{"id":5208,"date":"2018-02-21T18:47:01","date_gmt":"2018-02-22T01:47:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2018\/?p=5208"},"modified":"2018-02-21T18:47:01","modified_gmt":"2018-02-22T01:47:01","slug":"lfu-its-good-for-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/stem2018\/2018\/02\/21\/lfu-its-good-for-you\/","title":{"rendered":"LfU – it’s good for you."},"content":{"rendered":"

Last year, as a culminating activity for the grade 9 electricity unit, I co-designed a project on energy sources.\u00a0 Students chose a city (from a given list) somewhere in Canada and were tasked with creating a plan to supply it with electricity.\u00a0 They needed to research the benefits and disadvantages of each type of power plant, decide which were most appropriate for their location, and do a cost analysis indicating how they could supply the energy under the one-time building and monthly costs budgets.\u00a0 GoogleEarth was used to search each location for geographical features that could be used for power generation.\u00a0 The final product was a constructed scale map on press board (we used GoogleEarth to help) showing the types and locations of the various plants they chose to power their city, using different coloured lights connected to switches using parallel and series circuits.\u00a0 Their choices needed to be connected to a legend on the map, meet the power demand and budgets, and be justified with written explanations.<\/p>\n

The use of ArcGIS would give further options to this project \u2013 students could do an analysis of what type, how many, and where Canada has power plants, and which types of power generation should be expanded further.\u00a0 Population data can be analysed to see which plants could be used to meet the needs of the region.<\/p>\n

I believe this project could fit the LfU model.\u00a0 This model consists of a 3 step process including motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement (Edelson, 2001).\u00a0 Edelson sees motivation as being caused by a need for new knowledge \u2013 a limitation or gap of the learner\u2019s prior knowledge.\u00a0 This project helps students to recognize that they need more information \u2013 about the city, the energy sources, and the financial costs.\u00a0 Motivation can be separated into demand<\/em> and curiosity, <\/em>(Edelson, 2001), where a need for more information drives the desire to find out more.<\/p>\n

Through this project, knowledge is co-constructed as the students research information, and incrementally build their knowledge on power generation and their locations.\u00a0 Edelson, 2001, divides this step into observations<\/em> and communication<\/em>.\u00a0 Communication is seen when students discuss the pros and cons together and work to develop a consensus of ideas and priorities.\u00a0 I think observation could be expanded by using ArcGIS to determine current plant usage and populations as discussed above.<\/p>\n

The third step of LfU is knowledge refinement which Edelson breaks into reflection<\/em> and application<\/em>.\u00a0 Reflection is seen when students go back over their learned information to assess what their priorities are, and if they meet the stated parameters.\u00a0 Application is covered by the project being imbedded in a real-world context, where students need to determine the best approach for that region or city<\/em>.\u00a0 Radinsky et al emphasize this as well, stating students need to be immersed in the \u201ccontext of the complex, messy world of actual data\u201d, (2006).<\/p>\n

I could also make this project more inquiry based by assessing prior knowledge – asking students to make predictions about which type of power plant is most common, cheapest, or most efficient – to rouse their curiosity.\u00a0 Additionally, starting with cities with known parameters, will allow students to assess the effectiveness of the current energy plan and energy sources and make comparisons with other cities in the region using ArcGIS.\u00a0 Collected data and research information could be stored using portfolio-type software such as Progress Portfolio, discussed by Edelson (2001).<\/p>\n

Radinsky et al (2006) researched the effectiveness of different assessment strategies.\u00a0 I did already have a unit test on the material as well as the submitted project, but I think it would be good to add presentation and interview components.\u00a0 There is great value in using triangulation of assessment to gain a clearer picture of understandings: \u201cEach assessment allowed a somewhat difference glimpse into what students understood and how they understood it and could apply it. The system of assessments provided a more nuanced view of students\u2019 understanding than what would have been possible with only one or two of these\u201d, (Radinsky et al, 2006).\u00a0 A presentation component enables students to share their ideas and justify their solutions to an audience, while providing evidence of what the group had constructed as a whole, and also some of the understandings of individual group members.\u00a0 Finally, I would add an individual interview component.\u00a0 The interview would consist of a series of structured questions to prevent leading questions or a giving away of the answers, and to allow opportunity for spontaneous sharing of understandings.\u00a0 According to Radinsky, (2006), interviews are the best way of eliciting partial understandings, and this process often yields rich information about what students know.\u00a0 Using a variety of assessment methods would give a better picture of students\u2019 overall understandings.<\/p>\n