Comparison of 4 TELEs explored in Module B
The 4 TELEs explored in Module B have many similarities and differences.
Similarities:
- All 4 of these TELEs are based around a constructivist perspective. According to Dougiamas (1998), “A constructivist perspective views learners as actively engaged in making meaning, and teaching with that approach looks for what students can analyse, investigate, collaborate, share, build and generate based on what they already know, rather than what facts, skills, and processes they can parrot.” All 4 of these TELEs promote the active engagement of learners in activities that require them to think critically, analyze information, investigate concepts and relationships, share and collaborate. The designs of each of these TELEs are different and their purposes vary however I think all are deeply rooted in constructivism.
- All 4 of the TELEs provide connections to real world situations and or access to real world data
- The TELEs provide students with concrete visualizations of abstract concepts. Jasper through the use of video to anchor student enquiry in real world scenarios, My World through the use of the mapping tools, WISE, and Chemland through the use of simulations.
- Each of the TELEs, Jasper, WISE, My World and Chemland use a framework in their design. The frameworks, LFU, T GEM, SKI and Anchored instruction have common elements. All frameworks require students to actively participate in critical thinking activities that lead to construction of knowledge and the modifying or revision of thinking or mental models in the creation of new learning.
- The role of the teacher in each of these environments is that of a facilitator, designer, motivator and guide. They require teachers make a pedagogical shift in their thinking and teaching of math and science from transmission of knowledge through lectures and textbooks to a more collaborative construction of knowledge with the learner.
The difference between the 4 TELES is more in their intent and affordances to teachers and students than in their underlying constructivist foundations.
- While all were technology-enhanced environments the intent of each of the TELEs explored was different. Chemland and My World were designed to teach science through the use of simulations in which students could manipulate variables, analyze results and modify thinking. WISE was designed to promote the integration of science content and scientific processes. Jasper on the other hand was designed to promote problem solving of complex problems anchored in real world contexts and the focus was math and My World
- WISE allows teachers to design and edit projects to meet the needs of students and can be applied to many areas of the curriculum. Jasper, Chemland and My World are narrower in their focus and apply primarily to math and the sciences.
- Jasper and WISE enable teachers to scaffold student learning and to some degree My World and Chemland does not.
Synthesis of Module B
As I reflect back on this module I keep coming back to Pellegrino and Brophy’s words, “It is often noted that technology is really just a tool to support learning and instruction, but it is less often noted or made clear that the nature of the technology tools and their manner of use matters deeply” (see for example CTGV, 1996). I started this module with the use of these words in my e-Portfolio and after completion of the module I have come full circle. The use of technology in science and math classrooms can have a powerful impact on student learning, however we must have a clear design of how, what and why we are using technology. The use of technology to help students visualize abstract concepts, access real world data, organize and collect artefacts engage in real world science tasks through simulations empowers students, gives students control of their learning and an awareness of the their own learning processes.
In Module A we explored what is “good use” of technology and in one of the entries for my e- folio I said, “I think that using technology to make classrooms places of inquiry, promotes problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration and communication is possible”. The exploration of the 4 TELEs presented in this module has further strengthened my views. To make the good use of technology possible in my context I would apply the frameworks presented in this module. Each of the frameworks presented enable teachers to make good decisions around the effective use of technology in the classroom. Anchored instruction, visualizations, simulations and real world contexts are powerful concepts to apply to the teaching of Math and science.
Although this course mainly deals with science and math the frameworks could be applied to all curriculum areas to guide teachers’ use of effective technology-enhanced environments in classrooms. At the centre of each framework is the learner. The construction of knowledge, promotion of critical thinking, analysis of data/information, communication and collaboration, are all skills necessary to prepare students to live and work in the 21st century.
References
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.105. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Dougiamas, D. (1998). A journey into constructivism http://dougiamas.com/writing/constructivism.html#trivial
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. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.