Category Archives: Uncategorized

Take aways

Thanks, all, for your contributions to my experience and learning, and for an engaging semester! I have learned a lot, and I think that looking back in the future, I will recognize that this course had a transformative influence on my teaching and pedagogy. Here are some of my key take aways from the course:

science is process, not information
how to use scaffolding to support and embed inquiry learning activities,
how to engage students in taking control of their own learning
how technology can support and sustain a community of learning in the classroom
why context is essential to engagement and preventing misconceptions
why and how we need to change our assessment strategies if we want learning to be a process rather than information
there is a whole virtual world out there that can network to our classrooms to give purpose, context, and engagement to our students
science has value and our students cannot only network with scientists, but can be scientists and contribute to the greater understanding right from our own classes!

Wishing you blessing for all your future endeavours!

Dave

More initialisms – VFT and IVE

Compare the examples of networked communities you focused on. What are several cognitive and social affordances of membership in these networked communities? Name the misconception and describe it in your post, drawing upon the reading(s) you did for the social construction of knowledge.

Driver et al. (1994) argue that scientific knowledge is socially constructed and that it involves both personal and social practices. The authors explain that young people must enter an alternative way of thinking about and describing the natural world. Science cannot be learned by simply being told about a concept but must be discovered in everyday cultures and situations. This argument led nicely into the readings I chose this week.

As a teacher, I’ve been on many fantastic field trips and witnessed how these hands on, engaging and real life situations can impact learning. This week I chose to investigate both virtual field trips (VFTs) and interactive virtual expeditions (IVEs). I had absolutely no prior experience with either but have heard the terms around my own school recently and wanted to know more.

Spicer and Stratford’s (2001) work examines the attempt to combine lectures, lab work and field environments in university level biology classes. They wished to examine if VFTs could replace field work and this study focused on a hypermedia package that examined the intricaces of tide pools. (Unfortunately, the link provided for the website in the article was not working and I couldn’t access this package – please let me know if you were able to!) The study found that students who used the Tide pools virtual field trip did just as well when assessed on the material in comparison to students who were taught in a traditional method. Further, students reported greater enjoyment when learning through the experience, claiming it to be more personal than a lecture. This relates back to the TELEs we looked at in module B. Investigative, engaging online learning that can be student directed resulted in enhanced the students’ experiences. In Spicer and Stratford’s (2001) work, despite citing many positives, the authors did conclude that the VTFs were not an adequate replacement for real field study or trips.

Therefore, if not ideal for replacing traditional field trips, when should VFTs be used? Spicer and Stratford (2001) argue that these experiences can help to prepare students for field work, or help with revision of topics after a field trip. “The idea of using VFTs to enhance real field trips is arguably one of the most prevalent views of the worth of VFT,” (Spicer and Stratford, 2001, p. 352). These experiences can also be beneficial if it is not possible or safe to take students to a certain place. Additionally, cost of traditional field trips can be prohibitive so VFTs can provide experiences that might not otherwise be accessible.

Niemitz et al. (2008) explain how vital the process of exploration is to learning science and examine IVEs in their work. IVEs enable learners to interact with the process of scientific exploration from anywhere in the world. The authors explain the IVE might be thought of as a type of VFT, however, the main difference between them being, “that an IVE is a real-time, short time and only time means of communication between a learner and an exploratory party” (Niemitz et al., 2008, p. 566). One key benefit of ‘real-time science’ that stood out to me was that, along with making science a real life scenario for the learner, it connects the science students with working scientists. These people, along with answering topical questions and promoting exploration, have careers in science and this could help to promote STEM subjects in general. Similarly to the VFTs, the authors claim that IVEs can have the same gains on student achievement and provide the case study of the School of Rock Expedition.

School of Rock Expedition is a seagoing pilot professional development workshop which travelled from Victoria, BC to Acapulco, Mexico in the fall of 2005. The idea was that the project would benefit both the teachers on boards and their students back on land. The teachers were involved in writing a blog each day, updating whereabouts of the ship, completing video question and answer sessions with schools on land, populating a library and much more. The benefits to their students were numerous but the project unfortunately was challenged by limited bandwidth, poor connection and therefore missed out on the real-time ship to shore connections. This entire project, technical issues aside, greatly intrigued me.

Having very limited experience myself, I quickly scanned our resource sharing page and saw that Alison has posted the following link: https://education.microsoft.com/skype-in-the-classroom/virtual-field-trips. Does anyone have any experience with VFTs or IVEs? I’d love to hear all about it!

References

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.

Niemitz, M. (2008). Interactive virtual expeditions as a learning tool: the School of Rock Expedition case study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(4), 561–580.

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16, 345-354.

Are Formal Learning Systems Failing to Achieve TRUE Knowledge Construction?

How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities? Provide examples to illustrate your points.

Mathematical knowledge is constructed by reason of use in relevant circumstances which may or may not occur within a formal classroom setting as shown by Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985). They found that the Brazilian children working as street vendors were able to perform mathematical computations, always without the use of paper and pencil and often above their equivalent formal “grade level”. This learning was anchored directly to their authentic contexts and not easily transferred into a school mathematics environment, however. These same children were not able to perform similar computations when presented with “formal mathematical problems without context and…word problems referring to imaginary situations” (p.24) that nevertheless used the same numbers or items they were able to compute in the informal setting. The mitigating factor appears to be that formal mathematics requires students to take contextualized situations (ie. the real life “word problems” of a customer asking them about the price of a certain quantity of coconuts) and translate them into algebraic expressions. The perceived deficit in mathematical knowledge found in the formal assessment is not about the child’s ability to compute values correctly at all, but is, in fact, about her “expertise in manipulating symbols” (p.25).

Networked communities, whether formal school classrooms, interactive museum exhibits, or virtual field trips can aid in this generation of knowledge by contextualizing concepts in authentic and relevant phenomena. Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann (1985) suggest “seek[ing] ways of introducing these systems [of thinking] in contexts which allow them to be sustained by human daily sense” (p.28). Such a thing does not happen by accident, as Moss (2003) points out in his critique of one implementation of the JASON project. Even when professional development and classroom implementation is available, truly connective communities of practice that result in long-term retention of scientific concepts and reforming student understanding of the nature of science through formal settings is not guaranteed. Moss’s (2003) observations of science learning supports the previous authors observations of mathematical learning when he states that “students’ conception often can develop in the home and community, and do not necessarily develop in classrooms. It is essential that we recognize that learning science occurs beyond the science classroom throughout many aspects of students’ lives, and it is critical that we facilitate learning opportunities in class which take these prior experiences into account” (p.24). These networks, when leveraged properly, have the potential to provide authentic science and math experiences that may help bridge the gap between informal, generative knowledge that’s grounded in relevant contexts and is retained, and the formal algorithms and facts that must be translated into symbol-systems and manipulated in the short-term to demonstrate “learning” at school.

Discussion:

Moss (2003) suggests that Student Scientist Partnerships “must be viewed as complementary, and even beneficial, to testing initiatives which are driving the choice of curricular programs” (p.29) but that the way teacher training was handled and the constraint of time contributed to an ineffective implementation of the JASON project to that end. How might teachers or schools ensure that time invested in interactive and virtual learning has longer-lasting, richer effects than simply getting students to feel excited for the duration of the project?

References

Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British journal of developmental psychology, 3(1), 21-29.

Moss, D.M. (2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON Project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 21-30.

Adventure in Authentic Environments

How is knowledge relevant to math or science constructed? How is it possibly generated in these networked communities?

We learn best when it matters to us. When the topic and context is relevant to our lives. This idea is exemplified in the three articles I read this week. In adventure learning, Velestsianos and Kleanthous (2009) argue that meaningful learning is reliant upon relevant and authentic tasks and adventure learning allows students to “…learn by immersing themselves in participatory experiences grounded in inquiry” (Veletsianos & Kleanthous, 2009, p. 86). This connects to the ideas that have been prevalent throughout the course. The idea that inquiry, grounded in constructivist and situated learning theories, is best developed and honed through inquiry learning. Veletsianos and Kleanthous echo and cement these ideas even further by arguing that “While the AL approach may be grounded on constructivist notions of inquiry-based learning, teachers can repurpose the adventure learning approach according to their own needs and beliefs” (Veletsianos & Kleanthous, 2009, p. 93). This is the bread and butter of adventure learning; the malleability to meet students needs while creating an authentic context to make the most of student learning and skill development.

Carraher, Carraher, and Schliemann’s (1985) study of mathematics in the streets prove that a need for skills and knowledge, and an immediate need for the knowledge and skills in an excellent indicator and motivator of learning. With little formal education, students in Brazil demonstrated active and masterful computation skills. These skills and knowledge were acquired by the students on the job, in the streets because they needed them. The context was authentic, the demand for the skills was high, and their learning was deep and meaningful.

How can we replicate this environment in our classrooms? By knowing our students. By connecting the curriculum to the world around them and by allowing them to make their own connections. By making the skills connect to contexts that matter to our kids. By solving real world problems using the math and science content we are required to teach and learn.

Carraher, T., Carraher, D., & Schliemann, A. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 3(1), 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835x.1985.tb00951.x

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 345-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00191.x

Veletsianos, G., & Kleanthous, I. (2009). A review of adventure learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 10(6), 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i6.755

Using Technology to Construct Knowledge

There are few things I found to be common among all of technology enhanced learning environment (TELE) we looked at. The first is the manner in which the technology was used. In all cases the technology was specially designed to meet the specific objectives of the learning environment and the conceptual theory and approach that underpins the learning environment. In my own teaching it has shown me the value of using appropriate technology and that careful consideration must be paid to the conceptual theories. This means going beyond simply taking a technology was designed for some other purpose; it requires analysis of the desired learning environment and then modifying the technology to meet those needs.

The second thing I noticed, was that all the TELEs were grounded in a constructivist approach to learning. It was more explicitly stated in some more than others but all could have been linked to that approach. The TELEs gave students the opportunity to construct their own knowledge and develop their own conceptual understanding. The students were allowed to explore the learning environments at their own pace and to the extent they needed to construct their understanding. It reminded me of how important it is give students that amount of latitude in the learning process, which can be a struggle given time constraints, but it is a critical part of their knowledge construction.

The third commonality I found was the role the teacher played. The teacher acted as guide or facilitator. In many ways they were monitors of how the students navigated the processes and their intervention was very limited once students started working. In my own practice it reminded me that I am not the centre of my students’ learning and that they learn best when I step back and act as a guide through the process rather than the one who has all the answers.

References

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

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

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

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.

TGEM: Fractions, Percents and Decimals

As a learning support specialist teacher, my intermediate students struggle with many mathematical concepts. My students currently are struggling with understanding the relationships between fractions, percents and decimals. Fractions are introduced in the younger grades but as they move onto the next grade without the key foundational skills, the gap increasingly grows. I use many hands on manipulatives and last year discovered a free online interactive tool (visnos.com). I had hoped to use this interactive tool more, but didn’t have time to properly integrate in within my teaching practice as I was trying other methods and intervention programs. Thinking about the T-GEM approach, using this interactive math resource will fit well within my current unit. Using interactive manipulatives are helpful for struggling learners as it allows these students to work at their own pace and activities can be adapted to the individual learner. Further using technology allows for an engaging and interactive learning experience for my students. It’s also important for student to be able to connect curriculum to real life scenarios, and technology allows students to make these connections.

G-Generate:

Exploration is key for students. This will allow students to ask questions they may have, and connect previous knowledge with knowledge they are gaining through self-discovery. Students will be able to practice the relationships between fractions, percents and decimals. Students will also be able to practice and explore the relationship between equivalent fractions and develop strategies for converting fractions to decimals.

Students will use “Starter Calculate Percent Fraction Decimal” and “Percentage Fraction Decimal Grid” interactive activity to explore.

With students, go over key terminology and foundational concepts.

What are fractions?

What is the numerator and what is the denominator?

What are the various ways to represent fractions?

Where do we use and see fractions, decimals and percentages in our everyday lives?

Students will generate a hypothesis regarding the relationships between fractions, variables and decimals.

E-Evaluate:

During this stage, the teacher can pose questions that may not follow students’ hypotheses as this will allow students to evaluate the relationship. Teacher will also use equivalent fractions and have students determine the fractions, percentages and decimals. Here, students will have to use their numeracy skills to solve these questions.

M-Modify:

Teachers will ask students to represent fractions in lowest terms. Here students will have to use their multiplication and division skills to determine this relationship and apply their knowledge. How will students use their foundational knowledge and apply it to this activity.

Questions for students:

Can all fractions be reduced to lowest terms? What are the main “benchmark” fractions?

Can one fraction have many equivalent fractions? How can you show this visually and numerically?

How does multiplication and division relate to fractions, decimals and percent?

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