Category Archives: e-folio

This section will display all your e-folio posts.

Embodied learning and virtual environments

According to Winn (2003), the term ‘embodiment’ refers to “how our physical bodies serve to externalize the activities of our physical brains in order to connect cognitive activity to the environment” (p. 7). An example of this could be students using hula hoops to move around while learning about the position of each planet in the solar system or using virtual reality to understand abstract concepts. This plays an important role in learning because “bodily activity is often essential to understanding what is going on in an artificial environment” (Winn, 2003). The idea is that students will be able to better understand and be able to think more deeply about that topic/concept while also having fun.

In the article, ‘Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: making connections to natural infectious diseases,’ by Neulight et al (2007), the authors examined the integration of a multi-user virtual environment (MUVE), called Whyville, within classroom curriculum about infectious diseases. The study consisted of 46 sixth-grade students who became part of Whyville; each student had their own avatar and during the four-week period, each student experienced an outbreak of a virtual epidemic called Whypox. One of the most interesting things was “when an avatar had the disease, the avatar’s appearance and ability to chat were affected… the feature of having the avatar’s appearance change allows users to experience diseases without direct physical harm to the participant which would be difficult to replicate in real life” (Neulight et al, 2007). By using a virtual environment in which students are able to touch, feel, observe and experience a complex topic such as infectious diseases, increases conceptual understanding of the disease and its effect. In traditional science classrooms, there is a heavy emphasis put on textbooks, videos and worksheets, however, by integrating a virtual environment in this context, students were able to experience what it would be like not only to have an infectious disease, but also were able to figure out cause and effect of infectious diseases. By giving students an opportunity for higher motor action and combining that with pre-conceived notions, it allowed students to expand their thinking of what they thought they knew and brought them into an environment where they were able to physically experience disease without having to actually experience it in real life.

In the article, ‘Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula, by Barab & Dede (2007), the authors “are focused on understanding how game-design principles and immersive participatory simulations …establish rich inquiry-based contexts for engaging scientific issues.” The authors discuss how game-like virtual learning experiences “can provide a strong sense of engagement and opportunities to learn for all students.” I think that game-like environments can increase motivation for students but there needs to be a purpose for teachers to want to use game-like principles with their students.

I would use an embodied learning approach with my math students that I have discussed in previous posts because of their struggle with the subject. I think that if my learners were not just using their brains but also their bodies to learn math, it might make a difference with the conceptual challenges that they face. These learners are always moving around so I think that this may be an approach that I would try. However, I need to research it further in order to understand it thoroughly.

Questions:

Does one have to have to be an expert in PCK in simulations or virtual environments in order to integrate it into their practice?
Can Embodied Learning work in all subjects at all levels of education?

References:

Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1).

Dede, C. (2000). Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 281-303.

Neulight, N., Kafai, Y., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 47-58.

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

PhET

The resource that I would like to share is the interactive simulation called PhET, which stands for Physics Education Technology. This project is through the University of Colorado which was founded in 2002 by Carl Wieman. Phet began with “Wieman’s vision to improve the way science is taught and learned and the mission is to advance science and math literacy and education worldwide through free interactive simulations” (https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/phet/what.html ).

I mentioned this resource briefly in one of my posts for Module B but I was not able to elaborate on it. In math and science, many concepts are much too abstract for learners to grasp and understand with no visualization of the concept. With PhET, the “simulations are animated, interactive, and in a game-like environment where students learn through exploration” and these simulations also “help to make visual and conceptual models” which helps to make real-world connections. I remember being in science and math classes where I was not able to understand complex concepts and I struggled a lot with those courses. I am a visual and hands-on learner and I had no exposure to such tools. I think my experience with those classes would have been more positive if I was.

PhET simulations are not just animations, “students can interact with simulations by grabbing real and moving objects, such as batteries, bulbs, magnets, handles, and switches” to enhance student learning and students are able to construct their own knowledge through these interactive simulations which can increase scientific literacy and foster student engagement both in and outside of the classroom. Furthermore, there are not just simulations but also graphs and charts to help the learner decipher information and data in the written form; there are different forms of knowledge representation within PhET to increase cognitive functions for the learner.

Previously, I have used this resource with my students to help them with their multiplication facts. I have been using it for a couple of days now using the ‘arithmetic’ simulation and I already see a big difference. Not only are my learners having fun but they are also understanding the relationship between concepts that were hard for them to comprehend. I think that this technology could be used in many ways:

Supplementary tool to further student learning
Can be used for demonstrations
Students can test out their learning through the online quizzes
The teacher can manipulate the variables and adjust the simulations according to questions from students so that they can see what would happen if they, for example, moved the slope into the negative quadrant, and how that would affect the answer (slope-intercept relationship).
Students can make predictions and explore those predictions

These simulations allow students to be a part of the process and not just passive learners. They are able to see concepts and change certain aspects to see what would happen if they did this instead of that. The best part of this digital resource is that it is free! This is important because even if it was not free and the school bought the program for a year, students would not have access to it at home but since it is free, students are able to use this at home as well for their learning. It is engaging, fun, and is able to represent knowledge and conceptions that are difficult for students to understand; in this way, learning is meaningful and constructivist.

I wish I had this tool when I was in my math classes, I struggled quite a bit with slope-intercept because it was so abstract to me.

References:

https://phet.colorado.edu/

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.

Misconception Throwback with T-GEM

For my posting today, I’m going with a classic throwback to the beginning of the course: Seasons and the phases of the moon. Since there are so many student misconceptions around these topics (it’s true! I asked my students the other day just randomly to explain it to me and they fumbled around and couldn’t quite explain it accurately), the added element of the simulation may give them the impetus that they need in order to finally grasp them.

I could envision this being worked together into a lesson about orbits, since both simulations involve looking at orbits to understand the concepts:

Simulations:

http://freezeray.com/flashFiles/seasons.htm

http://freezeray.com/flashFiles/moonphase.htm

(Freezeray.com is a resource that contains many different simplistic, yet easily interacted with, simulations. Try the bouncing ball one (http://freezeray.com/flashFiles/bouncingBall.htm)! It’s strangely relaxing to play around with, yet could also be highly useful for students to learn about potential and kinetic energy.)

Generate:

In this phase of the process, students would be asked to diagram and to explain as best as they can what causes the seasons. I would ask them to do this before they ever saw the simulation to get a good baseline of knowledge and to give them more room to evaluate and modify. After they had all finished, I would project whichever simulation we are doing first, most likely the seasons. On the main screen, I would make sure that they understood how the simulation worked, the necessary vocabulary (orbit, axis, rotation, NESW, tilt, oblong, hemisphere), and that they had roles down for working together in teams. Teams would first write down their first hypothesis on how seasons worked and then interface with the simulation. This personal working with the simulation has been shown to have positive correlations with student achievement (Khan 2010).

Evaluate

In this phase, students would revisit their hypotheses after using the simulation to check for internal validity. If they notice problems, through questioning, they would be lead to discover which parts of their hypothesis needs to be changed. For groups that get it on the first try or early on, the second simulation of moon phases is available for them to move on to.

Modify

After identifying which parts of their hypothesis needs to be evaluated, students would be invited to change their hypothesis and then to start the process over.And the end, reflection journals could be written, along with new diagrams and explanations to show the growth. By putting them side by side with their original explanations, student growth would be evident to all the participants. This method of writing and reflection will also help to make visible mental models (Khan 2007).T-GEM seems to make a lot of sense, but to be honest, it is incredibly close to the traditional scientific method that we have been taught from early on (Hypothesis, experiment, analyze, modify, conclude), but with T-GEM, computer simulations replace the experimental phase and the teacher is hyper-aware of not giving students information that is not necessary. Rather, they are left to experiment and learn more independently, making it closely related to experiential learning and problem-based learning.

Sources

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

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

What a GEM!

As an LST (Learning Support Team) teacher, our focus for this year has been on literacy and math. Math is a struggle for all of my students that I work with. In my current math group, I have six students that range from grades 3-7. These students have very little number sense and recently we have been working on single and double- digit multiplication in which they are having a very difficult time. By following the Gem approach, I am hoping students will be able to have a better understanding of the relationship between multiplication and division. In order to do this, I need to make sure that my students know all of their multiplication facts. I think that one digital simulation that could work well is the interactive website called PhET which stands for Physics Education Technology. When this simulation was first launched, it was aimed at physics but now it has expanded to include math and science (biology, chemistry, physics) and at different levels and grades. There is an interactive computer-based simulation titled ‘Arithmetic’ in which students can play a game with multiplication, division, and factoring. I think this would really help to enforce the concept and I think my learners would also have fun with this.

In her article, ‘New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations,’ Khan (2011) states that “some computer simulations are particularly valuable […] because they help students to visualize” would allow students to be engaged, explore, and discover new math concepts and information that learners would find very beneficial in their learning.

This is an interactive multiplication simulation that students can play using Phet

References:

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

https://phet.colorado.edu/

Multi-narrative Scavenger Hunt with LfU

As you probably know by now, I am not a math or science teacher, but rather, an ELA teacher. However, as I was reading through the LfU materials and exploring the GIS tools, I was struck by how easy it would be to use these sorts of resources, and of course, the framework, in designing and enhancing a lesson for my Creative Writing classroom.

For example, in LfU, each lesson follows the path of 1) motivation, 2) knowledge construction, and 3) knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001). To further detail this process, there is 1) create demand, 2) elicit curiosity, 3) Observe, 4) Communicate, 5) Reflect, and 6) apply (Edelson, 2001). Using this more detailed look at LfU, an idea for an enhancement of a writing project quickly came to mind.

Motivation

The students could be informed that they are going to be writing a narrative story of a group of people in a race to get a cash prize (think Rat Race style). A sample type scavenger hunt could be made that would utilize the classroom or even the school campus. After students engage in the hunt, they could reflect on what kinds of things helped their team, and what kinds of things hindered them.

Elicit Curiosity

Perkins et al. (2010) noted that students need to develop more and more their special literacy. This writing project would use the tool of Google Map to help them not only improve their special literacy, but also bring an element of reality and logistical thinking to their writing. Each student would be given a certain amount of “money” and told that this is what their character would have at their disposal to make it across the country and get the cash prize. It would be up to them to budget and plan the trip using Google Maps and online information about fuel efficiency and other modes of transportation. The person whose character was able to make it to the prize (while still weaving these elements into their story and making it entertaining) would win the prize. Also, the clues that they found on the initial scavenger hunt would also contain special bonuses that were hidden on the map, using the MyMap function on Google Maps. When they would locate one of these “power-ups,” they would find a word that would give them bonus time or money.

Observe

Google Maps is a tool that most adults today use on a regular basis. It has powerful, up to date information not just about directions, but also traffic and alternate paths. There was a time that GIS were difficult to navigate and not readily accessible (Perkins et al. 2010), but those days are long gone. Students can quickly and easily access the GIS through their 1 to 1 Chromebooks and begin to actively participate in the process of plotting a path, using time, distance, money, accommodations, and modes of transportation. All of this information would be logged in a timeline.

Communicate

All of the students’ findings would be compiled together in a first-person narrative of a person involved in the race for the prize. Through the process of writing, they would be able to not only bring the information alive but also make their character come to life as they use what they find. All of the stories would be compiled together in a single book and the time, money, and distance traveled would be recorded, as well as a map of their journey.

Reflect

By reading through and discussing other people’s stories, students would have a chance to reflect on the decisions that they made and the process that they used to get there. They will have the chance to learn better methods from their classmates and adapt their method for the next time.

Apply

The applications for this are numerous, but the most obvious would be in trip planning. By thinking through the money, time, paths, food, fuel, accommodations, etc that are necessary for a road trip, students will have a better appreciate not only for the planning on trip, but also spacial awareness and narrative writing.

Sources:

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. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.0.CO;2-M

Perkins, N., Hazelton, E., Erickson, J., & Allan, W. (2010). Place-based education and geographic information systems: Enhancing the spatial awareness of middle school students in Maine. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 213-218. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/00221341.2010.501457

Time with LfU

I really appreciate the features of the LfU framework. LfU is a model that teachers at any level can adapt and work onto an inquiry enriched context. One aspect I think all teachers would enjoy is that it is broken up into three sections. You often see frameworks and models that are multilayered, but LfU managed to embed and include essential features of multiple teaching and learning theories into three parts which makes it a manageable user-friendly model. By adopting this type of framework, teachers can ensure that students aren’t merely memorizing facts but instead building knowledge through activities that foster conceptual understandings. Learners can then apply what they are learning in their real life (Edelson, 2000). Furthermore, the framework also lends itself nicely to technology integration. By adding this layer allows learners to work on their spatial literacy. The advantage to this is that students will be able to “manage, visualize, and interpret information” which Perkins et al. (2010) describe as something that will be necessary for employees in our future workforce.

One concept that my Grade three students often struggle with is the concept of time and specifically elapsed time. Time is one of shape and space outcomes that I see as being one that is most applicable to real life, but often not a lot of time (ironically) is spent on it in school. This is why I chose this outcome. Below is a table that I created and included an activity for each section of the LfU model. One crucial aspect that is not on this table is ‘reflection.’ While I haven’t covered it here, I think it is one that is of utmost importance in any subject. One activity I might have my students do is repeat the motivation activity and have them reflect on how their knowledge improved and what strategies and tools they used the first time and what ones they used the second time.

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

SKI/WISE Reflection

WISE was created in the 90’s as a way to bring a new way of learning to the classroom by taking advantage of new technological advances and the internet (Slotta & Linn, 2009). Using the SKI framework, WISE projects are developed to be inquiry-based and have a number of different elements that are consistent with the constructivist learning theory. Projects are designed to be collaborative, use various features that appeal to a wide range of learners, use open-ended questioning techniques, as well as incorporate useful tools to help make students thinking visible.

Like the Jaspers materials, WISE encourages students to work together, and its contents are accessible to all learners. Some questions are open-ended, and there are attempts to make the material applicable to real life. WISE projects are more extensive, however, and students are gaining and applying knowledge as they move through them. The Jaspers videos are used for students to apply and practice concepts previously learned (Linn et al., 2003).

I would use WISE projects alongside classrooms instruction and projects. I found the materials to be very text heavy and a lot of material for students to go through on their own. In my context with EAL learners, I would want to make sure that students had a good understanding of what the vocabulary was before going through the activities. It would also be ideal for students to be involved in a hands-on experiment or project alongside the material as a way to reinforce the concepts learned. Including more videos within the online activities would also be helpful as a way to reduce the amount of reading. Finally, I would add having tuning in activities and pre-assessments that activate prior-knowledge, draw out misconceptions and also encourage students to ask relevant questions.

I created this table after reading posts from others and considering other perspectives.

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

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

Lfu and Geography

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

Learning-for-use model is a pedagogical framework that was developed to “support the design of learning activities that achieve both content and process learning” (Edelson, 2001). There are four main principles that were developed by Edelson with the aim “of foster[ing] useful conceptual understanding [that] achieve[ed] both content and process learning” (Edelson, 2001).

I was working with a group of learners this past week; after they had completed their reading intervention, we played a game called ATLAS in which students have to come up with countries, capitals, and cities (I have added provinces and Territories as well). For example, I would start with naming a country, let’s say Hawaii, the next person would have to come up with a country, city, capital, or province that started with an I. That student may choose Iceland (anything that started with the letter ‘I’) and the next person would have to begin their capital or country with a ‘d’ and it would go on. I have played this with many students before as it is fun and gets them learning about geography. However, this past week I was a little surprised that some of my grade six students had no idea what province we live in. I asked what province we live in and I thought that I was starting off with an easy question but I was sadly mistaken; most of the students answered that the province we live in is Canada. As I continued to ask questions about capitals, provinces, etc. all I got was blank faces.

As I was reading this week’s articles and questions, I had these learners in mind who almost gave me a minor heart attack. In the article ‘Designing Google Earth Activities for Learning Earth and Environmental Science,’ the authors discuss how “web-based geospatial tools such as Google Earth [and GIS and GPS] […] show great potential in promoting spatial thinking with diverse learners” (Bodzin, Anastasio, and Kulo, 2014) as they allow for visualization and mapping.

Keeping Lfu in mind and the three-step process: motivation, knowledge construction, and knowledge refinement, I started go explore different GIS platforms and I discovered GeoDart which is an interactive game/quiz creator that teachers can use to educate their students. For example, a question can pop up asking ‘Find Chicago’ and then the student would have to correctly locate on an interactive map where Chicago is. The next question might ask where is Tokyo and the student would have to find Tokyo. GeoDart enables the learner to interactively learn about geography, geology, history etc. The teacher has the ability to create customized questions based on the teaching objectives and student needs. This tool is incredibly simple to use and takes about 5 minutes to learn all the functionalities. I would definitely use this with my students and start with where they live and then zoom out from there. These students need to be able to know where they are in terms of Canada as a whole.

*As a challenge (when students are ready), Earth Picker can be played by students both for general knowledge and as a geographical challenge. Earth Picker uses Google Maps to place you in random locations around the globe and then you have use landmarks, language on signs, and any other clues to figure out where you are. If you haven’t already, give this is a try, it really is quite fun to play.

These activities and the role of the teacher and students are aligned with Lfu principles because of the constructivism lens that students and teachers are looking and working through. The teacher is allowing his/her students to come to their own knowledge and the students are active participants in their learning. As educators, we can support our learners in Lfu activities by making sure that the learning activities are reasonable to all of our learners and at their own level. I would not start with Earth Picker if a student did not know where they lived to begin with. It is important that learners feel safe in their knowledge building process otherwise they will feel discouraged.

http://www.earth-picker.com/

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.

GeoDart game tutorial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=112&v=xTmSSKx8QLI

Theoretical Framework & Affordances of Anchored Instruction

I chose the second question: “What is the theoretical framework underpinning the development of the Jasper series? What kind of teaching and learning activities do the materials support and what is the role of technology? In your view, what are the potential cognitive and social affordances of the technology; in other words, how can video technology enhance learning? What are these affordances for students with learning challenges or learning issues in math? Take a look now at Math Pursuits at the University of Cincinnati and their “Classroom Connections” Video Clips. In what ways do the videos in Classroom Connections and the support materials on the site exemplify these affordances?”

The theoretical framework underpinning the development of the Jasper series is constructivist and founded on the “anchored instruction” approach to instructional design. The CTGV appears to be promoting a problem-based learning (PBL) model of student-centered mathematics discovery, however they also make affordances for two other models of instruction that embrace teacher-centered controls to varying degrees (CTVG, 1992a). Their guiding paradigm “emphasize[s] the need to rethink the goals of education and the assumptions about learning that underlie many curricula and teaching practices” (CTVG, 1992a, p.66). The goal of teaching is not seen as the improvement of test scores, on the contrary they claim “[t]ests serve to define the goals of one’s instruction” (CTVG, 1992a, p.66). The math assessments were traditional pencil-and-paper. To this end, Jasper can be considered “technology-based” only in the delivery of the complex and engaging narrative-based problems and allows teachers a great deal of leeway in determining the depth and approaches students will take when exploring these mathematical issues. It is interesting that CTGV (1992b) noted that “our Jasper teachers and students hated our pencil-and-paper assessment instruments” (p.309) and after identifying a need for formative assessment as an indicator of increased time with the problems CTGV selected teleconferencing. This suggests that the video-based narrative, complex, authentic problems, and highly interactive group-based solutions organically suggested a richer style of assessment than was originally provided. The technological advances of today would have served CTGV well to that end.

Jasper is grounded in the pedagogical philosophy of “generative learning” as opposed to “inert knowledge” (CTGV, 1992a, p.67) and don’t focus on computational skills or pre-teaching the foundational concepts as much as attempting to help students “learn to become independent thinkers and learners rather than simply become able to perform basic computations and retrieve simple knowledge facts [and]…identify and define issues and problems on their own rather than simply respond to problems that others have posed” (CTGV, 1992a, p.66). They borrow from the concept of “apprenticeship learning” by “situating instruction in meaningful problem-solving contexts…and enable them to understand the kinds of problems and opportunities that experts in various areas encounter and the knowledge that these experts use as tools” (CTGV, 1992a, p.67). They assert that by allowing students to self-generate information they will retain more, however they note that this fact causes “considerable interference if the information that is generated is incorrect” (CTGV, 1992a, p.68).

They specifically reference Gibson’s (1977) concept of “affordances” and point out that the video-based narrative nature of the adventure affords the posing of complex, authentic, and open-ended mathematical problems and the much deeper cognitive demands that solving such problems requires (CTGV, 1992a). They’ve also embedded enrichment options for students that include “What if” thinking and connections from Math across the curriculum and into the outside world. This allows teachers to provide additional opportunities for students with gifted IEP designations as well as affording inquiry-based learning that isn’t strictly scripted to the plot sequence of the original mathematics adventure. The problems are complex enough that they’ve been designed to facilitate group solutions and discussions, which is especially useful for children with learning difficulties. Socially, the narrative video allows students to engage at a much richer level both with the content and with each other as they consider and discuss any number of aspects of the story and the problems-posed.

This style of narrative-based instruction reminds me of the book series Science Adventures (2015) by Richard and Louise Spilsbury which embeds hands-on experiments within a real-world context woven through by an engaging narrative.

These books don’t allow generative learning as an affordance, however, because their problems are not open-ended enough, though it could be argued the use of narrative in book format would afford even greater cross-curricular opportunities, such as students making their own videos of the narrative or creating something similar to present other science topics to an audience of their peers. Similarly, the videos in Classroom Connections (2018) make use of the engaging video vignette to pose a problem that has cross-curricular and real-world connections. The problems encourage learners to discuss the problem and the handouts provided as pdfs on each video page provide scaffolding for the group-work and task-thinking processes. These videos do not meet the level of complexity that the Jasper series affords, however, and the vignette-length eliminates the power of narrative to engage and motivate students. There is no sense of adventure or continuity provided because these are not stories, this makes the problems seem more like a video version of a textbook question than an authentic mathematical need.

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. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/30219998

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ec15d6d4-9b0b-4b0e-9e24-ee5b2c6a30cd%40sessionmgr4010