My amateurish Animoto on TELEs:  enjoy?!

 

—————————————————————————————-

Comparison of the 4 TELEs in Module B:

Guess What?  TELE- using technology to enhance learning and promote collaboration

Throughout Module B we critiqued and examined four different Technology enhanced Learning Environments in order to determine their affordances and effectiveness at enhancing the learning process.  Each was unique yet they all share many similarities.  You can see in the graphic organizer above some of these differences.   Each TELE has the ability to not only engage students in learning but also to develop critical thinking skills and support true constructivist learning.  Evaluating the Jasper series, WISE, MyWorld and ChemLand against pedagogical theories has enabled us to identify the benefits and disadvantages of each.

Jasper employs anchored instruction which provides support for students through a generative scaffolded approach which engages learners of varying abilities in problem solving activities (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992a).  Jasper uses ‘real-life’ examples that have integrated challenges which promotes autonomy and yet encourages collaboration.  Theoretically it was designed to meet the need of poor problem solving skills by employing just-in time learning where the teacher facilitates and supports those who need it. Ideally, Jasper employs PBL experiences utilizing simple, engaging technology.

WISE (Web-enhanced Inquiry Science Environment) is framed on the idea that students can develop skills and perspectives regarding scientific happenings (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003).  WISE has a knowledge integration design to generate visible thinking which makes science accessible and promotes collaboration.   WISE is fully editable and free, available online.  It is different from jasper because the technology was ‘created’ to support the design of WISE but the technology was selected for Jasper.  WISE requires a certain degree of tech ‘savvyness’ in the teacher in order to maximize and personalise the WISE modules.

I think that MyWorld shares some similarities with Jasper in that it promotes inquiry based learning which enables learners to access knowledge on an as needed basis through both a content and process design (Edelson, D.C., 2001).  MyWorld ‘s framework which employs a Motivation, Knowledge Construction, and Knowledge Refinement (Edelson, D.C., 2001) approach also has built in scaffolds to support learning.  This is a more cyclic model than Jasper and WISE which are linear in design.   This focuses on exploration, invention and discovery.  The Learning for Use (LfU) model attempts to address the learn by rote problem that often exists in science education by employing a 3-step process: motivate-construct knowledge- refine knowledge.  What I believe is essential here, is the opportuntity for the students to reflect, identify misconceptions and seek clarification.

ChemlLand in combination with the TGEM approach, fully utilizes the ever increasing scientific simulations available on the web to generate hypotheses, evaluate them and modify them as needed in a cyclic pattern.  As indicated by Khan (2007) the technology enables the learner to visualize science concepts which improves understanding.  This model focuses on the learner’s self-directed predictions which can be tested and seen to change in the simulations.   Khan (2010) reminds us that a balanced approach is necessary as she explains the importance of all parts in TPACK. T-GEM (and LfU too) boosts our TPACK by supporting us in reflection and integration opportunities.

So What?

We have learned about 4 TELEs that can be used effectively in a 21^st century constructivist classroom.  Most require a blended approach to learning but are reliant upon technology to a large degree.  Each promotes inquiry learning but what is prevalent is the need for the teacher to be available to formatively assess and give feedback-feed forward, scaffolding the students in the quest for knowledge and skills development.   Teachers are facilitators, motivators, correctors and co-learners.  As Scardamalia (2004) identified, the most important part of learning is knowledge building.  This meaning making is pivotal to learning and it is present in all four TELEs.  The Jasper series, the WISE activity forum, Learning-for-Use (LfU) and the T-GEM model were all designed to foster inquiry-based learning and were created largely in response to the traditional teaching methodologies of memorizing and chalk and talk.  In an ideal world, teachers would have the time, inclination and technological prowess to create their own TELEs, but this is not an ideal world.  I see real potential in all four especially if combined for use throughout the year and mapped to match the curriculum requirements while fostering scientific skills and promoting a learner centered classroom.

Now What? 

For me, I have four new tools and strategies for my pedagogical toolbox.  I will roll out the ideas according to my teacher’s readiness, ability and equipment availability.  We are learning to use data projectors effectively at the moment so we are a far way off from integrating WISE completely.  Some teachers will take hold of these ideas and find ways to make them work- I just need to identify those ones!  I am reminded of the importance of inquiry, authentic tasks, making meaning, predicting, testing and modifying but most importantly, technology does have the ability to help students learn.

References

Clark, D., Linn, M., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

Khan, S. (2010).  New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations.  Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Scardamalia, M. (2004) CSILE/Knowledge Forum. In Education and technology: An encyclopedia (pp 183-192). Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO

 

——————————————————————————————————————

Promoting a Learning Community-  Class Participation Assessment Rubric: Module B,  Meitorious Post

TELEs: Guess what? So what? Now what? (see above for actual post)

3.  Apply the assessment rubric below to your post:

 

Criteria	Indicators	Score (total 15/ 5 each)
Sense-making	Post demonstrates understanding of readings (if applicable) using quotations and is substantiated with references to the literature, discussions, or course materials Post is original and attempts to make meaning of prior personal experiences and reflections on activities in the lesson Post introduces new factual, conceptual, and theoretical knowledge into the discussion	5/5
Building community and leadership	Establishes a social and cognitive presence online with the expression of constructive perspectives and affect or emotions and moods.  (This can take the form of agreeing or disagreeing to a comment, evidence that you are attending to, understanding, and thinking about other’s responses, consensus building, forming group goals, objectives, encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing one another’s contributions). Extends discussion by asking peers or group members literal (not rhetorical) questions Instructor posts are responded to where appropriate (eg. where the instructor has asked a question to you personally) Post is on time Rules of netiquette are observed; all posts are constructive in nature	5/5
Communicating	Post makes a concise point that is clearly relevant to the topic Subject header is a unique summary of the topic Spelling and grammar do not detract from the message Where applicable, references are cited with at least author, year, and title of publication	5/5
TOTAL	Individual assessmentà	15/15

4.  Provide a rationale.

Upon reflection, I believe that this synthesis post exhibits my ability to make meaningful connections. This post is reflective in nature- a process I learned during my development of my Constellation of eLearning portfolio in ETEC 590.  My ‘Guess what, So What, Now What?’ title was my attempt at clearly articulating the reflective and analytical nature of my post.  My synthesis clearly articulates how I believe the four TELEs we studied throughout Module B can make an impact on Science learning in theory and in my current professional context.    I also endeavoured to expose my classmates to new ideas by sharing articles that they may not yet have encountered (ie. Scardamalia, 2004).   My post generates and provokes thought surrounding the feasibility of using the TELEs in a typical classroom and identifies some key affordances of each and their associated pedagogical approaches.  The graphic organizer I created also enhanced my post by providing a visual representation of the key aspects of each TELE which I identified from my personal learning experience.

I believe that my post provoked thought for instance when DH wrote “I had a similar observation that the effective design, implementation, and execution of TELEs depended upon the teachers. Not only for the teachers to have the time and resources, but also the interest and willingness to learn and incorporate technology into the learning process” he indicated that we were theoretically on the same page but my post induced further inquiry:  “Given that ideal situations of unlimited time and resources don’t exist which TELE or aspect would you select to focus on first?”.  DC shared his thoughts in response to my post writing “I felt that these TELEs were not as successful in emphasizing the connectivism and distributed knowledge portion of the activities. Perhaps, the focus on scientific skills is a more important goal for the designers of these TELEs.” which generated further discourse and reflection (especially since my ETEC 590 ePortfolio was hugely influenced by connectivism) on the topic of distributed knowledge in the 4 TELEs.  JDR challenged my thinking by writing “Do you see any alternatives that would result in comparable outcomes?” which forced further reflection and clarification of my ideas around the feasibility of teachers creating their own TELEs.  DS liked my ‘So what, Now what’ approach and felt it offered “some relief and clarity to how these TELE can, and do, make an impact on our teaching”.  My responses to each individual were timely, detailed, thought provoking and most of all enjoyable.

Ultimately, I think my synthesis post clearly characterized my personal learning, professional perspectives and my ability to interconnect the TELEs with instructional practice.  I referenced a variety of relevant literature from the assigned readings, and elsewhere, appropriately.  My title “TELEs: Guess what? So what? Now what?” demonstrates the reflective nature of my post.  I also took the opening provided by DS’s comments regarding the ‘now what, so what’ direction of my post and I wrote “When creating my 590 e-portfolio I stumbled across the International Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Technology Standards site for eP building. It explained in detail about the importance of and process of reflection. It stated that when creating a portfolio you must consider the what, so what and now what components (NETS ePortfolio generator, 2002) to ensure reflective practice.” I think I am often afforded with opportunities to share what I have learned in the MET program through my posts.  Furthermore, I believe that this post was a commendable effort at synthesizing my learning regarding the TELEs:  Japser, WISE, MyWorld and ChemLand.  I hope that you agree.

 

 —————————————————————————————-

 Reflection on the Module:  did I acheive the objectives?

• Develop a critical awareness of the implications technology has for students, teaching practice, curriculum development, and educational contexts, through analyses and discussions of foundational technology-enhanced learning experiences (TELE) in science and math.

I believe that I have become more aware of how useful technology can be for students when studying maths and science.  I have also gained an appreciation of how useful technology can be when it comes to sharing best practice-facilitating PD as I developed my ‘weebly based workshops’ for our Teacher Only Day (http://todworkshops.weebly.com/index.html ).  In addition I have been able to share some of the TELEs I experienced in Module B with the science teachers I work with on a 1:1 basis and some are taking a keen interest, particularly in WISE.

• Synthesize rationales for the design of these TELE drawing upon theories of learning.

As I developed my workshops I had reason to revisit many of the pedagogical frameworks that align nicely with TELEs- in particular I focused on the POE, T-GEM and LfU models.  I have gained a greater appreciation for aligning the learning objectives, technology selection and the appropriate learning framework/model/theory.

• Hypothesize the cognitive and social affordances as well as the limitations and constraints of these TELEs.

In my thorough analyses of the TELEs in Module B I was able to discern the benefits and challenges to using each.  For myself and my context I believe that the WISE TELE was the most easily adapted and useable and the most likely to gain wide use.  WISE also has a significant range of research to back up its value as a teaching tool.

• Analyze how the technologies introduced in this module are integrated in a learning environment, paying particular attention to customization of the technology, nature of student activities, and role of the teachers.

See my graphic organizer above!