instruction as the primary supporting theory.
https://anchored3d.weebly.com/
Please enjoy!
Gordon
Hello everyone!
EDpuzzle is a free tool that my math and science teachers have been using extensively for the past couple years. Due to the popularity of the flipped classroom model, companies like EDpuzzle, Zaption, and Playposit, have developed applications that enable teachers to annotate videos with questions, audio, visuals, or other interactive elements to augment the learning experience. Here is a quick demo video of the app:
If you have any questions about our experience with the app, feel free to ask me anytime.
Cheers,
Gordon
Many of you have already posted wonderful lesson activities based on the technologies introduced in this module. As this is our last post, I thought it would be interesting to take a slightly different direction and generate a discussion on a more recent technology related to information visualization and anchored instruction. In module 2, we read about the “importance of having students become actively involved in the construction of knowledge” and the need to “anchor or situate instruction in the context of meaningful problem-solving environments” (Cognition and technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992, pp. 292-294). Some schools are leveraging the interactivity of video games like Minecraft (EDU) to provide virtual learning environments for information visualization and meaningful problem-solving. Here is a quick intro to the Mindcraft EDU platform:
Microsoft acquired Minecraft EDU and re-released it to the public in November 2016. Through the platform, teachers/students can create and share immersive 3D/VR worlds that engage students in various areas including math and science. For instance, there are interactive worlds that simulate biological cells and structures, climate conditions, lunar phases, states of matter, and chemical reactions (Short, 2012). There are also worlds that challenge groups of students to work together to solve a particular problem (e.g. build a sustainable, organic farm). Here is a Minecraft world created as a visualization/simulation of a biology cell.
To date, I have not implemented Minecraft EDU in my K-12 as I am having difficulty justifying its merits. A number of questions come to mind when exploring the possibility of its implementation – here are just a couple of them for discussion:
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
Prensky, M. (2003). Digital game-based learning. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 21-21.
Short, D. (2012). Teaching scientific concepts using a virtual world – Minecraft. Teaching
Science, 58(3), 55-58.
After investigating the platforms in this module including Globe and Exploratorium, I have a couple thoughts about learning communities in the current context of educational technology.
(4) Mechanisms for sharing what is learned should be open
There is a noticeable difference in the ability for teachers/students/experts to (1) create an account, and (2) participate in the learning community. For GLOBE the pathway to create an account is relatively obvious; click on GLOBE Teachers and the information is readily available. In contrast, the pathway for students is not obvious; although, students can click on GLOBE Observer and participate directly by downloading the GLOBE Observer app (this requires an Android or Apple phone which is somewhat limiting). In contrast, joining and participating at the Exploratorium is difficult to find for all parties. Ultimately, organizations need to create clear pathways for people to join the learning community and make significant collaborative contributions. In addition, access should be device agnostic and include mechanisms and security for younger students to participate freely, and teachers to observe progress.
(2) The shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills should be focused
GLOBE has a primary mandate to build a learning community to develop knowledge on environmental issues. This creates a place for like-minded individuals with similar goals; newcomers immediately know what they are getting into and how they can contribute. In contrasts sites like Exploratorium, PBS, and Discovery Education have such a wide variety of topics that members can easily get lost. These sites may have higher Internet traffic due to their strong brands, but the majority are transient visitors rather than actual contributors to the learning communities. In relation, informal communities of practice including the Scratch community for coding, and the Thingiverse community for 3D design, have very narrow objectives which create vibrant learning communities.
The implications for my current practice in a K-12 school is primarily with point (1). We have made a concerted effort to create small learning communities between our current students, industry experts, and distinguished alumni who have been successful in various fields including math and science. We have used various platforms including webconferencing (Skype/Google Hangouts) and video/file sharing (YouTube and Google Drive), to enable mentorship and collaboration on culminating problem-based projects. It would be fantastic if the technology-based environment was more seamless and less make shift. It is possible that environments like Slack could accommodate these interactions but I am not sure. If you have any suggestions, I would love to hear them!
Driver, R., Asoko, H., each, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Jessup‐Anger, J. E. (2015). Theoretical foundations of learning communities. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(149), 17-27.
As I have mentioned in the past, my primary role is to work with all K-12 teachers to incorporate technology into the curriculum. This year, my middle and senior school teachers have been incorporating 3D design and 3D printing in problem solving and design activities for various courses including math, physics, and environmental science. As stated by Zydney & Warner, “additional research is also needed in order to determine how mobile apps can serve as problem-solving tools through the scientific process in addition to scaffolds or supports” (p. 14). One type of mobile app that I have yet to explore is mobile-based 3D scanners. These apps take a series of 2D pictures to create a 3D model; some utilize augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) to aid in target acquisition. Winn argues that “exposure to an environment can lead to physical changes in the brain, resulting in heightened perceptual sensitivity, which leads a person to actually see things differently in the environment” (p. 18). This type of technology could help students investigate and manipulate physical objects, and develop structural modifications and solutions.
An example of this type of technology is Qlone which is available free on the Apple App Store. This application requires the user to place the target object on a template printable in any size.
Here is a video that demonstrates the Qlone application: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=BkOxvT_esQo
The power of this type of mobile application will certainly grow once they develop the ability to quickly capture 3D objects and landscapes within the natural environment. This leads to my questions for you:
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.
Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1-17.
Hello everyone!
For my synthesis reflection, I thought it would be interesting to go in a slightly different direction and share my thoughts on what modern interpretations of each concept could look like and how the original interpretations could be transformed.
| Technology Enhanced Learning Environments | Primary Pedagogical Framework or Methodology | Original Interpretation | Modern Interpretation |
| Anchored Instruction & Jasper | Problem-Based Learning | Video-based
Theoretical problems Pre-determined solutions Student collaboration |
Technology-based
Real-world problems Unknown solutions Student collaboration |
| SKI & WISE | Scaffolded Inquiry Learning | Learning-module based
Prescribed inquiry elements Sterile feedback mechanisms |
Learning-module based
Prescribed inquiry elements Personalized inquiry elements Engaging feedback mechanisms |
| LfU, MyWorld GIS & ArcGIS | Motivation, Knowledge Construction, Knowledge Refinement | Graphic Information System (GIS) software
Initiated by motivation Goal-directed |
Any technology medium
Initiated by empathy Design-directed |
| T-GEM | Generate, Evaluate, and Modify Relationships | Online experiment based
Teacher-generated inquiry |
Online experiment based
Student-generated inquiry |
Anchored Instruction & Jasper: The original vision for this project emphasized the “importance of having students become actively involved in the construction of knowledge” and “anchoring or situating instruction in the context of meaningful problem-solving environments” (Cognition and technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992, pp. 292-294). A modern interpretation would not only leverage technology in the delivery of a problem, but utilize technology as an integral part of the problem and/or solution. Problems would be less theoretical/abstract and would connect with real-world issues that students are passionately invested in. Solutions would not be pre-determined and students would develop solutions alongside teachers. Collaboration would still be an important element in the process as most problem-solving in the workplace requires intense collaboration.
SKI & WISE: Linn et al. (2003) defines 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” (p. 518). Applications like WISE could be transformed with very minor adjustments to the method. To go alongside prescribed inquiry elements, students in a modern system could generate personalized experimental conditions to test out their own thoughts on each concept. In addition, more engaging real-time feedback mechanisms like live chat-based technologies, or AI-infused response algorithms could improve the rather sterile environment of multiple choice questions and short answer responses.
LfU, MyWorld GIS & ArcGIS: The LfU framework emphasizes the need for teachers to create demand for knowledge, elicit curiosity, provide direct experiences, elicit communication, and provide opportunities to apply and reflect on their knowledge (Edelson, 2001, p. 360). It is certain that this framework is not isolated to GIS software. A modern interpretation of LfU can be seen in the Design Thinking Process. Instead of curiosity, students generate motivation through empathy (understanding human need). The following steps are relatively similar but the knowledge is constructed and refined through the process of design, failure, and re-design.
T-GEM: Khan (2007) associates T-GEM with model-based inquiry which refers to a “dynamic, recursive process of learning by changing one’s mental models while inquiring about a phenomena” (p. 878). For this final framework, I would like to generate discussion with a related question. Can an activity really be called “inquiry-based” if said inquiry was not intrinsically generated by the student mind?
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
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. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education, 87(4), 517-538.
As a Technology Integrator, I think I can speak more vividly about my own experiences/misconceptions and work from there. Believe it or not, I still remember learning about the states of matter and not fully believing the explanation for that one major anomaly, solid water. How could it be less dense than liquid water? Then I was shown a diagram of water molecules and their arrangement in a solid, but I still was not convinced. If I were to create a T-GEM cycle to convince my younger self of the density of solid water, and the states of matter in general, it would play out as follows:
Generate – Students would interact with a program similar to Chemland called PhET Interactive Simulations by the University of Colorado Boulder [CLICK HERE and choose “States”]. I would ask the students to observe the different atoms/molecules at different states and try applying heat/cold to different states. Afterwards, I would ask students to generate a hypothesis for the arrangement of atoms/molecules at each state and the effects of heat/cold.
Evaluate – Next, I would ask students to take a closer look at the different states of water and compare it to the other atoms/molecules. What is the same? What is different?
Modify – Finally, I would ask students to provide a full explanation on the states of matter and reconcile the anomaly in solid water. As a follow up exercise, I would ask students to suggest a real-life experiment that we could do to test their hypothesis.
If you get the chance, take a quick look at some of the other PhET Interactive Simulations. Note, I had some issues with the simulations that were powered with Java (coffee cup); look for the ones with a red 5 (HTML 5) in the bottom right corner. How do these simulations compare with the Chemland experiments?
In modern education, it would be difficult not to see the benefit of the LfU framework which emphasizes the need for teachers to create demand for knowledge, elicit curiosity, provide direct experiences, elicit communication, and provide opportunities to apply and reflect on their knowledge (Edelson, 2001, p. 360). Similarly, Radinsky, Oliva and Alamar (2010) support that idea that “scientists generate new knowledge through a collective, contested, negotiated process, based on communication and mutual accommodation of ideas, rather than simply through the individual exercise of abstract logical reasoning” (p. 619).
Now I could proceed with this post by suggesting hypothetical applications of the LfU framework, but I thought it would be more interesting to share some related experiences from the school I work in. Fortunately, aspects of the LfU framework are already built into our curriculum which is driven by similar core values. For instance, our Kindergarten teacher incorporated a series of critical thinking activities to help students understand food science, food waste, and business models:
Motivate – (Create Demand) JK/SK students were given the task to design their own pizzas. (Elicit Curiosity) Servery staff worked with the students to understand what goes into a pizza and how they are made.
Construct – (Direct Experience) Students created their own pizzas based on the knowledge gained from the Servery staff. (Elicit Communication) Students received feedback on their pizzas from teachers and other students for their size, shape, and choices of toppings.
Refine – (Apply) Students worked in groups to create their own pizzerias with menus / table arrangements, and executed a lunch service for staff and students. (Reflect) Food waste was weighed and students discussed changes in the pizzas/menus/service to reduce waste in the future.
In Senior School, application of an LfU-type framework has naturally been more complex. In some cases, they have been augmented by partnerships with other educational organizations.
Motivate – (Create Demand) As part of an interdisciplinary course, groups of students were challenged by the U of T, Munk School of Global Affairs to develop a technological solution for the world birth registry crisis. (Elicit Curiosity) Each group studied the issue in different countries and decided on one country to develop a solution.
Construct – (Direct Experience) One particular group explored different technology-based solutions including developing a Smartphone app. (Elicit Communication) The group consulted with various experts, government officials, and technology companies within the country.
Refined – (Reflect) Due to the country’s emerging infrastructure, the group developed a solution that incorporated a text-messaging system that was more cost effective and easier to implement. (Apply) The group presented the solution first to a panel of local experts and then communicated it to leaders in the target country. That country is now implementing a system based on the group’s solution.
I believe the power of this LfU framework is fully realized when motivation is situated in a challenge that is real to the student(s) and ideally has no solution. This can be frightening for teachers as they usually present concepts knowing the answers already. I would love to hear your thoughts on these experiences and whether they exemplify the LfU framework.
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., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2009). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619-642
I was quite impressed by this week’s topic on the WISE platform; creating a dynamic and interactive platform with collaborative learning and authoring is no easy task. I chose to customize “What Impacts Global Climate Change?” from the WISE library. I chose this primarily because it is currently a very hot topic and the political climate surrounding it is quite stormy. Triple puns aside, Linn et al. (2003) defines 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” (p. 518). I suspect many of you would agree that inquiry is a desirable learning method in modern education, but the devil is the details so to speak. For instance, one change that I wanted to make was in the simulation Step 2.8 Add Gasses to the Model (click here), unfortunately I could not find a way to do that. As you click on the Drive! button, temperature increases exponentially; students not paying attention could easily miss the confusing scale at the bottom in thousands of years. In addition, there is only one car in the simulation putting out CO2. As this is created for students in grades 6-8, the simulation could be misinterpreted in any number of ways. As an educator, I feel it is necessary to be careful about how we display information, to be as accurate as possible, or else students will construct models and arguments that are not based on actual facts. Given the chance, I would change the image to be more representative (i.e. add more cars, even cows if we want to get technical), have a time scale at the bottom that would be more identifiable, and perhaps have an indicator of how much CO2 is being put in the air as the student presses the button. I would also ensure that the temperature increase is consistent with data from multiple sources (see below) and current statistical models.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education, 87(4), 517-538.
The theoretical frameworks behind the Jasper Series are quite familiar as I have seen many of you talk about the “importance of having students become actively involved in the construction of knowledge” and “anchoring or situating instruction in the context of meaningful problem-solving environments” (Cognition and technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992, pp. 292-294). With the many advances in technology, educators have a plethora of opportunities to create active and anchored learning experiences.
The opportunity to create a science adventure is currently not a hypothetical one for me. Last week I was asked to teach a select group of Grade 8 students how to use a 3D printer; I have 3 days to work with the students over a 3 month period. I could just design 3 days of boring tutorials, but I would rather utilize these theoretical frameworks and challenge the students in the process. After all, “problem-based learning (PBL) is considered one of the most powerful instructional models to provide students with opportunities to experience real-life problems in school settings” (Park & Park, 2012, E14). Here is a quick outline for the 3 days:
Day 1
The goal of the first day is to inspire and instruct. Students will be shown video examples of how 3D printing has been used to solve real-world problems. Afterwards, students will learn how to use a simple 3D design application.
Day 2
The goal of the second day is to excite and challenge. Students will visit an innovation hub to see design thinking in action. Afterwards, students will return to the school and complete a design challenge (in groups of 3) based on a current need in the school. At the end of the day, groups will be tasked to find their own problem of personal/local/global significance.
Day 3
The goal of the third day is to anchor and challenge. Groups will present their problems and vote on the best challenge. All students will work to design the best solution for the challenge.
I would love to hear your feedback on these plans and how I could tweak it further. I fear that the amount of time would make it difficult to have 2 separate design challenges; it would leave very little time for discussion and iteration.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
Park, K., & Park, S. (2012). Development of professional engineers’ authentic contexts in blended learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E14-E18
