Author Archives: Kathryn Williams

Investigating Triangles

Using one of the instructional frameworks in Module B and one (or more) of the digital technologies in this lesson, create a concise lesson activity that addresses this misconception.

This week’s material fit in well with my week at school which was spent investigating and constructing triangles with my grade 6 class. The students in my class are eager and able and I wanted to challenge them to combine their knowledge of angles, measures and shape. An example question would look like this: In triangle PQR line PQ measures 7cm, angle P is 35 degrees and angle R is 47 degrees. Find the lengths of the other sides and how large the last angle is by drawing a diagram. I gave each group rulers, protractors and compasses and the investigation phase was great – it worked very well! But when it came to going over our work I found using my interactive whiteboard a bit clumsy, as I was rotating the ruler and it was difficult to measure. I didn’t even know how to get a compass up and could have to switch between my IWB and my white board, using homemade compasses and protractors. It wasn’t that smooth of a lesson! I kept thinking to myself that I wish there was a simulation tool that the girls could use to stretch and manipulate their diagrams and understanding. Srinivasan et al. (2006) argue that in order for simulations to be effective they must be pitched at the right level. If the simulation is not challenging enough, or on the other hand too challenging, then it will not going to have the intended benefits. The digital technology that I explored this week was Geometers Sketchpad and I could completely see how this would have enhanced my triangle investigation. I have designed a lesson based on the similar concept of triangles I did this week in my classroom, but also included the T-GEM concept.

Generate

Start the lesson with in the same way with pencils, rulers, compasses and protractors.
Ask, if we have two angles and a side given to us, how can we figure out the remaining measures and angles of a triangle?
Students work collaboratively to investigate.
Discuss findings and methods as a class, but the teacher should not say if any answers are correct or incorrect at this point.

Evaluate

Students to go on Geometers Sketchpad in groups and work though the same questions on the platform. If it if one of the first times using the platform, the teachers could give a brief introduction to the platform and demonstrate how some of the tools work.
Each group should now compare the answers they have when they used physical tools and when they used the simulation. Are their answers the same or different? Did they use the same method/steps to find the answer?

Modify

Teacher to use IWB to display and work though questions on Geometers Sketchpad.
Discuss findings as a class.
Discuss the students opinions about using the simulation and reflect on the benefits and drawbacks of both.

One drawback of Geometers Sketchpad is that it is quite expensive and you would have to use it frequently, throughout the entire school, to justify it. I personally find geometry and shape concepts more difficult to teach, as it’s difficult for children to visualise certain concepts. Sinclair and Bruce (2015) argue that geometry in general more gets little attention, particularly at in primary school. They claim that although the importance of spatial reasoning is growing, the fact that geometry affects many other areas of mathematics and thinking hasn’t fully caught on yet. Could simulations be the way forward for teaching geometry to young students?

References

Sinclair, N., & Bruce, C. D. (2015). New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM, 47(3), 319–329.

Srinivasan, S., Pérez, L. C., Palmer, R. D., Brooks, D. W., Wilson, K., & Fowler, D. (2006). Reality versus Simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137–141.

More initialisms – VFT and IVE

Compare the examples of networked communities you focused on. What are several cognitive and social affordances of membership in these networked communities? Name the misconception and describe it in your post, drawing upon the reading(s) you did for the social construction of knowledge.

Driver et al. (1994) argue that scientific knowledge is socially constructed and that it involves both personal and social practices. The authors explain that young people must enter an alternative way of thinking about and describing the natural world. Science cannot be learned by simply being told about a concept but must be discovered in everyday cultures and situations. This argument led nicely into the readings I chose this week.

As a teacher, I’ve been on many fantastic field trips and witnessed how these hands on, engaging and real life situations can impact learning. This week I chose to investigate both virtual field trips (VFTs) and interactive virtual expeditions (IVEs). I had absolutely no prior experience with either but have heard the terms around my own school recently and wanted to know more.

Spicer and Stratford’s (2001) work examines the attempt to combine lectures, lab work and field environments in university level biology classes. They wished to examine if VFTs could replace field work and this study focused on a hypermedia package that examined the intricaces of tide pools. (Unfortunately, the link provided for the website in the article was not working and I couldn’t access this package – please let me know if you were able to!) The study found that students who used the Tide pools virtual field trip did just as well when assessed on the material in comparison to students who were taught in a traditional method. Further, students reported greater enjoyment when learning through the experience, claiming it to be more personal than a lecture. This relates back to the TELEs we looked at in module B. Investigative, engaging online learning that can be student directed resulted in enhanced the students’ experiences. In Spicer and Stratford’s (2001) work, despite citing many positives, the authors did conclude that the VTFs were not an adequate replacement for real field study or trips.

Therefore, if not ideal for replacing traditional field trips, when should VFTs be used? Spicer and Stratford (2001) argue that these experiences can help to prepare students for field work, or help with revision of topics after a field trip. “The idea of using VFTs to enhance real field trips is arguably one of the most prevalent views of the worth of VFT,” (Spicer and Stratford, 2001, p. 352). These experiences can also be beneficial if it is not possible or safe to take students to a certain place. Additionally, cost of traditional field trips can be prohibitive so VFTs can provide experiences that might not otherwise be accessible.

Niemitz et al. (2008) explain how vital the process of exploration is to learning science and examine IVEs in their work. IVEs enable learners to interact with the process of scientific exploration from anywhere in the world. The authors explain the IVE might be thought of as a type of VFT, however, the main difference between them being, “that an IVE is a real-time, short time and only time means of communication between a learner and an exploratory party” (Niemitz et al., 2008, p. 566). One key benefit of ‘real-time science’ that stood out to me was that, along with making science a real life scenario for the learner, it connects the science students with working scientists. These people, along with answering topical questions and promoting exploration, have careers in science and this could help to promote STEM subjects in general. Similarly to the VFTs, the authors claim that IVEs can have the same gains on student achievement and provide the case study of the School of Rock Expedition.

School of Rock Expedition is a seagoing pilot professional development workshop which travelled from Victoria, BC to Acapulco, Mexico in the fall of 2005. The idea was that the project would benefit both the teachers on boards and their students back on land. The teachers were involved in writing a blog each day, updating whereabouts of the ship, completing video question and answer sessions with schools on land, populating a library and much more. The benefits to their students were numerous but the project unfortunately was challenged by limited bandwidth, poor connection and therefore missed out on the real-time ship to shore connections. This entire project, technical issues aside, greatly intrigued me.

Having very limited experience myself, I quickly scanned our resource sharing page and saw that Alison has posted the following link: https://education.microsoft.com/skype-in-the-classroom/virtual-field-trips. Does anyone have any experience with VFTs or IVEs? I’d love to hear all about it!

References

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

Niemitz, M. (2008). Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: the School of Rock Expedition case study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 561–580.

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 345-354.

Embodied Learning and Umwelt

Embodied learning is an interesting concept and one that I hadn’t previously encountered. William Winn (2013) describes embodied learning as the body, brain and environment as one; these facets are interdependent and cannot be separated from one another. Winn further describes learning as a physical act that involves the whole body. As Winn states, “Learning is no longer confined to what goes on in the brain” (2013, p. 22). While exploring Winn’s work, as well as delving into the deep depths of this module’s readings, a couple of key points stood out to me. These points are umwelt, collaboration and physical movement in the form of gestures.

Winn’s article introduced me to the concept of Umwelt. A term coming from Germany in 1934, Winn describes Umwelt as, “used to refer to the environment as seen and understood, idiosyncratically, by different individuals” (2013, p. 12). Each person’s umwelt is different from everyone else’s. Further, umwelts are ever changing. This is something, particularly after taking a few MET courses, that I think about often in my teaching. Students all come to my class with different knowledge systems and experiences. Winn (2013) argues that these are all connected. What I hadn’t fully thought about before was that we as teachers can never fully understand a student’s umwelt and how they will react to a certain situation. This made me cautious not to underestimate the impact of the environment in students’ knowledge.

Collaboration is a topic that comes up over and over again, though I had not previously thought about it in relation to physical movement and the connection to the brain. Roschelle et al. (2010) argue, that tasks “…should be designed so that individual contributions are needed for group success” (p. 405) – the we sink or swim together mentality. They believe that this collaborative learning will become more structured and easier for teachers to deliver with more embedded technological practice.

Novack et al.’s (2014) work on using hand gestures to teach mathematics was intriguing. This article was of high interest to me as I often use physical manipulatives to teach math. The author’s research found that acting (the act of acting directly on physical objects) gave a relatively shallow understanding of a novel math concept as compared to gesturing (the act of representational hand movements) which developed a deeper and more flexible learning. Further, the knowledge translated better to applying this learning to other tasks. This made me think about my own teaching of math; when I taught Kindergarten I think I did much more gesturing, whereas in grade 6 I do a lot less. This is certainly an issue that I will explore further. (Full disclosure, I still use the ol’ hand trick for my nine times tables!)

I enjoyed the readings this week as they introduced me to some new concepts but also helped my increase my understanding about topics that I was already familiar with. My new goals that have originated out of several readings combined are to combine collaboration with physical movement, as well as to gesture away while teaching math!

Questions:

Can anyone provide any examples of how they have included technology to harness the benefits of collaborative learning? How to do hand out specific roles or tasks to ensure that each group member contributes?
Do you use gesturing when teaching math? Can you provide a specific example?

References

Novack, M. A., Congdon, E.L., Hemani-Lopez, N., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). From action to abstraction: Using the hands to learn math. Psychological Science 25(4), 903-910.

Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399-419.

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

Consistent Concepts in TELEs

I found learning and writing about the four technology enhanced learning experiences (TELEs) to be helpful for my own teaching practice and made me more familiar with tools and strategies to develop key skills and concepts in my classroom. Below are the key points of each TELE, as well as ways I could see using each in my own teaching practice. I can’t seem to get this any larger, so please see the PDF version here – Synthesis PDF

There were certain concepts that were consistent throughout all four technology enhances learning experiences. This made me think, do we need to choose just a TELE for a lesson, week or unit? Can we pick our favourite points out from each one? The focus would still be on developing these key skills but in a slightly different format. The main points that I thought were important within each TELE were the following:

Simply using technology is not enough. Several arguments mentioned that technology has been present for a while and that teaching and learning in education has not been changing at a rapid enough pace to keep up with this. One message that I took away from all the readings in this module is that is simply not enough to use technology for a task that could be completed by pen and paper. Each of the TELEs used technology in a slightly different way but it created tasks that could not be done without technology and engaged the learning by stretching and assessing their knowledge.
Students must be curious and teachers should not provide the answers. As a teacher, I have always found that the best learning occurs when students are curious and want to find out the answers themselves. Each TELE encouraged students to take an inquiry-based approach to their learning. The constructivist theory of learning came up repeatedly. When students are curious, they will construct their own knowledge. In addition to this, we as teachers must not provide the students with the answers! Authentic learning experiences occur when students find are able to find a solution to a problem that they have identified.
Reflection is key. This is something I am working on in my classroom. I often find myself rushing though a task or activity just to get onto the next thing, without giving the students time to reflect. With LfU and T-GEM in particular, the modify and refine processes are in line with student reflection. I also think that students who are able to reflect on their thinking also translate this to other areas of their lives.

I found small parts of each TELE studied useful and interesting. I can’t say with certainty that I really think I’m going to study and use one TELE in my classroom consistently, but the skills discussed reminded me about some of my favourite parts of teaching! I will definitely be picking out certain parts of each TELE to use with my students. For example, seeing students be curious, problem solve and work collaboratively to find a solution are all so important and we sometimes don’t allow the time for these processes to properly occur. This module reminded me to slow down and not always worry about the right answer. Further, the technological resources that were being discussed throughout other peoples’ blog posts were insightful and practical – this is one other aspect that I will not soon forget from Module B!

T-GEM in the Intermediate Classroom

Having taught grades 4, 5 and 6 for the last six years, I have found that area and perimeter are concepts that we revisit each year. Year after year, the students’ understanding of the topic varies widely. Some have an excellent grasp of the concepts and are ready for a challenge. Others really struggle with the topic and have trouble grasping what area is and how we calculate it. I find it difficult to have challenging and engaging activities ready for each of the students in my class that represent such a wide ability range. I have several sets of resources and different manipulatives that I try to reach each student with, but until today I wasn’t sure of a way to include technology into teaching this topic. (A BIG thank you to those who have already posted on T-GEM, as I previously hadn’t been aware of PhET – what a valuable, and free!, resource!) I’ve sought to combine the PhET area builder simulation with T-GEM to create a new way of teaching area and perimeter to intermediate students.

Generate:

Allow students to explore the area builder simulation on PhET under the explore section. Initially, have them create one shape, noticing the change in area and perimeter as they go along. Encourage the students to think about and try different shapes, for example, a line of 4 as opposed to a square of four. What do they notice?

LfU to enhance cross curricular learning

In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the activity and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

I was intrigued when reading about the Learning for Use (LfU) model. It seems so straight-forward – but why haven’t I used it or heard of it before? Its aim is to think about the design of activities to stimulate and encourage “robust, useful understanding” (Edelson, 2011, p. 359). When following the three phase design process, the students understanding should develop at a deeper level. The Create-a-World project modelled the LfU design theories soundly and the project was engaging for middle school science students. I appreciated Edelson’s comparison of content-focused motivation versus achievement-based motivation (p. 373) and that it seemed to shed light on my initial question. Not all students are motivated by achievement but often the way our curriculum and exam processes are organized imply that they are. Having students engage more deeply with cross-curricular content is something that I had in mind when I designed a concept to explore through LfU.

For this post, I decided to look at combining the topics of math and geography for my grade 6 students by exploring both eco-friendly houses and area and perimeter. I found the provided Learning for Use framework to be very helpful in creating this. Further, after exploring the Google earth software, I believe that this can be a helpful tool to delve deeper into these topics. I based my plan off the table provided in Daniel Edelson’s (2001) work (p. 360).

Motivate

Create a demand for the new knowledge and elicit curiosity

We will start by looking at our own houses and investigating footprint of our house. Initially, this has to do with the size and the shapes of rooms. The students will come to school with measurements and we will then be able to make some calculations – for example, calculate the perimeter of their yard and the area of rooms inside their own houses. The teacher can use their own house to model this activity. The student will then use Google Earth to locate our own houses in Manchester and use the function of Street View to explore our own communities in more depth. To develop the idea of our own house’s ecological footprint even further, we will explore what types of energy we consume in our houses. They will need to discuss this with the guardians in their household. We would then discuss and research, how could we build a more eco-friendly house?

Construct

Provide learners with the direct experience and facilitate communication

Thinking about size of house and more sustainable energy choices, children will work together to design an eco-friendly house. This will draw on their knowledge of area and perimeter, as well as on our geographical knowledge of renewable energy sources. This phase to be initially created with pencil and paper, allowing students to be creative and get all their ideas out. This allows learners of all levels to work to their own abilities. Students communicate with each other and teachers to support and scaffold as needed.

Refine

Learners apply knowledge and reflect upon learning experience

Students will then use Google earth to decide where they might build their house – can they find a spot that will be most suitable? What climate are they looking for? It would be great if they could use an online tool to display their plan. I’ve had a search but nothing has stuck out to me. Does anyone have any ideas of what app or website would work in this instance?

This cross-curricular project would help students to apply the knowledge of area and perimeter in a more hands-on way. Further, it will help them to think about energy sources in a more applicable way. It involves problem solving and having to apply their knowledge in new ways. This plan also creates more ecological aware citizens for the future. We would reflect on what concepts we could take from our designed houses and apply to our real lives to become more ecologically aware citizens.

I think that this approach would engage the students and that they would enjoy using Google maps and Google earth. I was interested to read Kulo and Bodzin’s (2011) analysis of their study on eighth grade classes using geospatial technologies in their energy unit. The authors found that using the geospatial technologies received both positive and negative reactions from the students. They found that some students, after initial excitement, found the tasks too repetitive if using the same program day after day. This speaks to me directly as I think that, as with many theories and tools within education, balance and variety are ultimate necessities.

References

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2011). Integrating geospatial technologies in an energy unit. Journal of Geography, 110(6), 239-251.

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing google earth activities for learning Earth and environmental science. Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology, 22(1), 25-36.

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.

Situated Learning and Examination Pressures

The Jasper series responded to the assumption that students were simply developing their mathematical and scientific skills conceptually and in preparation for testing, without applying skills more deeply. The framework focuses on the idea of developing independent thinkers who can apply skills in the context of meaningful problem-solving situations. Of high importance is the idea that students should not simply respond to ideas that have been posed to them but instead, they must learn to identify the issues and problem on their own (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbelt, 1992).

I agree that students learning competent skills but lacking the ability to apply them in a new, real life situation remains a relevant issue, still 25 years after the Jasper series was developed. Further, I believe that current examination and testing techniques is a significant contributor to this. In the UK, the students in my class have to take an exam to identify which secondary school they will attend. I find myself teaching mathematical topics in depth at the beginning of the year, trying to relate it to real life and really encouraging problem solving. However, by the time the exam comes around, I have been guilty of just teaching the children the quickest method, even if they don’t understand why and I know that they will not be able to apply the concept in a new or more in depth problem solving situation. This is because I feel pressure from parents and admin to achieve certain results. It’s not a great cycle and something I’m trying to find a balance with in my classroom.

Hsin-Yih Cindy Shyu’s (2000) work on using situated learning in Taiwan really interested me. The article describes the high value that both parents and students place on education in Taiwan even claiming that “education is the ladder to success” (p. 59). The idea that many students rely on mastery made me think that perhaps the Encore’s Vacation –a resource with many similarities to the Jasper Project – would be out of place in a culture that uses rote memorization. The study demonstrated a positive change in the students’ attitudes towards mathematics. Further, the study demonstrated that “…anchored instruction obviously contributes to the students’ problem solving abilities” (p. 67). This made me think about my own assumptions of examination pressures and learning.

The Jasper series addresses the above problems by creating instructional videos which are situated in realistic setting with multi-dimensional problems for the students to identify and solve. It uses a cross-curricular approach and has extension activities to further challenge learners. As far as I know, I haven’t discovered any videos similar to the Jasper series. I have used the Khan academy videos for reinforcement and to help bridge the gap for students who had some conceptual holes in certain areas but they do not encourage students to identify and solve the problem in a real life situation.

Has anyone found any video resources, similar to the Jasper Project, that they have used to encourage problem solving in math or science at the elementary level? I’m interested to know what’s out there!

References

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.

Hickey, D.T., Moore, A. L. & Pellegrin, J.W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences of elementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611-652

Shyu, H. (2000). Using video-based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69.

Working towards that TPCK!

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is a topic that came up in one of my earlier courses. I hope that after this week’s readings I have an even better grasp on this theory, as I have been able to reflect on it since first learning about it.

PCK is having a depth of pedagogical knowledge and understanding and using this to select and deliver a method that appropriately fits the content being delivered. It is complex as there are so many aspects to be considered: as Mishra and Koehler (2016) argue, “PCK is concerned with the representation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, knowledge of students’ prior knowledge, and theories of epistemology” (p. 1027). Mishra and Koehler go on to explain that Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) is the theory that pedagogy, content and knowledge cannot be thought about in isolation and that “developing good content requires a thoughtful interweaving of all three key sources of knowledge” (p. 1029). Technology in this scenario is not an extra or an add-on: it is fully part of the process and this is difficult as it requires teachers and designers to think about differently about the pedagogy and content they already work with.

A useful illustrative example of TPCK – one that I have encountered through my teaching experiences – relates to fairy tales. As an elementary school teacher, I have used fairy tales with a variety of grade levels in a multitude of ways: they are very accessible as most students have experience with them. Throughout a unit, we often start with a familiar tale, discuss different features that identify a fairy tale, look at character development and at alternative versions of the same story. Consistently, the same pedagogic tools are important: modelling; different levels of questioning for different ability levels; and, both collaborative and individual work. The tools I choose to use, however, depend on the makeup of the class. Are there more EAL learners who many not relate to these fairy tales? Are there certain tales that will have a greater and more meaningful impact? My knowledge of the students is crucial in this instance to ensure successful engagement levels and for students to feel success.

Last year, instead of adopting a prescriptive approach to my grade 5 students’ writing at the end of the unit, I incorporated technology to facilitate greater flexibility as to how the task at hand would unfold. It wasn’t me deciding what the students should be getting out of the unit: rather, the onus was on the students to take ownership for their own learning. The students formed groups and I asked them to create a stop motion video as the culmination of our fairy tale unit. Some students chose to recreate a well-known tale. Other groups created their own fairy tales using the features we had already discussed. There was one group who created just one scene from Cinderella in meticulous detail: it was fabulous! By asking the students to create a stop motion video, I took a back seat, and allowed the students to be more creative (many used plasticine to create their characters), develop new skills (some had never made a stop motion video before!) and were able to demonstrate their learning to me in much more personalised way. I feel this is a moment when all the TPCK came together and worked in harmony!

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1017-1054.

A way of acting

Technology definition

I immediately connected with Robert Muffoletto’s definition of technology. A common misconception is that technology is simply machines and that the latest gadgets will themselves reform education. Instead, I like his idea that technology is a “way of acting.” Technology is not just one thing but a combination of solving problems through all the tools that we are able to use. Sometimes, this means using the most current tools. The most modern technology is not, however, always the answer. I like how Muffoletto’s definition of technology thinks about the processes involved with finding solutions to educational needs.

Technology-enhanced learning experience

Before one can design a technology-enhanced learning experience (TELE) one must understand what the end goal is. Is it specific content knowledge? Is it a particular skill set? Or is it a combination of the two? You can’t effectively design a TELE until you have defined specific goals. I also believe one of the main benefits of a TELE is the collaboration opportunities and would therefore make this high on my priority list when designing. Additionally, I would hope to be able to design with more differentiation and individualized learning paths in mind.