Category Archives: B. Synthesis

All these TELEs… yet very little use!

There are multiple ways of using a TELE in our classrooms, although each TELE comes with unique features and qualities to it. The following table describes some of the features each TELE has and compares/contrasts them in the end:

	Anchored Instructions & Jasper	SKI & WISE	LfU and MyWorld	T-GEM and Chemland
Main Features	Uses videos as the main tool to create problems that have real-life relevance	A teacher can use these online tools to create a whole lesson that fulfils multiple learning outcomes.	Problems are posed that have real-life relevance but very little information given to start with	Uses the online simulations to engage students in an inquiry based learning techniques
Learning Goals	Students feel more engaged with problems that are posed via videos and real-life relevance instead of using problems from a textbook	Uses scaffolding as one of the main tools to help learners who want to learn at their own pace. Students can go through these lessons multiple times for revision purposes	These tools engage students in problems that motivate students to inquire and access prior knowledge required for problem solving.	Students generate problems themselves by observing the given simulation and evaluate the results they arrive at. They get to modify the given simulation to learn further concepts.
Comparison/ Contrast	Jasper videos are videos that use real-life problems and turn them into interesting problems that high school students can solve. Similarly, LfU provides students with problems that can be seen in real life and be turned into problems that students can solve	SKI & WISE are not just tools that provide problems that students can solve but also help students learn a concept starting from scratch.	LfU and T-GEM require students to put their inquiry hats on before tackling the problem which makes these two TELES unique in their own ways	T-GEM is the only TELE that has a step-by step guide for teachers to follow in order to use this TELE in their classrooms. It makes me much more likely for a teacher to use a TELE in their classroom if there is a clear step by step guideline to apply them in their classroom.

Synthesis: It is interesting to see how much all these TELEs have to offer to us in today’s world. All these TELEs give us a new hope for every child in our classrooms to be successful. These TELEs make sure that no child is left behind while they help students develop skills that will guide them through the rest of their life’s learning. These TELEs probe our students to be curious, motivated, collaborate, analyze data, and be independent. Jasper videos have given problem solving a new face as I, myself, was a student who hated textbook word problems because they were not relevant to real life at all. These TELEs give our students an opportunity to make their thinking visible and feel heard as they are able to express themselves in multiple ways. There is no bigger blessing to a child who feels they don’t understand everything in a classroom to be able to access a WISE lesson online and review material at their own pace.

With all these qualities that these TELEs have, one must think why are these TELEs not widely used in our classrooms. This module has been an eye opener for me given that I consider myself a teacher who uses technology in her classroom on a regular basis. Yet, I had never heard of any of these TELEs ever before. It is unfortunate that we have such great resources available online, some free of cost, and we don’t even know about them. Whether it is the lack of advertisement of the tools available online or the resistance to use on teachers’ part; our students are the ones that are suffering. No teacher goes to school thinking they are not going to do the best for the students today. All teachers do do their best but what is lacking or stopping these wonderful teachers from using these amazing TELE designs available online. It is interesting that TELEs such as T-GEM and LfU are pedagogical techniques that teachers can simply apply in their classrooms without having to deal with heavy duty technology in their classrooms. I just wish more teachers knew about these TELEs and we were able to help each child achieve their maximum potential possible in our classrooms.

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!

Gestalt Education

The image above doesn’t view well. To view download a PDF of Synthesizing STEM.

Looking at each of these techniques, design models, frameworks and strategies together I noticed that each were complementary to each other and could be used together in the design and development of a rich, technology enhanced, learning environment. I would almost argue that a well designed module/lesson/course would include all of these simultaneously. There is a lot of overlap across each of these components, mostly around constructivist philosophy, problem solving framework and guided inquiry that the areas where you see differences really complements the rest of the components. At the end the final product is certainly more than the sum of its parts.

In my design of Assignment 2, I employ each of these components in some form across my lesson, from building a case study that creates a situated learning context to having students work through the GEM technique to reframe their thinking after detailed exploration. I think most teachers already do incorporate a lot of these ideas into their teaching, even if they don’t know that they do or they use techniques or models that are nearly interchangeable!

The Puzzle of Technology Enhanced Learning Environments

With all the acronyms flying at us in education it is easy to get confused with all of the IPPS, PLNS, POS, SLOs each day in and out, now throw in designing a TELE with some LfU, SKI, WISE, TGEM and you will find a teacher ready to lose their MIND. Designing a Technology Enhanced Learning Environment (TELE) is crucial to supporting students learning with and through technology in a way that elevates their new learning and understanding. As we compare the 4 TELEs we can begin to see the puzzle of this design come together.

When we compare and contrast these four pieces of the puzzle, a bigger picture of learning with technology becomes clear. Despite being four separate and unique learning environments with innovative technology found in each. There is a commonality between them all that can impact our own TELE planning. There are three main considerations that we can see when these pieces of the puzzle are together.

Student Centered Inquiry – in each of the environments the student is at the center of the inquiry process. The environment is planned around their learning needs, interests and passions. We focus on creating a curiosity for each learner, building a new knowledge structure for each student, and allowing the individual to lead the way to discovery. Students are active knowledge creators and not passive recipients in these environments.This reversal of a traditional student in the classroom has also redefined the role of the teacher as an important guide and facilitator to the learning experience. Students in all of the scenarios take on the role of a problem solver. No matter the age, grade, or ability of the student we need to shift the focus and allow for inquiry if we truly want them to learn the science and math of the real world. The fact of the matter is that the jobs of the future do not need “scientists who have memorized the periodic table”, they need creative and independent problem solvers (Libow Martinez & Stager, 2013).
Technology is a catalyst. In each of the environments the technology is not used to simply digitize the traditional task that would have been done with paper and pencil. Technology transcends knowledge consumption for the purpose of repetition in these classrooms…aka no more Google info followed by a copy and pasted PowerPoint. The technology in these environments is necessary because it acts as a lightning rod allowing for possibilities of collaboration, interaction, and encounter with new information and scenarios that would not have been otherwise possible. Technology allows for these activities to “take place somewhere between the extremes, where students are guided, through a process of scientific investigation, to particular answers that are known to the teacher( Furtak, 2006, p.454).
Knowledge is constructed not memorized. In each of the TELEs you can see the importance of creating an environment where students interact with and encounter information in ways that allow them to tear down misconceptions and build a new understanding through hands on activities and action taken in a collaborative, co-constructed environment. “If institutional education is to remain relevant we must first acknowledge that we have entered upon a very different world in which informal learning communities are now a major part of our students’ lives. They represent nothing less than a paradigm shift in education. We must acknowledge that students now come to us with the expectation of being able to employ their own agency in exploring the world they are to inherit and change” (Duncum, 2014, p.35).

When constructing my TELE for professional development I am ensuring these three features are front and center to the design. After reading and researching all of these TELEs I wonder how long can we allow for this type of environment to remain optional in our schools before our traditional classrooms become obsolete?

Trish

References

Duncum, P. (2014). Youth on YouTube as Smart Swarms. Art Education, 67 (2), 32-36

Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning for use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Technology, 38(3), 355-385.

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232. DOI 10.1007/s10956-010-9247-2

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

Libow Martinez, S., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to Learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, California: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press

The Jasper Series as an Example of Anchored Instruction: Theory, Program Description, and Assessment Data. (1992). Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Create 21st Century Skills

Throughout this module, we explored different technology-enhanced learning environments, including the Jasper series, WISE (Web-Based Inquiry Science Program), My World and Chemland. All of these programs have both benefits and drawbacks, and the individual teacher would need to figure out if these programs would meet the needs of their students. I’ve included the benefits and limitations (in my personal opinion) of each program in the table below. I think the main limitation is that these programs only apply to middle school grade levels and above. I need to spend some time researching and finding programs that would work well with our younger learners as I think technology-enhanced learning environments have the potential of getting these students interested and excited about learning math and science. Does anyone know any that they have already used with a younger group of students (K-5)?

When choosing which (if any) of these programs will work with a specific group of students, the teacher needs to look at whether or not the program will enhance the learning. This is true for any type of technology that is integrated into a classroom. Teachers and students should not be using technology just because it is easily accessible, but rather, the benefits needs to be evaluated. All of these programs fit into a constructivist classroom, where the teacher takes on a facilitator role (instead of being the expert). It allows students opportunities to work collaboratively with their peers while they develop their problem solving and critical thinking skills. Through this process students are able to expand their understanding of specific topics that they find interesting and it allows them to take ownership of their learning. I think all of the learning environments teach students the 21st century skills to become life-long learners. It’s up to individual teachers to decide which ones fit the needs of their individual students.

Program	Benefits	Limitations
Jasper Series (used Anchored Instruction)	-Inquiry based -helps students critically think about complex problems -fits in a constructivism classroom -makes connections to other subject areas (science, socials, English) -short enough to hold student attention (approx. 17 mins.) -encourages collaboration -students actively engage with the questions	-A little dated (1990s) -for grades 5+ only
WISE (Web-Based Inquiry Science Program) (used SKI design)	-Inquiry based -can use existing units or can edit own -can create own unit -contains a “teacher community” to help support teachers -has students using technology -fits in a constructivism classroom -encourages collaboration -students actively engage with different activities (answer questions after viewing videos)	-for grades 6+ only -very lengthy units, might need to be chunked by the teacher
My World (used Lfu approach)	-for K-12 classrooms -helps students create and analyze data (visual) -teachers are able to see existing projects -students are able to collaborate -has students using technology -opportunities for teachers to collaborate -supports inquiry skills -fits in constructivism classroom	-many of the existing projects are quite complex, might be more suitable for middle school and up
Chemland (used T-Gem)	-encourages collaboration -teacher is facilitator -fits in constructivism classroom -has students using technology -inquiry based -interactive -students able to explore topics of interest	-complex science topics, therefore, suitable for high school/university students

Jasper and T-Gem and WISE, oh my!

The four learning theories we explored in Module B have many similarities among and between themselves. All four theories (Anchored Instruction, Scaffolded Knowledge Integration, Learning-for-Use, and Generate-Evaluate-Modify) are founded in constructivist pedagogy, particularly in the way student knowledge is created and how teachers need to design learning experiences if they really believe this to be true. All four theories are concerned with student motivation, curiosity, and reflection in order for true learning to occur. All believe that an authentic context to some degree or another must be used to anchor student explorations and subsequent evaluations of hypothesis/explanations. All promote the teacher as a facilitator who is not the primary source for disseminating knowledge and who deliberately withholds pertinent information along the way, releasing it only after students have become engaged in the problem, have realized they need the information, or have proven unable to generate the information among themselves. Problem-finding and problem-solving are valued, and confusion or even frustration when confronted with outlier cases or unknown formulas/information is embraced as a fundamental prerequisite for generative learning.

A Graphic Comparison

I created a graphic organizer to sort my thoughts when comparing and contrasting other aspects of these TELEs:

Synthesis

From the exploration of the above learning theories, I’ve learned that technology use for education, whether STEM or other subjects, should be deliberate and purposeful. Teachers should become aware of well-designed technology-enhanced spaces, such as WISE projects and PhET simulations, or design/modify their own TELEs to meet learning needs based on their own foundational pedagogical beliefs. Constructivist theories can be well-served using TELEs when teachers invest time initially to reflect, research, and plan how best to integrate the tenants of constructivism (student-centered, teacher-facilitated, curiosity-driven, and collaboration-based explorations and reflections) using technological tools. Simulations, visualizations and large data-sets are excellent tools for generating curiosity and recursive, adaptive feedback, as well as for promoting social learning through generative discussions, explorations, evaluations and explanations of mental models. Narrative structures and place-based learning also encourage learners to become more motivated to find problems and evaluate their own solutions because real-world, authentic contexts make STEM ideas visible and therefore more relevant. Inquiry-based learning does not always have to mean messy experiments, maker-spaces, or individual research projects; the foundations of inquiry (curiosity, needs-driven knowledge seeking, and communication) can be accomplished through classroom structured lessons rather than only in laboratory contexts. These learning theories and their related TELEs did a great job of articulating in a practical way how teachers desiring a more constructivist pedagogical approach can actually promote and maintain students positions in their Zones of Proximal Development by showing that pre-teaching content before asking them to solve problems using that knowledge is not necessary and perhaps even counter-productive to the process of inquiry needed to reduce the development of “inert knowledge” and promote the development of “generative learning”.

Gem of a GEM!

View of Learning

Methodology

Student Engagement

Weakness

Anchored instruction

· situated in engaging, problem-rich environments that allow sustained exploration by students and teachers

· helping students become independent learners

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

· Video scenarios, problem-based learning

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

· Embedded data design and feedback

· Mostly passive, followed by interactive problem solving

· Increased motivation

· Cooperative learning

· Explorative inquiry

· Students are lost or “get stuck”

· Little independent discovery

· Mostly stagnant platform

· Goal is the “right answer”

SKI-WISE

· science at its core is a process

· students learn best by doing

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

· Embedded online activities

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

· thinking, testing, figuring things out for themselves

· go through process as scientist

· student paced

· Students must be self-motivated

· Much is text based, quick response to info

LfU

· 3 step process: motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement

· Authentic activities for deeper understanding

· Varied methods of assessment

· Learning cycle

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

· Curiosity demand drives desire to learn

· Collaborative

· Inquire, observe, reflect & apply

· Assumes motivation

· Raw data is not student collected

· Perceived to be time intensive

· May be overwhelming

T-GEM

· 3 step process: generate, evaluate, modify

· Need visualization and exploration for conceptualization

· Inquiry based learning through simulations

· Generate theories, modify to fit new observations

· Very high, student control,

· interactive

· collaborative

· inquiry-based

· no embedded context or real-world framing

· need good models

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

Discussion:

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

Reflecting on Learning: synthesis of learning theories

	Theoretical Basis/ Objective	Approach
Anchored instruction	Constructivist; scaffolded strategies; Students benefit from repeated opportunities to engage in learning (Hobbs, p292)	students become teachers makes them responsible, includes planning for teaching Storying of instruction
SKI Wise	Scaffolded knowledge integration perspective; learning through inquiry; inquiry question must be sufficiently broad	making thinking visible making science accessible helping students learn from each other promoting lifelong learning
LfU	Cognitive dissonance; creating a need for new knowledge	exploration, invention, and discovery (Edelson, p360) construction and modification of knowledge structures knowledge construction is a goal-directed process guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals the circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and used determine its accessibility for future use knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied
TGEM	Learning through inquiry	motivate student to generate hypothesis student evaluates hypothesis student refines and modifies hypothesis

Synthesis:

Trying to extract the difference between these theories of learning is a challenge for me. Working through them I was struck more by their similarities than by differences and much of it unfolds from the initial weeks where we looked at uncovering student conceptions related to maths and science work. As I worked through the modules I became increasingly aware of the importance of approaching instruction with a theory of learning and supporting it with research while remaining flexible in its implementation. My preference, working through the modules, is for the Learning for Use model, likely because it’s the model I currently use most often in the classroom in attempting to have students dive into maths and science work and then have them stop and wonder what works and why and then having them create questions for further investigation.

As a personal reflection this week I would like to add to the interview I did with a colleague to uncover ideas about technology integration in maths and science. This is a new teacher who I frequently chat with informally and she revealed that she thought her undergrad degree was largely useless in training her for actual in-class work and it got me thinking about teacher training being cyclical and scaffolded for professionals, too. I also personally remembering that my undergrad degree had inadequately prepared me but there must be a balance between theories of learning along with the practicalities of classroom work, in which a finely written day plan may go out the window because a child is in crisis that day. As a professional with approximately 15 years of experience under my belt I am no longer (most days) over whelmed by the day-to-day practicalities and now have the luxury of returning to masters studies and really studying and attempting to understand the learning theories that support our work. As I approach the end of my degree I am struck by how much more there is to learn. I wish I had infinite time and infinite tuition dollars!

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.

Hobbs, L., & Davis, R. (2013). Narrative pedagogies in science, mathematics and technology. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1289-1305.

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

Personalized Synthesis

When I think about our learning over the course of this module, I remember more similarities than differences. I remember thinking about different routes to the same destination. With inquiry learning being the destination, anchored instruction, SKI, LfU, and TGEM are the different routes that Google Maps can provide. Which one is the fastest route? Which one is most effective? Which one is most efficient? Is the route selection the same for everyone? Should it be the same?

These four TELEs remind me of an ongoing debate we have in my PLC. As a Continuous Improvement Coach, I meet with other CICs on a regular basis. One of the conversations we have that can divide the room revolves around foundational skills versus foundational knowledge. Can students be successful by focusing more on skill development than knowledge development? Or are there pockets of foundational knowledge that all students need in order to be successful? What balance can we and should be strike? Regardless of the topics we explored in TELEs each week, we picked up on some common key ideas among them.

Skills Developed Through All TELEs

Independence
Problem-solving
Cooperation
Collaboration
Data Analysis
Making Thinking Visible
Reflection
Curiosity
Clarify Understanding
Modifying Thinking

The question I am left with is, is it enough that students develop these skills regardless of the content covered? More specifically, if students have these skills are they able to learn and work with any content?

Teachers are responsible for facilitating TELEs and making informed decisions based on the needs, learning styles, and interests of their students. As an instructional coach, I would like to say that I could make a recommendation about which TELE would be the best choice, etc. However, one of the most significant ideas throughout Module B is that content and context matter. We need to make decisions based on the content that is being taught/delivered/facilitated and who is receiving and learning the content. The TELEs are student centered and the expectation is that they are teacher facilitated. The actual students must be apart of the equation.

When I think about TGEM, I love the use of the words and steps – generate, evaluate, and modify. I think this is exactly what we want and expect students to be able to do; generate ideas, evaluate them based on new information or evidence, and then modify their understanding, opinions, data, etc. Upon reflection, it is not that different from the three steps in LfU – motivation, construction, and refinement. In designing my TELE for Assignment 2, I called my three steps ‘experience, evaluate, and personalize’. I think of it as exposure to the tool (Minecraft), exploration of examples of use in classrooms, and how they plan or would like to use the tool in their classrooms. I am eager to see how this goes with adult learners.

My use of the word personalize was very purposeful and is a synthesis of how I believe TELEs should be selected. Taking into consideration the content, the tool, the context, and the user, our decisions should change based on what we know.

Emergent Themes in TELEs

TELEs can be in various forms. The following table compares and contrasts their underlying assumptions.

	Anchored Instructions in Jasper	SKI & WISE	LFU & My World	T-GEM & Chemland
Focus /Uniqueness	Instructions are given via video	Making learning – accessible, visible social, foster life-long learning.	Motivate learning; Students learn to use/analyze a data set.	Students have to evaluate and modify their thinking models.
Knowledge is…	Socially constructed via problem solving	Constructed as students complete an inquiry	Constructed via learning to use tools to examine a set of data and making inferences	Constructed via making and testing assumptions
Technology is utilized…	As a method of delivering instructions. (i.e.video primary)	As a platform for student to embark on their inquiry project (i.e. document thoughts)	As information source to draw inferences between variables (i.e. big data)	As tools to explore and construct thinking models and to check the validity of the model
Learning happens…	Through developing a solution to the outlined problem	Through developing an inquiry	Through cycles of inquiry	Through cycles of inquiry
The teachers’ role is…	To provide a pre-described case and background knowledge and to scaffold inquiry	To select and provide a electronic platform that has prescribed inquiry	To help scaffold learning during personal inquiries	To help scaffold learning during personal inquiries
The students’ role is…	To solve a problem and develop a solution	To embark on a prescribed inquiry on an online platform	To assess information and identify trends in online data base	To use digital tools to generate relationships between concepts and
How are misconceptions assuaged?	Through applying skills and solving a defined problem	Through observing expert opinions and following an inquiry	Understanding is refined through reflection and application	Students actively search for models to explain new information; existing models of thinking is modified and refined

This chart is reflective of the fact that each model has a defined premise about learning and digital tools. It is apparent that these theories as based on the assumption that having access to and co-existing with technology does not equate to learning. These theorists also believe that students need to actively monitor their thoughts to assess and reflect upon conceptual relationships. Critical thinking skills and quality engagement opportunities with concepts are essential and effective ways to construction meaningful understanding about variables. Given this analysis, it is evident that the anchored instruction pedagogical model resembles more closely with WISE and LFU and T-GEM shares more similarities. Three clear themes emerged from this analysis.

Student Agency

Quite visibly, anchored instructions and WISE models provide a prescribed inquiry pathway for its learners. In comparison, educators do not prepare the inquiry map and direction in the LFU and T-GEM pedagogy. Students have full agency to inquire about the content and decide on the direction of their learning. The anchored instruction and WISE model place a stronger emphasis on educators to direct inquiry. For example, educators provide information for initial case and inquiry. They also direct how the model can be refined. This can materialize as extra sections in WISE and additional information and scenarios in the anchored instructions videos.

In the latter two models, learning relies on student’s audacity to inquiry upon their assumptions. More specifically, students choose their inquiry questions after inspecting a data set or defining their problem. Students have to actively find evidence to support and confirm their thoughts. Hence, students have a full control of the content and inquiry path. Students also decide on how their models are refined and or modified.

Attitudes towards digital tools

Collectively, all of these TELEs are consistent with Jonassen’s (1998) idea about students using digital tools to alleviate cognitive load. Clearly, these models share the idea that students should take advantages of digital tools in order to inquire like scientists. However, the reasons for and the intensity of usage vary. Specifically, anchored instructions and WISE uses technological tools as a platform for inquiry. Compared to LFU & T-GEM, students in the anchored instructions and WISE learning model require constant and direct access to first-hand information. Here, digital means are mere vessels to store information. More specifically, students are to collect and assess their own data.

Without access to technology, it is impossible to employ anchored instructions and the WISE model. However, it is still possible to use offline material to employ the LFU and GEM teaching model. Both WISE and anchored instructions utilize technology as an all-encompassing framework. However, LFU and GEM perceive technology as reference information storage tool where getting pockets of access may be sufficient.

Knowledge & Knowledge Refinement

Anchored instructions and LFU designers believe that sources of knowledge come from data sets and are accessible via digital means. Another way to frame this is that anchored instructions and WISE believers assume that knowledge comes from pre-designed experiments and selected social sources like experts. In contrast, students in the LFU and TGEM learning design have to create, build or collect personal evidence to defend their thinking models. Moreover, anchored instructions and WISE are more concerned with forming inferences. While LFU and TGEM designers also believe in forming inferences, they extend the idea this idea and emphasize the need to confirm or reject inferences.

These inferences are further refined. While reflection and critical analysis is use in all TELEs, yet, these models diverge on how and in what ways reflection is used. For example, in anchored design and WISE, reflecting happens while applying their knowledge. In LFU and TGEM, reflecting equates to evaluating the accuracy of their inferences. In other words, anchored instructions and WISE are building knowledge in a bottom-up manner. Hence, students are slowly building a refined thinking model. For LFU & TGEM, knowledge refinement is a top-down process. This means that students first infer the overarching conceptual relationships then modify and refine their thinking models.

Clearly, TELEs are built upon certain premises and assumptions about what knowledge is and how it is constructed. These perceptions influence the way in which digital tools are engaged. Nonetheless, it is the educators’ choice to employ teaching models that is consistent with their beliefs. However, it is quite possible that one teacher may utilize multiple TELEs for different subjects. Additional research may help identify the interactions between components of TELEs, content and students’ learning dispositions.

Reference

Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C. and Yueh, H.P. (1998) Computers as mind tools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43, 24-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02818172