Category Archives: B. Synthesis

TELEs have enormous potential to offer engaging learning environments for students. Module B showed several educational technologies, each offering unique benefits for learners. Anchored Instruction, Scaffolded Knowledge Integration, Learning for Use, and T-GEM all are based on inquiry instruction and learning. They all include deliberate teacher to student and student to student interactions creating a community of inquiry.

Below are a list of the first three TELEs of Module B, in contrast to the last (T-GEM):

Anchored Instruction and Jasper:

Lesson 1 introduced us to anchored instruction and used the Jasper series as context. The focus of anchored instruction is to create engaging learning environments for learners who actively participate. The students learn at their own pace in an environment that is very much catered to them. The Jasper series, while outdated, attempted to do just that. They presented problems that were anchored in real life situations, which allowed students context in the problems they were solving.

In comparison to T-GEM we can see common themes of constructivism, authentic deep learning, the development of problem-solving strategies, and teacher facilitation. Anchored instruction and T-GEM stress the importance of building upon prior knowledge, to challenge pre-existing knowledge, evaluate, and build new knowledge after exploration. T-GEM is laid out in a three-step model and stresses the importance of simulation more but ultimately they are very similar in approach and goals.

SKI and WISE:

SKI is a framework that encourages students to take ownership of their learning through inquiry, promotes visual and accessible learning, and originates from a constructivist view of knowledge integration (Linn, Clark, and Slotta, 2003). Knowledge integration is a fundamental to T-GEM also, as laid out in the three steps: generate, evaluate, and modify. With WISE teachers have the ability to create SKI environments in a blended learning environment. This is similar to T-GEM which encourages simulations. An excellent example of an electronic simulation is the T-GEM framework based Chemland. In this program, students can simulate different interactions between chemicals and various materials. One issue SKI addresses that T-GEM does not is differentiation.

LFU and MyWorld:

The Learning-for-Use model focuses heavily on motivation. It is critical of traditional methods that “[do] not acknowledge the importance of the motivation and refinements stages of learning and [rely] too strongly on communication to support knowledge construction (Edelson, 2001).” LFU and MyWorld mirror certain aspects of T-GEM like observation through direct experience, the communicate and describe process, and application of new knowledge through hands-on activities. LFU does differ however, in that it is situated learning and does not require technology and simulations to facilitate learning.

Conclusion:

This module has been my favourite thus far as I see all of the frameworks as practical, with great merit. Though I spend very little time in the classroom it has inspired me as an administrator to do a little bit of experimentation. I will be doing this by releasing teachers periodically to teach a lesson here and there in various subjects across grade levels. I haven’t asked any teachers yet but I’m going to guess they won’t mind having the time off.

Students should always be the main focus for any teacher or administrator and the core of every TELE is the student experience. For this reason, I feel further exploration is very necessary and I look forward to it.

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., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2002). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Apologies for the late post, and thanks in advance for understanding. Here is my contribution to the TELE Synthesis forum:

In reflecting on the four different TELEs for this module, it’s clear that the constructivist approach and inquiry based nature of all four is central to their pedagogy. One of the many benefits of this is the fact that teachers have significantly more opportunities to catch the misconceptions discussed at the beginning of this course, and develop ways to have students recreate/redefine rules for the information in front of them. The more students talk about their thinking and experiences, the more they elaborate on why and how things work the way they do. Should any problematic understandings come to light, teachers can either scaffold to help them adjust their misconceptions, or present them with data that proves their thinking is problematic, and have them modify their understanding.

For my own teaching practice, these different approaches help significantly in terms of resources and instructional design. The variety in the different models can help dictate how best to teach a topic; use a Jasper-like or Anchored instructional model for real-life, problem solving contexts, use an iterative T-GEM approach for inquiry and critical reflection of their thinking, etc. These different TELEs also make me reflect on the use of technology in my classroom, and the fact that while I sometimes wish I used more technology to enrich learning, I need to continue to focus on meaningful integration. Like any other well-design materials, best practice with technology needs to be thoughtful and meaningful to be effective- all of which I feel were represented in one way or another (or in many ways!) with these TELEs.

References:

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.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2009). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Apologies for being late on this; it’s been a crazy week! I tried to summarize this Module’s learning in the table below. I took inspiration from a few of you fellow classmates for the structure of the table. I found it very tough to settle on one but I suppose there’s not always a “best” way! Without further ado…

The most obvious threads I perceived to be weaving through each model are, in alphabetical order, collaboration, constructivism, inquiry, motivation, and a focus on connecting activities to “real life” contexts. Well, maybe not so much with T-GEM, as it’s slightly more concerned with relationships between data than real-life contexts, but still. I can honestly say that every single one of the models, if used even partially appropriately, would likely be more beneficial to students than any traditional chalk-and-talk for an appropriate topic. So much time and effort has clearly been poured into ensuring that these models/frameworks/whatever-you-wanna-call-’em take into account the unique students who are there in the classroom to learn. Misconceptions are noted, explored, modified or totally quashed. Scaffolding is an inextricable part of each model’s lesson design. Tech is leveraged in a meaningful way with a strong focus on visuals. And speaking of visuals, I was quite gobsmacked by the amazing tables and visuals you all created for this posts. I hope you don’t mind if I steal them!!

I must say that I really, truly enjoyed this Module. The number of practical takeaways was exceptional, and the LfU model resonated so strongly with me that I still can’t comprehend how I didn’t know about it sooner.

However, in the face of all of these great resources, each with clear benefit to students, we still see it so rarely in the average class. Why is this? Perhaps it’s the teacher’s inexperience with branching out in such a student-centred, constructivist way? Perhaps it’s being too settled into a routine where “the resources are all ready” and it’s a one-size-fits-all model where the teacher feels the lesson has been “perfected” even before they meet the students who will be engaged in the lesson? Perhaps it’s simply the absolutely massive amount of time, skill, effort and cyclical revisions required to make these lessons successful, and ensure each student gets the full benefit of the material? I don’t know the answer. I will certainly be thinking about this going forward, both in my TELE design as well as in my job as a Math department head. Is there anything I can do to convince/motivate my teachers to do things a little differently?

-Scott

(sorry for the weirdly-formatted table I couldn’t figure out how to align it to the top and left-justify it!!)

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

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

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

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., 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

A goal of anchoring instruction is to foster students engagement in learning activities in which they are actively involved in the construction of their own knowledge through exploration. In the reading I have done on anchored instruction I noticed that its major goal is to support students in building relationships and connections with prior knowledge while constructing new knowledge. The students develop the ability and skills to identify, define, and solve their own problems. In regards to WISE, it is an online science inquiry learning environment that supports deep understanding with features such as (1) observation – where the students make observation of authentic artifacts anchored in authentic situations, (2) interpretation and construction – where the students construct interpretations of observations and construct arguments for the validity of their interpretations, (3) contextualisation – the students access background and contextual materials of various sorts to aid interpretation and argumentation, (4) cognitive apprenticeship – the students serve as apprentices to master observation, interpretation and contextualisation, (5) collaboration – the students collaborate in observation, interpretation and conceptualisation, (6) multiple interpretations – the students gain cognitive flexibility by being exposed to multiple interpretations, (7) multiple manifestations – the students gain transferability by seeing multiple manifestations of the same interpretations.

In regards to LfU, the goal of this model of instructional design is to embed instruction in activities that facilitate knowledge construction. The model is based on the principle that the structure of knowledge continuously changes while experiencing and exploring of new concepts. T-GEM has a straightforward framework where the students engage into a cyclical reflection process that is generate, evaluate, and modify knowledge. Over this process, they naturally acquire new knowledge that anchored their prior knowledge.

I have noticed that the principle into practice is different for each of these technology enhanced learning tools. However, the theory of learning elaborated in their framework revolves around constructivism. All these four tech enhanced learning tools help the student in constructing their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. They allow the students to reconcile everything new that they encounter with their previous ideas and experience, maybe changing what they believe, or maybe discarding the new information as irrelevant. In Mathematics, these instructional tools are useful in creating authentic tasks that engage students into active learning. I find anchored instruction, WISE, LfU, and T-GEM very helpful to design instruction in math in a way that address students’ preexisting conceptions and help them to build on them. There are also very helpful in creating activities that constantly assess students understanding in math and develop increasingly strong abilities to integrate new information.

References:

Petra, S. F., Jaidin, J. H., Perera, J. Q., & Linn, M. (2016). Supporting students to become autonomous learners: the role of web-based learning. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 33(4), 263-275.

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.

Serafino, K., & Cicchelli, T. (2003). Cognitive theories, prior knowledge, and anchored instruction on mathematical problem solving and transfer. Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 79-93.

Synthesis 533

Learning about the four technology-enhanced learning environments was eye opening as each technology has something to offer to my students and I would need to tailor it to meet the needs of elementary aged intermediate students. There was a common theme of exploring and inquiry with each technology. Learning should be engaging for students so they can make meaningful connections.

The Jasper series emphasizes the importance of helping students. The series “affords generative and cooperative learning activities in way that traditional mathematics problem-solving materials do not” (p. 65). I think it is important to create a community of inquiry that includes students and teachers as students are actively involved in the learning process. Collaborative learning is powerful as students all have their specific strengths and when they work together they each learn from one another.

Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) is highly beneficial as it offers students a different style and approach to learning.  WISE allows students to work in a step by step fashion while working at their own pace.

Learning for Use model “is a description of the learning process that can be used to support the design of content-intensive, inquiry-based science learning activities” (p.355).  The Learning Cycle is an “inquiry based pedagogy” where content knowledge and process learning are combined. Edelson (2000) discusses how inquiry learning fosters deep learning among students. Using technology is engaging for students, technology and computers are able to store large amounts of information (ie. data), and technology bring change to the classroom as it is evolving. Constructivists believe that knowledge is built from exploration and experimentation. Further, new experiences are connected with pre-existing knowledge and knowledge is gained. Here, learning is active and students are engaged. The newly BC reformed curriculum falls more with a constructivist approach as inquiry learning has become increasingly popular as it allows students to gain critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

The Lfu model stood out for me and also learning about how others used PhET simulations within their practices. Last week I already had the chance to introduce the simulations to my students. We really focused on exploration of area and perimeter as that was a hard concept for some of them. The learning was active and engaging and the students responded well. My goal is to try and incorporate the four TELEs in my math lessons over the next few months and do some exploring of my own!

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80

Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-Use: a framework for the design of technology supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. Teachers College Press.

As I reflect on the four technology-enhanced learning environments, I believe that each of these approaches would have a positive effect on my students.  Each providing its unique approach to learning, yet each allow students to explore through questions and exploration of information.  Research has indicated that these environments are effective for engaging students and allowing them to be active learners.  They prepare students to become lifelong learners “by engaging them in carrying out complex projects and regularly critiquing, comparing, revising, rethinking, and reviewing their ideas” (Linn, Clark, Slotta, 2011, p. 532).  They move science and math past textbooks and tests, and utilize technology to provide students with real-life scenarios.  Additionally, each follows a view of constructivism and utilizes Vygotsky’s zones of proximal development by having students work in groups and learn from each other.

Although these environments seem to be set for higher grades, the common themes seem to follow those of any grade levels.  I do believe that it would take time and trial-and-error to alter these to fit the needs and abilities of my students.  Has anyone discovered any tools that may be similar to these that would work more closely with elementary students?

Shayla

Important takeaways from Module B:

• Visualization is seen throughout all 4 TELEs. One of the essential affordances of technology is the ability to use visual images, modeling and simulation to enhance learning. In fact, some aspects of the Bloom’s Taxonomy are included in each of the TELEs which creates differentiated learning environments for students to become independent thinkers.
• All 4 TELEs focus on the importance of “real-life” inquiry. The education ministry in Alberta is redesigning their curricula across the board, as some components date back as far as 1996. There is no doubt the new curricula will include learning outcomes related to digital technologies and a greater focus on student-centred learning. School divisions will need to focus on opportunities for students to practice and apply their knowledge in real-world scenarios, while at the same time using 21st-Century production tools, software and techniques in demonstrating their learning and expressing their ideas.
• Constructivism is built in each of the TELEs. Modern educators today are creating constructivist learning environments where learners are engaged in meaningful interactions. All the while the TELEs use Vygotsky’s theoretical framework and zone of proximal development to construct lessons and activities to meet the specific needs of their students (Vygotsky, L. S. 1980).
• As an elementary teacher, I found most TELEs approaches were more adequate for higher grades. With that being said, there still is a need for younger students to have opportunities to modify and evaluate simulations and technological applications.

In closing, all four TELEs strive to create an environment that promotes learning from an inquiry pedagogical perspective as technology is not a stand-alone commodity. Rather it becomes a meaningful tool to support more profound understanding.  More importantly, technology integration should help teachers to prepare their students for the world they live in and to adopt technology-enhanced learning environments that will surely be part of their future world.

References

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

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

The four environments we explored in this module are excellent examples of how our pedagogical approach to teaching and learning in Mathematics and Science should be hands-on, collaborative and inquiry-based. In all environments, students are given different opportunities to engage in learning that is both meaningful and engaging. All these TELE’s encompass aspects of the constructivist learning approach and aim to integrate technology that redefines the learning experience rather than just being a minor substitution for other tools.

While reflecting on these four environments and the tools we investigated, I looked at how I could apply them to my school’s pedagogical framework to teaching. We currently use the IB’s inquiry cycle for planning and specifically the Mathematics inquiry cycle for our Numeracy units. Within this framework we have students work through a cycle (not necessarily linear, sometimes going back and forth) of ‘Constructing Meaning,’ ‘Transferring Meaning,’ and ‘Applying with Understanding.’ Any of the models and tools we investigated would fit in the ‘transferring meaning’ phase after students have taught new concepts. The tools investigated all give students a chance to work with the ideas and new knowledge they have been shown and practice them to build conceptual understanding. Once established they are given a summative assessment where they apply these understandings in a meaningful way

Below is a table to help synthesize the four environments and explain the pros and potential cons to each one.

Module B Synthesis

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.

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.