Category Archives: Uncategorized

Attracted to T-GEM

I found the teacher quote in Khan, S. (2007) Model-based inquiries in chemistry article resonated with me.

“I want [students] to learn chemistry, [but] I don’t want them to just understand the concepts–I want them to understand where to get the concepts and where they come from” (p. 881).

This teacher is facilitating metacognition through inquiry, this allows for students mental models to be enriched and revised. Khan (2007) argues the aim of model-based teaching is to develop teaching strategies that foster learning environments that build, extend, elaborate and improve mental models of the way of the world works. Model-based inquiry lesson, as seen below, facilitates the critical evaluation, but lends to opportunities where students challenge misconceptions.

One of my favourite units to teach is Grade 2 Magnets and other magnets because most students have some prior knowledge how a magnet works and the authentic learning that takes place with hands-on learning.

Describe the interaction of magnets with other magnets and with common materials.

Students will:

Determine which materials are attracted to a bar magnet.
Define the term “ferromagnetic.”
Observe the interaction of bar magnets.
Determine that like poles repel and opposite poles attract.
Understand that magnets exert force at a distance.
Observe magnetic field lines for attracting and repelling magnets.
Use magnetic field lines to predict if an object will be attracted to a magnet or repel

My School Division has access to Gizmos that are interactive online simulations for math and science education in grades 3 – 12, through our Moodle Portal. Through the simulations, students will drag bar magnets and a variety of other objects onto a piece of paper. Clicking play will release the objects to see if they are attracted together, repelled apart, or unaffected. Students will be able to sprinkle iron filings over the magnets and other objects to view the magnetic field lines that are produced.

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

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.

Relating Inquiry and Science

SKI WISE Forum

I found the articles about WISE very interesting and thought provoking. So much of what we teach as “science” is not so much science as scientific information – facts and concepts of what we have learned and currently understand about our world. But, science at its core is not information, but a process – a process of inquiry and discovery about ourselves, our world, and our place in it. I found the WISE goal to make the process accessible to students of all ages a laudable one. Too often what we consider learning in our students is rote repetition, rather than thinking, investigating, or drawing conclusions. In contrast, Linn et al, (2003), put forward 4 SKI principles: (1) making thinking visible, (2) making science accessible, (3) helping students learn from each other, and (4) promoting lifelong learning- to help students do science rather than remember it. Williams et al, (2004), describe WISE as an organizational platform to support teacher’s use of inquiry activities in the classroom, and to allow students opportunity for self-direction. I like the opportunities it provides, and feel it would be a useful tool to incorporate in my classroom.

What I found when trying inquiry activities is comparable to what was expressed by Furtak (2006), that students recognize they are not truly discovering something new, that the answers ARE known, and so they want to find out the “real” answer and compare their findings to it. I’m not sure how to get past this. Most of the obvious questions and answers around us have already been explored and students don’t have the knowledge or expertise to ask and investigate truly unknown questions. The students recognize that they are in an artificial world of science, where what they are doing doesn’t matter to the “world of science” beyond themselves.

In science, there are “right” answers, explanations that fit the evidence better than others, so it is natural for students to want to measure their success to the known standards. There is a trade-off here between the “desired understandings” and the “process of inquiry”. I would argue that effective science teaching would find a balance between the two. Teacher training is important to set up inquiry activities in an effective manner, and to provide support to teachers on how to interact with the students in an inquiry environment. I think the approach that Doug took, (Furtak, 2006), is the best one, talking to them about the value of thinking, testing, figuring things out for themselves – the process of learning, as opposed to the information itself. However, young children don’t have this level of awareness yet, so it may be a tough sell in lower elementary. I also think it is wise to discuss and reflect on inquiry findings after the activity to support student understandings and avoid misconceptions. I don’t see inquiry learning being used best in isolation, but rather interspersed with other learning and teaching strategies for a full, well-balanced learning experience.

Can inquiry teaching be used effectively in isolation?
Is science learning possible without inquiry?
Which is the best description: science as inquiry, science is inquiry or inquiry build science?

Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538
Williams, M. Linn, M.C. Ammon, P. & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206.

Learning Through Escaping

Question: Creating digital video is now more available and more efficient than it was when the Jasper series were initially developed. Briefly, if given the opportunity, what kind of mathematical or science adventure might you design? Why? Pay attention to your underlying assumptions about teaching and learning regarding your design and your definition of technology. How would instruction in this adventure help to address misconceptions in math or science for some students?

Answer: If I could create any sort of adventure, it would definitely be a combination of the more difficult math and science concepts found the grade 5 Alberta curriculum. More specifically, these concepts would involve:

Math:
– 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication
– solving equations with one variable
– 3-digit by 1-digit division

Science:
– building a variety of circuits using discovery methods
– reading electricity meters

In creating an adventure environment for this, I feel it would be highly engaging to have an escape room type scenario. For those of you unfamiliar with the escape room concept, you can watch a short explanation video here. This could be completed by actually building the escape room, or by having fictional characters in a video series. Lately a number of my students have been raving about their time in an escape room, and some of their highlights have been all about the learning that occurred during their unsuccessful escape attempts.

The goal would be for this scenario to follow the “Guided Generation” model, outlined by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). In this model, students are put in relatively complex situations where all of the goals for completion are not explicitly specified. One of the main keys to successfully using this model is scaffolding learning appropriately, while still giving opportunity for students to generate their own understanding.

While the theme of the escape room could always be different, it could include elements that required students to complete circuits to open locks. They could potentially repair a radio and send a message out. The opportunities are endless, both in their possibilities and in their difficulty. It provides opportunities for students to solve a problem in a variety of ways. Which lends to different learning styles, and gives learners a chance to re-enter the room and try to be successful in a different way.

While the concepts used would require some pre-teaching, this type of scenario could show students how the math and science isn’t just theoretical or busy-work. Especially when it comes to the more difficult multiplication problems, I often get the complaint-question “when will we ever do this in real life, we have cell phones now.” There also seems to be a misconception with science that what is learned at school cannot be further developed outside of the classroom. While I think this may come from teachers’ well intended cautions about playing with electricity and chemicals, it can often lead to an unfortunate stifling of students’ passion for learning. This escape room type adventure could both illuminate the usefulness of learned concepts, as well as demonstrate its different applications.

The escape room model could also be sprinkled in throughout different lessons.

For Example:

15 minutes in the room before any electricity teaching
3 Classes on series and parallel circuits
30 minutes in the room where students should figure out the first electrical challenge
2 math classes on 3 by 1 division (and time for circuit related questions)
30 more minutes in the room where they try to apply these skills

This would let students be introduced to circuits/division without any teaching. During the lessons, hopefully a lightbulb would go off in which they realize this is the clue for a specific part of the room.

My ideas aren’t entirely solidified yet, but this is what I’ve been mulling over this past week. I feel it would build upon the quality ideas in the Jasper Research while also pulling in more recent PBL theories and best practices.

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.

Park, K., & Park, S. (2012). Development of professional engineers’ authentic contexts in blended learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E14-E18.

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2005). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development.

Hi from Hamilton

Hi everyone! My name is Dave Dykstra. I am currently taking my 8th and 9th MET courses, so the end may soon be in sight. I have enjoyed this program, and my teaching has grown greatly through this program, as well as my comfort and confidence in working with tech in the classroom. I am a teacher at Guido de Bres Christian High in Hamilton, Ontario, where I have been teaching for the past 17 years. I have been blessed to work part-time for the last number of years which allows me some time for this program but also for my family who wouldn’t see me otherwise. I teach mainly Bio11 and 12 and grade 9 and 10 science.

Since I’ve started MET, I’ve been able to start a Robotics program at out school using the VEX robotics system. It continues to grow and move forward from 4 students in-house to more than 20 and a competition team last year. In my classes, I have also been incorporating much more student centered learning and technology. For my biology classes, we’ve been using digital fora as well as creating course wikis and digital artifacts, which for the most part have gone very well.

I am happily married for 15 years with 3 wonderful children (13,11,7) and a dog. We love to travel in the summer (Maritimes last year) and my interests include tennis, kayaking, and skiiing. I look forward to working with you all, and am happy to see a few familiar names to work with again!