Category Archives: B. SKI

On The Task of Modifying an Existing WISE Lesson to Share During Module B…

I was unable to contribute this post within the course deadline for discourse.  I found this particular portion of Module B overwhelming in terms of the amount of readings and questions that we were asked to engage with.  This, coupled with several compounding crisis in my personal life, severely limited my ability to interact with my peers during the rest of Module B and the beginning of Module C.  Where WISE in particular is concerned, I did not truly understand what WISE was until engaging with Kari and David’s comments from the TELE Synthesis Forum (B4.2, see Take Aways under the Home tab for these comments).  It wasn’t until then that I saw that WISE was not a learning framework in and of itself but was actually a technology-enhanced design tool (a technology scaffold, if you will) allowing teachers to create guided-inquiry lessons for students using web- or tech-based tools, or better yet allowing actual, specific kinds of inquiry learning frameworks to guide their lesson designs.

When previewing the WISE “What Makes a Good Cancer Medicine” lesson I enjoyed how they jumped right into sequencing which types of cells experienced mitosis the fastest without any pre-teaching about them, requiring students to use their prior knowledge without help. Then the feedback for incorrect answers gave hints on how to access more specific schema but didn’t tell the answers. Very rewarding and I learned things I didn’t know already!  And then the prediction part didn’t give me immediate feedback and I knew that I didn’t know whether my answers were correct so I was actively looking in the next sections to see if I could find the answers, kind of like a game or a quest. This really increased my motivation to search and keep reading.  At the conclusion of the lesson, however, I still feel like I hadn’t found the feedback I needed to know to identify the correct answers and I was disappointed that the project hadn’t fulfilled the expectations for my understanding that it had set me up for.

When this lesson’s task asked us to modify a WISE project for our contexts I found this extremely difficult because I am not a STEM teacher and am mostly a primary (1-3) grade teacher, for which WISE offers no projects (when grade filters are engaged in their Project Library).  I explored a few projects, such as the middle school Music one, but found it too large a task to modify for my Grade 3 music students because it was so focused on the Science and I only teach the Music component to them, sound is not in their Science curriculum for several more years.  My favourite WISE project was one of the iterations of “Graphs Tell a Story”.  There, I found lessons that followed a logical sequence and allowed me, as the student, to truly understand how a graph could be used to tell a motion story.  I really enjoyed working with the swimming animation to chart the graph and then see if I was right based on whether the animation moved properly.  Again, however, I was at a loss about how to modify this project in any meaningful way.  For these reasons I felt unable to share anything of substance that adequately met the requirements of this module’s lesson.

If I had understood then what I did later after Kari’s synthesis post, perhaps things would have been different, but actually I might not have been able to attempt this lesson creation yet anyway because I had not experienced the most significant TELE for me, TGEM.  In my opinion, I would have liked to have had it explicitly explained that WISE was a framework program, and have this separated from the very heavy use of theory explaining SKI and the admirable creation and maintenance of the WISE Project Library.  Then, I would wish WISE to be the last lesson in this module so that I could have attempted to create a new project using WISE and incorporating elements of Anchored Instruction/Place-Based LfU, GEM cycles, and SKI all within a WISE project “learning portal” so to speak.  Although I acknowledge the bias of hindsight, I feel that those changes in instructional delivery would have allowed me to feel less overwhelmed and to be more successful in reaching this module’s learning goals.

I really appreciate this ePortfolio assignment because it allowed me to go back and revisit these topics which I had found confusing and finally make the connections I need to feel like I have a solid understanding.  If I had to choose a WISE project to modify, I would have chosen the “Graphs Tell a Story” and worked to modify the content to be primary-student-friendly as they worked in a unit on reading, designing and interpreting line graphs. Alternatively, using the WISE TELE to revitalize Jasper’s relevance in today’s technology would be an excellent application of this tool.  For example, the Rescue At Boone’s Meadow could be run using appropriate SKI patterns with ease.

Now I see that a WISE project is a powerful tool indeed, particularly for STEM teachers, but also for non-STEM teachers desiring to create model-based reasoning with inquiry patterns in a technology enhanced environment for literate students.  I am not certain primary aged students or those who struggle with reading would be able to find success within a WISE project, but for those who read and are relatively competent in self-direction, learning through WISE seems ideal in many ways.  Lack of technology continues to be a constraint, as does time to create or revise a project to meet unique contexts, but if a ready-made project which made it to the Project Library fit a class’ needs this would be a wonderful learning tool which could be co-taught in the homeroom/rotary classroom as well as the Library.

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

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

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

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

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

For this week’s post, I focus on a lesson entitled “Global Climate Change and Ozone, 2017.” The lesson is more of a small unit, requiring 4-5 hours to complete. Its aimed at a grade 6 – 8 age level and explores climate change and the human effects. Feedback is provided throughout and students are able to reorganize their thinking as they progress. I believe this project would be particularly useful in BC Science 7 when exploring the Big Idea: Earth and it’s climate have changed over geological time.

Students who would engage in this unit would undoubtedly have prior knowledge that should be explored prior to. If I were to adapt I would have a pre-activity, where students would make statements about climate change they have learned in the past. Those statements would help me craft questions that would challenge or affirm their prior knowledge.

There is a plethora of visual aids and ways to interact with the lesson beyond multiple choice. However, I believe it would be worthwhile to link various sections to other interactive sites. Linn, Clark, & Slotta (2003) promoted “contexts for problems that connect to students’ personal concerns can motivate students to reconsider and revisit their ideas long after science class is over.” I believe it would be worthwhile to link to sites like the WWF species tracker which tracks polar bears in various locations via collars and satellite technology. Students can follow animals in real time, observing their adaption to global warming and their changing environment. Further links to sites like national geographic for kids can give information on how they can help.

I think the interactive components of the lesson were great but I would add section on ethics with more written questions aimed at eliciting a personal reaction to climate change and what can and should be done.

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

I thoroughly enjoyed exploring the WISE on Projectile Motion and the International Space Station.  I was very impressed with how the curriculum design supported local adaptation, inquiry-based learning while sustaining a logical and coherent science curriculum.  This learning environment effectively navigates students through a linear and inquiry approach to learning and provides substantial instructional feedback on student reflections thus promoting the effective construction of skills and understanding. The modules draw out prior knowledge, provide contextual information, allow students to explore the effects of various variables, require students to apply their understanding to real-life questions and engage students to reflect upon their ideas.  

Linn et al. (2003) highlight the trade-off made in curriculum design in WISEs:

“The inquiry map presents curriculum designers with a tradeoff. If inquiry steps are too precise, resembling a recipe, then students will fail to engage in inquiry. If steps are too broad, then students will flounder and become distracted.” (p. 520)

In my opinion, the inquiry map of this specific environment is perhaps too formulaic and linear.  Student complete tasks in a specific order and are not provided with opportunities to dive deeper into specific areas of interest.  I, unfortunately, was unable to load the simulators embedded in this environment but I trust they are similar to the simulations available online.  While simulations are fantastic tools for students to test their assumptions, I would have placed the simulations at the beginning of the WISE in order to improve student engagement and generate rich class discussions right from the start.  From here, these discussions can serve to launch a student inquiry into projectile motion and the ISS.  

Linn (2003) points out that WISEs allow students to “bring to science class multiple conflicting views of scientific phenomena, often tied to specific contexts, examples, experiences, or situations” (p. 518).  Simulations provide fantastic opportunities for students to engage with real-world phenomena,  play with variables, and make well-supported predictions.  For instance, I often use the following Phet simulation when introducing my students to Planetary Motion in Physics 12.  At the start of class, students are asked if the Earth’s mass were to increase by say 25%, how would the distance between the Earth and Moon change?  How would the lunar orbital period change?  After an initial discussion, students are asked to explore the question further using the simulation.  Once the class comes to a consensus as to the effects of increasing Earth’s mass, students are then asked why these effects occur?  After some initial responses, students are asked if their response is grounded in intuition or in fact?  Throughout the year, we would have discussed how assumptions often lead to misconceptions and how evaluating motion through mathematical models can help support our understanding and reveal misunderstandings.  Students would then have to research and report on how celestial orbits are affected by the mass of each object, the distance between the objects and the angular velocity of the body in orbit.  The partnership of WISE and other learning activities, such as those mentioned above, hold enormous potential to develop core competencies within the classroom, notably, creative and critical thinking and communication.

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

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

This week’s work gave me the opportunity to reflect on a project that I am working on with my own students, which involves a year-long inquiry into the question: how are we connected.

While the projects listed on the Web site are all outside of my curricular area of focus, I chose to look more closely at the Pine Creek project where students become explore a local creek, its environment, and ongoing status. This project was particularly interesting to me because it is reflective of the project I am currently working on. As a part of the WISE project, students participate in field trips, acquire data through water testing and observations, apply data to tables, and interpret the data for planning future trips and jobs at the creek. I am most interested in the aspect where students upgrade the quality of the environment around the creek. As a teacher, I am interested in exploring the Bow River, in my own school’s back yard, and will be doing so with the support of an Aboriginal Elder. We will be exploring our historical connection to the land and our current connections to the river. I am interested in extending this work into our sciences and maths as we look at animal habitats and why it might be important that we care for the river here and now to protect those habitats down river and the economic interests in our area.

From here, students have asked questions that have lead us off in the discovery of the people and  environment around us and how that connects to the rest of the world. Our project touches on the four tenets of inquiry as noted in ‘Wise design for knowledge integration” in that it makes science readily accessible and reflects on their immediate environment. It takes into account multiple perspectives as we draw on scientists and Aboriginal knowledge keepers. And, finally, it allows students to learn from one another as we have made reflection an important aspect of the project and share through talking circles, visual journals, graphs of data, and close observation of local flora and fauna.

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

I worked on the Genetic Inheritance (ID: 23367) project, and had a look at the ‘Unused Steps’ section more than trying to create my own slides for the project. I found some interesting connections and discussion points that must have been taken out for the sake of relevance to the content knowledge of the project, but I thought they were useful inquiries to create connections within understanding genetics. One such example was the ‘observing probability’ slide, where the students make connections to what the likelihood of certain trait acquisition would be. Though the slide takes a simplistic view on probability (observing only 50% chance of getting a trait), this could be extended by the teacher in looking at probability of certain traits over time, and turning this into a mathematics inquiry, which would be more grade level appropriate, as the lesson is targeted to Grade 6-8.

Also, though there are many opportunities for writing their learning and reflection, I found the slide where students were asked to “Turn to your partner and talk about the choice you made. Who do you think is right?” particularly relevant. To me, it follows Gobert et al.’s model that “make[s] science accessible for all students where accessibility has two meanings: to engage students in problems that they find personally relevant, and to engage students at an appropriate level of analysis and explanation, rather than load them down with abstract scientific models of phenomena which do not readily connect with students’ ideas” (Gobert et al., 2002). In getting them to justify their thinking to their peers, they are simultaneously checking their own understanding and building meaning together (using constructivist strategies).

I really enjoy the collaborative format of WISE, using a framework where the lessons are taught (by WISE teachers) and go through various iterations before being inducted into the library. I also find that the effective use of technology makes it a model for good technology integration. Rather than focusing on the hardware, WISE focuses on patterns and pattern detection through technology, where “WISE continuously adds new, proven features in response to user needs and as a result of user experience. WISE curriculum design patterns capture proven inquiry strategies. These patterns can inform design of other learning environments and of diverse forms of instruction” (Linn et al., 2003).

References: 

Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.

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

Moving on from Gasoline: The End of an Era or Wishful Thinking?

The WISE lesson I chose to examine and modify was called “Chemical Reactions and Alternative Fuels: Making a Change.” There are two main sections to the lesson. The first dives into the chemical reaction that takes place when gasoline is ignited. It then explores information on increasing carbon dioxide rates globally. The second section introduces the learner to alternative fuels. It briefly looks at different methods of producing electricity and asks the student to form some ideas about what the best solution would be going forward. Both halves of this assignment have an emphasis of making a claim, backing it up with evidence, and providing reasoning for suggestions.  Ultimately, this lesson culminates with students writing a persuasive letter to their congressman.

I was really impressed with this lesson and thought it did a good job in drawing in cross-curricular elements (letter writing), a call to action and strong science teaching. However, there are a few major tweaks that I made.

First, this lesson has students writing down important information in their notebook. I instead created them all a Google Slides presentation, and would have students do their journaling-type activities there. By doing this in a presentation format, it provides opportunity for students to easily share their learning with a group of other people. The explanation of this would be simple: What if your elected official invites you to their office to pitch your ideas in person? Reading journal entries is far less engaging than a well-constructed presentation.

Second, I added a compare and contrast chart after different methods of electricity generation are introduced. One small weakness with this lesson is that it doesn’t look at the other complexities related to producing electricity. (ie. Wind turbines make noise, nuclear is hard to dispose of) This would have students look at the broader pros/cons of coal, wind and hydro. This serves to help them better formulate quality conclusions on the issue, as well as drive home the understanding that there is no easy overnight solution to fossil fuels. This chart is supplemented with two videos that debate for/against the use of wind turbines.

Finally, I added in a link to Clipchamp where students can record a 30 second ‘elevator explanation’ of their proposal. A short snippet to show a prospective listener what they are all about, and demonstrate their depth of understanding on the topic. While not directly in the lesson, I would implement the 3^rd goal of WISE (having students learn from each other) by encouraging students to watch the videos of 4-5 of their peers. (Linn, Clark, Slotta, 2003)

The changes I have suggested for this lesson aim to modernize some of the technology use, and help students better communicate their learning going forward. The core content of this lesson was very strong and it already did a stellar job of communicating the science behind internal combustion engines.

Given the quality of scaffolding that occurs in this lesson, I would let students work on it independently during science classes. I would allocate 40 minute periods for them to pick away at it over the course of a week.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10086/abstract

I chose the ‘Designing an Amusement Park’ graphing challenge as I have fond memories of riding the roller coasters with my dad when I was a kid. Roller coasters are an excellent way to help students connect concepts of physics with an experience that they are familiar with, ie/ making physics accessible, which is a main tenet of WISE (Linn, 2003). This inquiry project tries to connect graphing interpretation with concepts of motion. I would customize this activity to help teach students how to interpret graphs in a G6-8 physics classroom.

This activity starts out trying to connect speed/motion with rollercoaster thrill vs. safety. I believe this is trying to get students to activate their prior knowledge around motion, but again the link is tenuous and I am not sure that students (g6-8) would see the connection. As this lesson is supposed to be about graph interpretation I would likely want to adjust this to include some sample graphs that students can try to interpret. This lesson adds a secondary component around designing for safety vs. thrill, perhaps as a way to make concept of speed accessible, but they don’t really make that connection so I would improve this so that students are more likely to connect the dots. I would provide embedded links about motion and speed and the effects on the human body. By doing this I would be helping to provide more of a scaffold to help engage knowledge integration (Linn, 2003).

Students are then taken through the main activity, which is to create graphs that will translate to the action of the roller coaster. Presumably the students should be seeing how the changes in the graph affect the roller coaster speed and direction. However the graph building is difficult and clumsy and the effect it has on the speed/motion of the roller coaster can be difficult to see.

While the central idea of having a simulation translate into a graph to help students understand that a graph relays information (ie/ tells a story) I feel that this would have more impact with a couple minor adjustments:

1. Turn the simulation around. Have the students make speed and motion change adjustments to the roller coaster and then have this information build the graph. The screen could show the roller coaster moving and the graph being drawn at the same time. Students can then play around with the roller coaster controls to see how those changes change the shape of the graph.
2. Asking some guiding questions will help students to connect the concepts that the graph is showing (ie/ what is the relationship between position on the graph and motion in the car)?
3. Provide more embedded links to help students expand their understanding. This aligns with the WISE philosophy of making science accessible. This activity doesn’t give students a chance to expand their understanding.

This lesson does provide students with the opportunity to engage in collaboration and knowledge sharing. Which I thought worked well, although the guiding questions in this area were a tad vague and introduced a new observation (head movement) that students hadn’t been primed to look for or connect with the ideas in this lesson. This piece may have related to the safety questions of this activity – but because there is a long gap between asking students to consider safety and this question of head motion I don’t know if a G6-8 student would grasp the connection.This would be taken care of by the adjustments I listed earlier.

I would expand this lesson to include a more constructivist component by asking students to consider other examples where motion has an effect on the human body and ask them to hypothesize what the graphs would look like. Some examples could be driving in the car with their parents, riding their bike, watching a manned rocket, riding in an airplane, etc. Depending on the scope of the lesson this could transition to a secondary inquiry project that looked at graphs that compared speeds/motions of different vehicles and their effect on the human body.

Resources

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

The scaffolded knowledge integration framework developed in WISE is a good guideline for designing a technology integrated instruction in math. (1) making thinking visible, (2) making science accessible, (3) helping students learn from each other, and (4) promoting lifelong learning are the general guidelines in creating a WISE. I like the website WISE of the University of California, Berkeley. It has good features, here is a link to the website. I haven’t played enough with this website to familiarise with all its features. However, I noticed that once a student starts a project, he or she cannot go back to make any change on an activity he or she already completed. This kind of features is suitable for assessing rather than learning.

I customised a project to help students in middle school appreciate the power, beauty and utility of their own knowledge of quadratic equations. From a constructivist approach to learning that is we care about learning those things that hold meaning for us, I chose to approach the concept of quadratic equations using some examples of parabola in real world. In the lesson, I aim to engage the students in structured experiences designed to support accurate and meaningful knowledge construction. The students misconception over this topic is that parabolas are confined to mathematics textbooks and have no real-life applications. This project will help the students to visually recognise parabolic forms in photographs and architectural landmarks, to practice and refine internet-based research methodologies, to develop an increased appreciation of the utility of algebra in the world around them.

Activity #1: what do you know about parabola?

All germane response that the students give about parabola will be write down.

Activity #2: Examples of parabolas in Architecture – student suggestions

Activity #3: I will guide the students’ research of some examples of parabolas in Architecture

Useful examples from modern architecture appear on Santiago Calatrava’s website.

Activity #4: research and identifying parabolas

After identifying parabolas and other geometrics forms in multiple examples of architecture, students are given the mission to search the internet for interesting examples of parabolic form, that are not “slanted”, as they will self-generate equations using Desmos.

Activity #5: Self-generate equations using Desmos.

In this activity, the students will use the transformation formula over quadratic functions (y = a(x-h)²+k) to self-generate quadratic equations. The student will be directed to a file on Desmos, here is a link Ski Jump. They will need to use the sliders to find the values of ‘a’, ‘h’, and ‘k’ to fit a quadratic equation onto the skiers. They will describe how they got their function to match the path of the athlete.

Activity #6: The students will self-generate equations of their own picture from activity #4

References

Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science education, 87(4), 517-538.

Linn, M. C., Slotta, J. D., Terashima, H., Stone, E., & Madhok, J. (2010, December). Designing science instruction using the web-based inquiry science environment (WISE). In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching (Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 1-23). The Education University of Hong Kong, Department of Science and Environmental Studies.