{"id":4958,"date":"2018-02-05T11:01:41","date_gmt":"2018-02-05T18:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2018\/?p=4958"},"modified":"2018-02-06T00:57:25","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T07:57:25","slug":"jaspers-anchored-adventures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2018\/2018\/02\/05\/jaspers-anchored-adventures\/","title":{"rendered":"Jasper’s Anchored Adventures"},"content":{"rendered":"

How does this technology support learning and conversely how might it confound learning? What suggestions do you have for how the Jasper materials or other digital video might be utilized in your context (include suggestions for activities that do not involve the videos)? What research supports your suggestions? How might the video and\/or the activities be augmented for children with learning issues in math? How have or can the contemporary digital technologies and\/or their websites also support these suggestions for children with learning issues (eg. Prodigy, Desmos, King of Math, Math Bingo, Reflex Math, or others).<\/h4>\n
\n

From what I can tell after reading and learning about Jasper, I see it much less as a \u201ctechnology<\/strong>\u201d than I see it as an approach<\/strong> to instructional design. In their Jasper project, the Cognition and Technology Group (1992) used a set of design principles (see Figure 1 below) to create videos and lessons using an \u201canchored instruction\u201d approach. The intent of these lessons and their video-based format was to expose students to complex, real-world problems that challenge them to come up to solutions to problems that are not clear-cut. Jasper designed these videos and lessons to emphasize the importance of \u201cgenerative activities on the part of students\u201d (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992, p. 76), with the intention of allowing students to work in cooperative groups that allow space for them to self-correct without much teacher intervention. This idea of students generating their own solutions, constructing their own knowledge, as well as building off each other skills and strengths, related strong constructivist fundamentals, reminding me of our old pals Piaget and Vygotsky.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"7

Figure 1<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

This \u201canchored\u201d approach, supported by videos, allows students give context to the curriculum, meaningfully connecting it with their lives in a way that would otherwise have been impossible through textbook problems. By introducing a variety of problems in the context of a story, or \u201cadventure\u201d, students may be more motivated to work together on potential solutions to questions that more than a single answer. Finally, by moving from Direct Instruction <\/span>(Model 1) <\/b>and structured problem solving <\/span>(Model 2) <\/b>toward guided generation <\/span>(Model 3)<\/b>, students have a genuine opportunity to develop their problem-solving and critical thinking skills. However, the success of this design in practice, of course, still depends to some extent on how well it is introduced and facilitated.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Model 1:<\/strong> Basics First, Immediate Feedback, Direct Instruction<\/span><\/p>\n

Model 2:<\/strong> Structured Problem-Solving<\/span><\/p>\n

Model 3:<\/strong> The \u201cGuided Generation\u201d Model (applies concept of constructivist scaffolding)<\/span><\/p>\n

-Cognition and Technology Group, 1992<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Speaking of success, the question above asked how the technology may confound learning. I had a few thoughts on this:<\/span><\/p>\n