Category Archives: B. Synthesis

Blending Blended Learning

To evaluate the four learning theories, I decided to use a framework that was developed by Vaughan et al. (2013). In this framework, blended learning environments are examined in terms of social presence, organization, and delivery. Social presence refers to the amount of interaction that students have with each other and the instructor, organization concerns how the materials are designed, presented, and the underlying theories behind them. Delivery then is all about how the interface with the students.

The reason that I chose this framework to aid in the comparison is that it takes into account both pedagogical ideas as well as the students’ user experience. As all of these systems are technology enhanced, it served as a great template to examine varying aspects of each.

Overall, after looking at the each of the different theories, a few key ideas stood out as ideas of what to integrate in any classroom:

Emphasize student interaction and problem-solving. Many times, teachers are too quick to give answers instead of allowing students a chance to work through problems and truly explore and learn in a safe environment.

Institute a system that works. Any one of these theories could have a solid effect in the classroom, but a teacher should choose one that works for the topics and students that they have.

Choosing a system does not need to tie you down to a platform (or even one system). Many of the theoretical underpinnings of these theories are flexible enough to be used in many different technologically enhanced ways or even in non-technologically enhanced situations. For example, SKI or WISE with its emphasis on scaffolded learning could very easily be blended into LfU lessons to aid and assist. T-GEM and Anchored Instruction share many of the same questioning aspects and could be seamlessly intertwined in many contexts.

Overall, the varying techniques highlight the fact that learning, even scientific and math learning, are arts, not science. With the diverse make-up of schools and classrooms, every tool that we can add to our arsenal of techniques only serve to benefit students.

-Jonathan-

Sources:

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in Blended Learning Environments: Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry. Edmonton, AB, CAN: Athabasca University Press.

Synthesis: And the Oscar goes to …

In this module, we learned about four technology-enhanced learning environments (TELE). The following table summarizes the theoretical basis, the objectives, and the chosen approach of these four TELE.

	Theoretical basis	Objective	Approach
Anchored Instruction	Case-based learning Problem-based learning Project-based learning Situated learning	Help students develop confidence, skills, and knowledge necessary to solve problems and become an independent thinker	Interactive digital video adventures
SKI & WISE	Scaffolded knowledge integration framework (SKI), cognitive apprenticeship, intentional learning, and constructivist pedagogy	Develop more cohesive, coherent and thoughtful account of scientific phenomena; resolve misconceptions; make thinking visible, make science accessible, help students learn from each other, give feedback	free on-line science and mathematics learning environment, allows teachers to create own cases
LfU & MyWorld GIS	Constructivism Goal-directed nature of learning Learning context	Provide students procedural knowledge on how to apply declarative knowledge	Motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement
T-GEM & Chemland	Inquiry-based learning	Foster learners’ conceptual understanding and development of inquiry skills.	Generate, evaluate and modify relationships

What are similarities between them? In my opinion, there is one strong similarity: All TELE are based on the constructivist approach. The constructivist approach to learning that postulates that knowledge has to be constructed actively by the students. Consequently, all TELE put a strong emphasis on student activation, for example through adventures, cases, problems, or projects that need to be worked on. This also implies quite some freedom for the students to decide on the next steps of their learning process or inquiry. And this again implies that the students have to get frequent feedback – e.g. by the adventure progress, in a simulation, in a map, by peers, or by the teacher. In detail, the presented TELE show some differences in implementation, such as regarding the degree of offered flexibility, with WISE probably offering least flexibility to the students.

Which TELE now gets the Oscar from me? From all approaches, I found LfU the most attractive for my teaching. Its three steps of motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement seem quite flexible and usable for many teaching scenarios. Also, LfU fosters inquiry-based learning as applied in many science classes. Finally, the integration of the three LfU steps in a learning cycle nicely reflects the typically iterative approach to learning.

To whom would you give the Oscar?

Elske

Let us synthesize!

In module B, we were introduced to four unique Technology Enhanced Learning Environments; The Jasper Series, WISE, MyWorld and Chemland. Each of these TELEs were discussed in depth using different pedagogical frameworks. MyWorld embedded Learning-for-use (Lfu) framework in their TELE, Chemland integrated TGEM (Technology-enhanced, Generate, Evaluate, and Modify as an approach for their TELE, WISE integrated scaffolded knowledge integration (SKI) in their TELE, and finally the Jasper Series used an anchored approach which involved introducing students to authentic real-world problems through videos.

In many science classes, the textbook is relied on heavily with little emphasis put on hands-on authentic activities that allow students to think critically and build their inquiry skills which is vital for 21^st century learning. These TELEs are breaking away from traditional classrooms so that students can collaborate, develop critical thinking skills, and motivate students while increasing cognitive skills using relevant and engaging activities.

When I reflect and think about the commonality between all four TELEs it is that they all put the student at the forefront of their learning and:

these TELEs use collaborative approaches
implement authentic real-world problems that are relevant
use scaffolding as a way for students to build their development of scientific inquiry skills
all have tenets of constructivism as the foundation
activities are within the zone of proximal development (ZPD) which means that activities are challenging but not so hard that students would be discouraged
the role of technology is to enhance student learning not used as a primary mean of teaching and learning
the frameworks can be used with any age group
there is an importance put on using and developing inquiry skills
he concepts/topics/activities are meaningful and engaging
all the frameworks require active participation from students which lead to creation of new knowledge rather than being passive recipients
in all four TELEs, we see that an importance is put on how the information is presented: illustrations, displays, simulations, visuals, and videos all play a significant role for student learning and inquiry
the role of the teacher is that of a facilitator to guide students to construct their own knowledge

Some of the differences that I have seen with the four TELEs are:

The Jasper videos are outdated which may be a problem for students whereas the other TELEs are quite engaging for students
The reason and focus for each TELE is different: WISE was designed to integrate science content and scientific inquiry skills. Chemland and MyWorld were designed to incorporate simulations. Jasper was designed so students could use their problem-solving skills that was anchored in a real-world problem.
WISE allows teachers to edit projects to meet the needs of individual students which promotes individualized learning whereas the other TELEs do not allow for this

My reflection:

In the beginning of this module, we were asked what our own definition of technology was. I said that “to me, technology is all of the tools, techniques, knowledge, and resources that we find useful and that make our lives easier. I also stated that the definition of technology, from all the definitions given by David Jonassen, Webb, Feenburg, Chris Dede, Robert Kozma, Trotter, Muffoletto, and Roblyer, the definition that stood out to me was the statement from Roblyer (2012) in which he describes technology as “technology is us-our tools, our methods, and our own creative attempts to solve problems in our environment.” Yes, the four TELEs that we learned about in this module each have their benefits; however, they should be used to advance our own pedagogical knowledge and our own TPCK.

Even though we have technology at our fingertips, we, as educators, need to be mindful in how we implement it in our classes with our learners. Simply introducing technology to the educational process is not adequate. There should be a purpose to integrating technology in our lessons. The use of technology can be an extremely powerful tool in the science and math classrooms and can influence how students learn. When students are able to visually see abstract concepts, they are better able to understand and engages them in authentic real-world math and science problems that students are able to think critically about and at the same time, able to develop their inquiry skills.

I would definitely use these TELEs in my own practice as the learner is at the center of each approach. Each of our learners deserves to learn in a collaborative learning environment that uses interactive and engaging tools to deepen inquiry skills in a meaningful way which is crucial for 21^st century learning. As long as we, the educators, see the importance of these 21^st century skills.

The World of TELEs

The four learning environments aim to support student understanding of complex scientific phenomena and mathematical concepts. In their own, each technology-enhanced learning environment (TELE) employs various constructivist approaches in their pedagogies. Rather than considering students as empty vessels, needing to be filled with knowledge content, constructivist approaches assume that students, when exposed to the right conditions, will construct knowledge in deep and meaningful ways to satisfy an inherent curiosity and build upon their own prior knowledge. Every student enters a learning environment, whether traditional and technologically enhanced, with a unique set of understandings, experiences, and preconceptions of science and math. Effective learning environments draw upon this prior knowledge and spark a sense of curiosity from within the learner.

The four TELEs that were investigated (Jasper, WISE, MyWorld, and Chemland) shared many similarities and differences in their design. Each TELE adopted a constructivist approach to learning allowing students to draw from prior experiences and make inferences based on their observations. Each environment extended and deepened the student’s understanding and their mental model of various natural phenomena. Through visualizations, videos, simulations, and data-rich maps, students were encouraged to experiment, observe, predict, and reflect upon the consistencies and reconcile any inconsistencies between their prior experiences and recent observations.

While all TELEs lean heavily on technology, each differed to varying degrees in the type of media employed and the degree of scaffolding provided. For instance, Jasper, MyWorld, and Chemland provided very little scaffolding for students which affords the teacher the flexibility to use these learning environments as they find most appropriate in the classroom. Likewise, students are afforded the opportunity to explore their interests more organically rendering these activities much more engaging. WISE, on the other hand, offers a high level of scaffolding and affords students a more rigid and linear learning structure. Similarly, teachers can rely on WISE to provide students with an appropriate level of scaffolding for their students. Additionally, the four TELEs differed in the types of media they employed. While Jasper relied heavily on video content to present information and elicit curiosity, WISE, MyWorld, and Chemland employed a cocktail of simulations, animations, data-enriched maps and video content. While differing in their own regards, each environment was carefully designed to facilitate inquiry-based learning within the science and math classroom.

A more comprehensive comparison between the four TELE and their respective learning theories can be found in the table below.

	Learning Goals	TELE
Jasper and Anchored Instruction	AI introduces students to authentic real-world problems through various means. Students develop sub-questions that stem from larger questions in order to develop critical thought and pursue their own curiosity.	Jasper is a collection of videos that present engaging real-world problems to students. It should be noted, that the videos are quite dated and lack a certain level of relevance to students today.
WISE and SKI	Scaffolded Knowledge Integration allows students to continually build upon understanding and document their learning process. The SKI framework effectively guides students through an inquiry process.	WISE walks students through a linear set of lessons and modules within a scertain topic of study. Students are able to apply their understanding in frequent reflections and explore variables within computer simulations.
MyWorld and LfU	Learning for Use places a great emphasis on how knowledge is constructed. Three elements of LfU are motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement.	MyWorld presented students with data-rich maps that highlight weather and other geographic phenomena that occur on Earth. Students are able to find patterns and relationships from these data sets.
Chemland and T-GEM	T-GEM is another learning strategy that guides students through a process of inquiry. The 3 stages of GEM are a) Generate a relationship between two variables, b) Evaluate the relationship and c) Modify the parameters to investigate the effects of a third variable.	Chemland allows students to investigate the effect of changing some variables while leaving others unchanged within a chemistry experiment.

This investigation into various TELEs has shaped how I will integrate technology into the classroom in the future. Each environment opened my eyes to the possibility of using technology to further support inquiry-based learning in the science and math classroom. Most importantly each environment reinforced the notion that technology should not be simply used for the sake of using technology. Rather, technology should be incorporated into the science and math pedagogical design in order to help students see patterns within natural phenomena that they would otherwise not be able to see due to spatial or temporal limitations. For instance, a good use of technology would allow students to develop a robust mental model of phenomena such as molecular bonding angles, orbital motion, and large glaciation events. Technology should afford the learner opportunities to observe these otherwise invisible phenomena by manipulating variables and exploring rich datasets. TELEs should empower students to pursue their own curiosities in science and math using engaging and well-designed learning environments. Regardless of whichever TELE is adopted, it must be appropriate for the students’ abilities and the learning goals of the course.