Sorry about the lateness, I’m out of town and have very spotty connections. But, here is my overall take of the TELEs.

Synthesis

From the different TELEs, we looked at, there were a few things that seems to have made up the basic recipe for successful TELEs. This list includes educators’ need to focus on creating lessons that are student-centered, have the option to be self-paced and allows for active learning through interactive interactions with the content through a technological component. Another key component noticed in the different frameworks was also the critical thinking component in the approaches. The frameworks recognize the importance of students being intrinsically motivated through their own curiosity and skills, which fuels the learning process for each student.

Technologies can help educators guide students in the right direction while not having to physically cater each lesson for each student. That said, I believe that technology can only enhance a lesson so much, but can not completely replace the teacher’s existence, and technologies will only enhance a lesson if it’s chosen correctly.

I don’t usually teach science, so am not quite sure how to state a known challenge of the students. I looked at the list of interactive simulations and picked a topic that I thought would be very useful in a classroom and build this short T-GEM lesson.

Topic: Solubility of Ionic Compounds

Generate – Create interest  in the topic by asking students open-ended questions to engage their thinking and learn more about how much the students already know about this topic.

• What does soluble mean? Insoluble?
• What are some things that are soluble/insoluble?

Evaluate – Learn from simulations, have students predict the solubility of elements from the periodic table, then have them try out the different combinations of elements on interactive simulation.

Sugar-and-salt-solutions

Salt and Solubility

I would even try bringing in some simple items found in the kitchen to have students test out solubility though hands-on research experiments.  Learn about how temperatures can affect solubility as well.

Modify – After trying elements out in the simulation, I would suggest that the students bring in safe items from home to test out their solubility, and experiment on how they can change the solubility if possible based on what they’ve learned.

References:

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

• 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.

My World seems like a very useful tool to teach geography using technology in a classroom.  Similarly, Google Earth shows to have similar potentials as well. Both great tools to use when teaching LfU based activities. It is very easy to see how these tools would be effective in math or science lessons. I, myself, used Google Earth in ESL to teach a bit of geography as well before. It gives students a chance to “see” the world without having to actually physically go to the place. Especially useful, when I was teaching students about the Wonders of the World,  Google Earth gave me a chance to show students real-life up to date photos in 2D and 3D of the great wonders which was better than regular photos, searchable online. I also used such tools to demonstrate the concept of distance to my ESL students before, when introducing countries to them, and where their country is located.  To visually show them the relative distance. These tools serve the function of motivating and engaging students to learn from their own curiosity.

If I was to apply similar Learning for Use activities in math or science, I would likely use the tools as a database of current information that students can gather from to produce results. It seems like using such tools, serves the purpose of data analysing more than presenting a concept, to be a tool to help students make connections more than anything else.  As Edelson stated “The LfU approach recognizes that for robust learning to occur, the learner must be motivated to learn the specific content or skills at hand based on a recognition of the usefulness of that content beyond the learning environment” (Edelson, 2014).  

My science LfU lesson could possibly look at using the data provided by these tools to make comparisons to present a concept. For example, the size of a country in landmass,  population,  and location. Explore why certain areas on the globe would be more ideal for agriculture, and some not. Why population varies greatly between big cities?  Have the students pick countries of their own interest to answer their own questions. My lesson would likely be climate/science related but would probably connect with socials studies as well. Teachers in the lesson would most likely be the facilitators or be a researcher like the students as well.

Reference:

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning Earth and environmental science. In Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Springer Netherlands.

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.

I chose to explore and customize the “Orbital Motion and the International Space Station” project on WISE as it was an interesting topic to me at the time of selection. I modified the project from the original version, by updating the information and adding some updates about some topics previously brought up about the ISS’s deorbit plan. As the lesson was already well thought up, so I actually didn’t have much to add and probably wouldn’t need to either if I used it myself. My adjustments during use would most likely be in the presentation part of the lesson as the project is created to be used more for individual learning, and I think I would like to use it as a group as well for certain tasks so that group learning can occur.

If I was to use this project for my class,  I would most likely incorporate the lesson with some math and PE to make it an integrated lesson as well. The project has content that can be used for Math lesson as students can learn how to do some calculations after learning the projectile concepts, though it might be more physics related. But the lesson can definitely involve some outdoor, PE component as students can experiment on projectile science with various objects as well to build better understanding. But ultimately, the students would all go back to the online environment to do each section and submit their results there for assessment.

• 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).

Anchored instruction provides instruction that aid in learning by presenting problems that students can relate to or be engaged in through meaningful content like stories or short scenarios. While reading and watching the videos, I actually started to think back on the “Bill Nye: The Science Guy” videos from when I was young, and thought back to how he used to present information in visually rich and meaning context that was easy to “absorb”, though he never really gave us questions/problems to solve, he would post questions that needed answers and would then answer them himself to us(the audience).  Anchored instruction seems quite similar to problem-based learning or inquiry-based learning pedagogies to me. The use of technology in such a learning environment seems to direct “imagination” in some sense by NOT having students imagine the problem.  By presenting problems in a story or scenario that students can understand showing the why, when and how,  then asking students to come up with a solution, this method seems more focused and I can understand why it works.  I have seen many grade school students who struggle with math problems simply because they have trouble understanding the context, and so have trouble “picturing the problem”. Students often read the word problems multiple times but have trouble understanding what the question is asking, and I have seen this occur in students who are Native English speakers or in ELL.  As it’s the form of instruction that works,  even if videos like the Jasper series aren’t used,  activities like hands-on presentations would likely yield similar results.

This instruction method also aids in the development of crucial critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as pointed out in the readings as well, that developers incorporated that into the Jasper series and would have learning goals that “emphasize the importance of helping students -all students- learn to become independent thinkers “. This form of instruction can likely also support children with math learning difficulties as it aids in the presentation of conceptual knowledge in math. Hasselbring(2005) mentioned that students with math difficulties often struggle to make connections in the problems, and would often solve problems from procedural knowledge. Anchored instruction might be able to help them see the connection needed. Math Videos like the ones on Brainpop can likely do the same, though a subscription is needed.

References:

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2005). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Retrieved December, 12, 2005. Chicago