With increasing use of Web 2.0 and Project Based Learning, student activities can meet the National Education Technology Standards - Students. Web 2.0 activities provide opportunities for students to implement and develop skills in communication, collaboration, and publishing. ISTE highlights communication and collaboration in its standards
Students use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others (ISTE).
This collaborative approach is a key benefit of integrating technology into the classroom. There are many resources and tools that allow students to interact with each other. These could be as simple as email, blogs, chats, or discussion boards. But communication is just the beginning of the tools. Although it's true that students can share information with each other, it is much more valuable when they can communicate towards a common goal, such as a collaborative project. Such collaboration reinforces the examples ISTE proposes for the communication and collaboration standard: "use multiple processes and diverse perspectives to explore alternative solutions." (ISTE)
Interacting with other students, whether from nearby communities or distant cultures, helps to reinforce global awareness, cultural awareness, and digitial citizenship.ISTE defines a standard for digital citizenship: Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior (ISTE). Whether interacting directly with other students or global members, or using resources from other areas, students will gain an appreciation of the values and customs of the others involved. Using Global Collaborative Projects, as discussed in Unit 4 of this course greatly supports the digital citizenship standards.
Aside from the communication and collaboration involved with digital projects, many of these projects emphasize thinking skills. ISTE NETS-S #4 covers these cognitive skillsStudents use critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources (ISTE). As students conduct their research, discussions, and publishing duties, they are actively engaged in these critical skills. The entire process of PBL and the web2.0 resources with support the projects require students to plan, evaluate, and implement their project ideas.
Through communciation, collaboration, and publishing web2.0 and PBL activities actively address the entire set of NETS-S standards for students. The variety of tools available: Wikis, Glogs, Global Projects, animations, presentations, collaborations, and publications provide a plethora of options and opportunities for students and classrooms.
ISTE | NETS Student Standards 2007. (n.d.). ISTE | Membership, NETS Standards, Books, Journals and Professional Development for Teachers. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-student-standards-2007.aspx
ISTE | NETS for Students 2007 profiles. (n.d.). ISTE | Membership, NETS Standards, Books, Journals and Professional Development for Teachers. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students/nets-for-students-2007-profiles.aspx
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
edim502 week 1
In this first week of EDIM502, we examined three case studies of Project Based Learning: Newsome Park Elementary in Newport News, Virginia; Geometry classes at Mountlake Terrace High School, near Seattle; and third grade at Rockledge Elementary School, in Bowie Maryland. These three schools show the diversity of Project Based Learning: from elementary through high school, and across disciplines from generic elementary programming to specific courses at the high school level; from tracking butterfly migration to creating design plans for futuristic school buildings. (Armstrong 2002, Curtis 2001, Curtis 2002).
In each case, the students learn through a series of projects, rather than direct instruction. The goal of these projects is to design an engaging lesson from which students want to learn and which offers cohesiveness. Armstrong chronicles the Geometry classes as they explore the design requirements and enhancement opportunities for school buildings. The project creates "hands-on, real-life applications of mathematical concepts, as well as the value of experience in working as a team to produce a product" (Armstrong 2002). For these students, the lessons become more than isolated units with assignments and tests. Instead, they mimic situations students may encounter in their future. Curtis writes of projects involving collaborative approaches. Through online databases and large scale collaborative projects, students interact beyond the classroom, state, and even country as they track the movement of butterflies, the blooming of flowers, and other seasonal variations (Curtis 2002). This connectivity reinforces the global nature of education, commerce, and industry. Through their participation, students are diversifying their cultural awareness early on.
Project Based Learning is delivering results. In Newsome Park Elementary, disciplinary incidents are decreasing, absenteeism is decreasing, test scores are rising, and children are actively seeking information and feedback. Curtis documents the extension of learning beyond the classroom as well, highlighting the increasing detail and energy involved in responses to "What did you do in school today?" (Curtis 2001).
The common connection between these three classrooms and the problem based learning strategies they employ is the reorganization of learning methodology. Instead of focusing on isolated content, the classes are using multidisciplinary scenarios. ".. math, writing, reading, and other subjectsw are interwoven into the classroom projects and applied just as they would b in the real world" (Curtis 2001). These scenarios represent a real world examplar application of the desired learning. They involve research, communication, collaboration, and presentation. In Newsome Park, there are three phases to each project: 1) engaging in discussions and creating questions, 2) field work, interviews, and research, 3) presentations (Curtis 2001).
Technology is also a common factor in the projects. Technology has evolved and is easily incorporated into the classroom. Through internet resources, students can conduct research. Communications technology allow students to interact with experts in field. Digital media technologies allow students to share and present their results.
Project Based Learning does not replace teacher knowledge and skills. Just because the students are more active in their learning, does not mean the teacher has less contribution to the learning process. Instead, problem based learning may mean more work for a teacher. "Project learning ... requires flexibility and the ability to take a kernel of an idea and set it off in a positive direction" (Curtis 2001). Teachers become guides and assistants in the process. The teacher is a mentor during the discovery processes, setting up opportunities for student success, providing feedback and encouragement, and linking students with resource opportunities. Armstrong reinforces the feedback portion of the project, highlighting Mountlake's rubric and reflection aspects. In this course, rubrics become tools for feedback, not simply for grading (Armstrong 2002).
The success of project based learning arises from its ability to engage students and encourage them to think about learning as a process instead of a set of facts. PBL allows students to erode the discretion of content areas and apply learning from math, english, geography, etc to one project. There is no need to learn content for the sole purpose of passing a test. PBL increases the communication between teachers and students, students and students, and the classroom and community. The resources in and beyond the classroom support the learning needs. Along the way, there is no sacrifice in academic standards or content. Instead, the material is presented in a more holistic manner that is engaging, supports greater acquisition and transfer.
In each case, the students learn through a series of projects, rather than direct instruction. The goal of these projects is to design an engaging lesson from which students want to learn and which offers cohesiveness. Armstrong chronicles the Geometry classes as they explore the design requirements and enhancement opportunities for school buildings. The project creates "hands-on, real-life applications of mathematical concepts, as well as the value of experience in working as a team to produce a product" (Armstrong 2002). For these students, the lessons become more than isolated units with assignments and tests. Instead, they mimic situations students may encounter in their future. Curtis writes of projects involving collaborative approaches. Through online databases and large scale collaborative projects, students interact beyond the classroom, state, and even country as they track the movement of butterflies, the blooming of flowers, and other seasonal variations (Curtis 2002). This connectivity reinforces the global nature of education, commerce, and industry. Through their participation, students are diversifying their cultural awareness early on.
Project Based Learning is delivering results. In Newsome Park Elementary, disciplinary incidents are decreasing, absenteeism is decreasing, test scores are rising, and children are actively seeking information and feedback. Curtis documents the extension of learning beyond the classroom as well, highlighting the increasing detail and energy involved in responses to "What did you do in school today?" (Curtis 2001).
The common connection between these three classrooms and the problem based learning strategies they employ is the reorganization of learning methodology. Instead of focusing on isolated content, the classes are using multidisciplinary scenarios. ".. math, writing, reading, and other subjectsw are interwoven into the classroom projects and applied just as they would b in the real world" (Curtis 2001). These scenarios represent a real world examplar application of the desired learning. They involve research, communication, collaboration, and presentation. In Newsome Park, there are three phases to each project: 1) engaging in discussions and creating questions, 2) field work, interviews, and research, 3) presentations (Curtis 2001).
Technology is also a common factor in the projects. Technology has evolved and is easily incorporated into the classroom. Through internet resources, students can conduct research. Communications technology allow students to interact with experts in field. Digital media technologies allow students to share and present their results.
Project Based Learning does not replace teacher knowledge and skills. Just because the students are more active in their learning, does not mean the teacher has less contribution to the learning process. Instead, problem based learning may mean more work for a teacher. "Project learning ... requires flexibility and the ability to take a kernel of an idea and set it off in a positive direction" (Curtis 2001). Teachers become guides and assistants in the process. The teacher is a mentor during the discovery processes, setting up opportunities for student success, providing feedback and encouragement, and linking students with resource opportunities. Armstrong reinforces the feedback portion of the project, highlighting Mountlake's rubric and reflection aspects. In this course, rubrics become tools for feedback, not simply for grading (Armstrong 2002).
The success of project based learning arises from its ability to engage students and encourage them to think about learning as a process instead of a set of facts. PBL allows students to erode the discretion of content areas and apply learning from math, english, geography, etc to one project. There is no need to learn content for the sole purpose of passing a test. PBL increases the communication between teachers and students, students and students, and the classroom and community. The resources in and beyond the classroom support the learning needs. Along the way, there is no sacrifice in academic standards or content. Instead, the material is presented in a more holistic manner that is engaging, supports greater acquisition and transfer.
References
Armstrong, S.
(2002, February 11). Geometry Students Angle into Architecture Through Project
Learning | Edutopia. K-12 Education & Learning Innovations with Proven
Strategies that Work | Edutopia. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from
http://www.edutopia.org/geometry-real-world-students-architects
Curtis, D.
(2001, October 1). More Fun Than a Barrel of . . . Worms?! | Edutopia. K-12 Education &
Learning Innovations with Proven Strategies that Work | Edutopia. Retrieved
March 18, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/more-fun-barrel-worms
Curtis, D.
(2002, June 6). March of the Monarchs: Students Follow the Butterflies'
Migration | Edutopia. K-12 Education & Learning Innovations with Proven
Strategies that Work | Edutopia. Retrieved March 18, 2012, from http://www.edutopia.org/march-monarchs
Sunday, March 11, 2012
edim513 - week 7
Throughout this course, we have studied the concepts of inquiry in education. Transforming the classroom, placing emphasis and responsibility for learning on the learner enhances the learning process. Rather than receiving information, students are now interacting with it, creating new meanings and understandings, and applying content knowledge immediately to the learning activity and beyond.
Some of the key concepts during this course were the inquiry continuum, investigative questioning, and inquiry skills, abilities, and understandings. Inquiry is not a cookie cutter program. Rather, it is an approach to learning that has much variability. It can be applied in structured, guided, or open formats to fit the needs of the learners and learning situation.
This course provided many opportunities to interact with other instructors and share approaches and resources from our classrooms. There are many resources out there that can support inquiry processes. Many of the resources have already been in use, but with some minor adjustments in procedure and student emphasis can be revitalized into the inquiry classroom.
Using the BSCS 5E method can develop lesson plans to fully support inquiry in the classroom. The ideas of engagement, exploration, explanation, and elaboration encourage student participation, self direction, and critical thinking. Formative assessments throughout the lesson or unit encourage students to identify current learning success, future learning needs, or alternate approach strategies.
Inquiry lessons do not need to be lab activities or stand alone features of the course. They can easily be incorporated into a cohesive unit plan. Inquiry does not necessarily require hands on activities, but rather is the mindset of students developing questions and guiding the learning process. I am in the process of revising my approaches for next year to include more inquiry. I think I am limited by the alternative education program structures and intend to use inquiry to supplement the coursework. In some cases, the coursework and I disagree on emphasis between facts and big ideas. For these situations, I would rely more heavily on resources beyond the included courseware. I also intend to incorporate more of the web 2.0 resources as assessment pieces to replace the online mastery tests. I would much rather students apply their knowledge to produce a prezi, glog, or digital story to demonstrate conceptual knowledge rather than many multiple choice questions which are focused on factual recall (and often at a degree of detail that is excessive compared to my approaches).
This course and the other teachers I have collaborated with during the course have given me a renewed interest in updating my courses beyond the available courseware. I wish to refocus students on learning instead of procedure. Even in times of standardized assessments and cohort monitoring, I intend to hold onto goals of learning and process skill development.
(JMenaker)
Some of the key concepts during this course were the inquiry continuum, investigative questioning, and inquiry skills, abilities, and understandings. Inquiry is not a cookie cutter program. Rather, it is an approach to learning that has much variability. It can be applied in structured, guided, or open formats to fit the needs of the learners and learning situation.
This course provided many opportunities to interact with other instructors and share approaches and resources from our classrooms. There are many resources out there that can support inquiry processes. Many of the resources have already been in use, but with some minor adjustments in procedure and student emphasis can be revitalized into the inquiry classroom.
Using the BSCS 5E method can develop lesson plans to fully support inquiry in the classroom. The ideas of engagement, exploration, explanation, and elaboration encourage student participation, self direction, and critical thinking. Formative assessments throughout the lesson or unit encourage students to identify current learning success, future learning needs, or alternate approach strategies.
Inquiry lessons do not need to be lab activities or stand alone features of the course. They can easily be incorporated into a cohesive unit plan. Inquiry does not necessarily require hands on activities, but rather is the mindset of students developing questions and guiding the learning process. I am in the process of revising my approaches for next year to include more inquiry. I think I am limited by the alternative education program structures and intend to use inquiry to supplement the coursework. In some cases, the coursework and I disagree on emphasis between facts and big ideas. For these situations, I would rely more heavily on resources beyond the included courseware. I also intend to incorporate more of the web 2.0 resources as assessment pieces to replace the online mastery tests. I would much rather students apply their knowledge to produce a prezi, glog, or digital story to demonstrate conceptual knowledge rather than many multiple choice questions which are focused on factual recall (and often at a degree of detail that is excessive compared to my approaches).
This course and the other teachers I have collaborated with during the course have given me a renewed interest in updating my courses beyond the available courseware. I wish to refocus students on learning instead of procedure. Even in times of standardized assessments and cohort monitoring, I intend to hold onto goals of learning and process skill development.
(JMenaker)
Sunday, March 4, 2012
edim513 - week 6
5E's CFG's and Web 2.0. The BSCS 5E method provides an easy to use framework for lesson development. The 5E is not new, it just provides organization to lessons that support inquiry. The challenge of this week was using 5E to create a kindergarten/first grade lesson plan. As a secondary teacher, it was difficult to determine appropriate depth of knowledge and classroom procedure for the younger grades. This leaves me with greater concerns as unit 7 progresses into a unit plan based on the kindergarten/first grade plan of this week.
In this discussions this week, we focused on using the 5E method for scientific investigation, for learning and assessment purposes. Some of the discussions considered renaming or rearranging the 5E's. The E which I would consider renaming is Elaboration. Elaboration could be considered Extension. A goal of inquiry is to develop student interest in the material. Extension accounts for students who want to learn more about an activity. It accounts for students who have completed the primary learning objectives and are interested in exploring further. It accounts for students who have developed a strong interest in taking the material beyond the classroom.
If Elaboration becomes extension, then perhaps the new placement for extension should be as the 5th instead of 4th E. This allows for the sequence to continue without termination. Although assessment has ended, students have determined their learning, teachers have created a score of the performance, and grades have been entered, the cycle does not need to end. Students can now continue to extend their learning beyond the programmed activities.
The other major portion of this week was on web 2.0. The plethora of resources that fellow students in this course have used with students is encouraging and daunting. Tying the web 2.0 resources to 5E sequences helped to organize the options, but only slightly. In viewing the many responses on this discussion, similar resources appeared for multiple purposes within the 5E's, making selection options variable.
A sample of how I might use the 5E resources in my classroom is for a unit on water. Through this unit, I expect students to gain an understanding of water as a resource, the cycle of water within the living and nonliving systems of the earth, and the role of water in shaping earth's surface features.
I would start by engaging them with demonstrations and thought provoking questions and demos, such as the 5 gallon water activity.
Students would then explore the locations of water resources around the world. Using Google Earth, NASA A-Train data and USGS streamgauge data online, the students will compare available water resources for various locations within the United States and then internationally. Students would prepare a GIS overlay of water availability and usage characteristics.
Through these lessons, explanations of limited earth resources and the cycling of water throughout the earth. Students will further explore the hydrological cycle between atmosphere, surface, and subsurface movements. Web simulators will allow students to visualize the variables of climate, rock type, and human impacts on water availability, water cycling, and biologic processes.
Elaboration or extension will take place through virtual field trips to locations previously studied. Students could extend their learning to include social and cultural impacts of the water resources, laws and regulations prepared to protect water, water pollution, and water borne illnesses.
Evaluation and assessment tools for such a unit would include students preparing their data overlays, their combined virtual field trip destinations (a collaorative using wiki, prezi, or google docs), a student proposal for using water resources locally or for a remote location, a mock town hall style meeting to discuss the use of water resources and competing interests which may interfere with preservation of the resources.
The 5E method and web2.0 supports will enhance and guide student understanding of water resources in an approach that is applicable to student interests, relevant to a student's individual role in his or her surroundings and includes stronger reinforcements than reading, note-taking, and multiple choice tests.
In this discussions this week, we focused on using the 5E method for scientific investigation, for learning and assessment purposes. Some of the discussions considered renaming or rearranging the 5E's. The E which I would consider renaming is Elaboration. Elaboration could be considered Extension. A goal of inquiry is to develop student interest in the material. Extension accounts for students who want to learn more about an activity. It accounts for students who have completed the primary learning objectives and are interested in exploring further. It accounts for students who have developed a strong interest in taking the material beyond the classroom.
If Elaboration becomes extension, then perhaps the new placement for extension should be as the 5th instead of 4th E. This allows for the sequence to continue without termination. Although assessment has ended, students have determined their learning, teachers have created a score of the performance, and grades have been entered, the cycle does not need to end. Students can now continue to extend their learning beyond the programmed activities.
The other major portion of this week was on web 2.0. The plethora of resources that fellow students in this course have used with students is encouraging and daunting. Tying the web 2.0 resources to 5E sequences helped to organize the options, but only slightly. In viewing the many responses on this discussion, similar resources appeared for multiple purposes within the 5E's, making selection options variable.
A sample of how I might use the 5E resources in my classroom is for a unit on water. Through this unit, I expect students to gain an understanding of water as a resource, the cycle of water within the living and nonliving systems of the earth, and the role of water in shaping earth's surface features.
I would start by engaging them with demonstrations and thought provoking questions and demos, such as the 5 gallon water activity.
Students would then explore the locations of water resources around the world. Using Google Earth, NASA A-Train data and USGS streamgauge data online, the students will compare available water resources for various locations within the United States and then internationally. Students would prepare a GIS overlay of water availability and usage characteristics.
Through these lessons, explanations of limited earth resources and the cycling of water throughout the earth. Students will further explore the hydrological cycle between atmosphere, surface, and subsurface movements. Web simulators will allow students to visualize the variables of climate, rock type, and human impacts on water availability, water cycling, and biologic processes.
Elaboration or extension will take place through virtual field trips to locations previously studied. Students could extend their learning to include social and cultural impacts of the water resources, laws and regulations prepared to protect water, water pollution, and water borne illnesses.
Evaluation and assessment tools for such a unit would include students preparing their data overlays, their combined virtual field trip destinations (a collaorative using wiki, prezi, or google docs), a student proposal for using water resources locally or for a remote location, a mock town hall style meeting to discuss the use of water resources and competing interests which may interfere with preservation of the resources.
The 5E method and web2.0 supports will enhance and guide student understanding of water resources in an approach that is applicable to student interests, relevant to a student's individual role in his or her surroundings and includes stronger reinforcements than reading, note-taking, and multiple choice tests.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
EDIM513 Week 5
Web 2.0 offers vast resources for a variety of purposes from diagnostic, to formative and summative assessment, to learning activity and learning project. Throughout this unit, we focused on the variety of resources and the variety of purposes, with an emphasis on developing investigation skills and questioning. The activities in this section prompted me to revisit some items that I had written earlier and incorporate an added emphasis on web 2.0 resources.
The lesson was originally written to satisfy requirements of a NASA program. With this revision, the collaboration, investigation, and communication aspects were enhanced. These new additions increase the student engagement and interactivity of the project.
The discussion boards this week offered many opportunities to explore and share various web 2.0 resources. Beyond the resources, the innovative ways in which class members used these resources. With a single resource, it may have been used as class led instructional activity or student exploration or student performance assessment.
A recurring theme in the discussions involved the use of web 2.0 resources that require account creation. It was asked, but never answered, how to handle designing student accounts when students may not have individual email addresses. As I have explored some resources for incorporating into my classes, I have also looked towards ease of account creation. Some of my personally preferred resources do not score high in administrative resources. For example: when researching wiki's, I prefer the functionality of Google Sites, but instead chose wikispaces because of it's educational sub account tools.
Online responsibility and accountability is a key feature I look for when selecting web 2.0 resources to use in the classroom. The ability to create individual student accounts to track changes or monitor appropriate/inappropriate uses is important. However, in terms of services that do not permit bulk account creation, I question the necessity to force students to register. In a culture where privacy and internet safety is stressed, it seems antithetical to compel students to use personal information (in my case, the students do not have school provided email) when signing up for online services.
Yet, I am also contradictory. The public sharing and collaboration of the web 2.0 resources is a great benefit. Whether to collaborate beyond the classroom, share with the community, or provide a resource, the public visibility of student products has a valuable role in learning.
So, the conflict remains: privacy vs publicity; compulsion vs encouragement; mandatory vs beneficial option.
(JMenaker)
The lesson was originally written to satisfy requirements of a NASA program. With this revision, the collaboration, investigation, and communication aspects were enhanced. These new additions increase the student engagement and interactivity of the project.
The discussion boards this week offered many opportunities to explore and share various web 2.0 resources. Beyond the resources, the innovative ways in which class members used these resources. With a single resource, it may have been used as class led instructional activity or student exploration or student performance assessment.
A recurring theme in the discussions involved the use of web 2.0 resources that require account creation. It was asked, but never answered, how to handle designing student accounts when students may not have individual email addresses. As I have explored some resources for incorporating into my classes, I have also looked towards ease of account creation. Some of my personally preferred resources do not score high in administrative resources. For example: when researching wiki's, I prefer the functionality of Google Sites, but instead chose wikispaces because of it's educational sub account tools.
Online responsibility and accountability is a key feature I look for when selecting web 2.0 resources to use in the classroom. The ability to create individual student accounts to track changes or monitor appropriate/inappropriate uses is important. However, in terms of services that do not permit bulk account creation, I question the necessity to force students to register. In a culture where privacy and internet safety is stressed, it seems antithetical to compel students to use personal information (in my case, the students do not have school provided email) when signing up for online services.
Yet, I am also contradictory. The public sharing and collaboration of the web 2.0 resources is a great benefit. Whether to collaborate beyond the classroom, share with the community, or provide a resource, the public visibility of student products has a valuable role in learning.
So, the conflict remains: privacy vs publicity; compulsion vs encouragement; mandatory vs beneficial option.
(JMenaker)
Sunday, February 19, 2012
EDIM513 - u04a2
Concepts and facts... These sound like two very simple items, yet instead they were quite troubling throughout the unit. When asked to create a dichotomy of concept vs fact, I ran into trouble. When does a fact become a concept or a concept become a fact? I found that the context and application of each topic could lead to an ambiguity where that topic could be both fact and concept. Can one item be both fact and concept?
If the definition of fact vs concept is the degree of connectivity, the degree of investigabilty, or the specificity of topic, then any given topic remains in an indeterminate status until its role amongst the broader (or more specific) contents.
The other major component of this week involved investigable vs noninvestigable questions. This distinction proved useful in assisting with the development of concept and fact frameworks. With its emphasis on engagement and interactivity, inquiry thrives on investigation. Creating questions in which students can investigate, experience, and influence the results leads to greater inquiry, concrete results, and less abstraction.
But does the degree of invesitgability rely on the question or the student? Can the same question be of greater investigability than another when asked of different groups of students? Investigability emphasizes the placement of ideas into testable format. For some students, this may need to be explicitly broken into itemized questions, whereas students of higher abilities may be able to investigate independently from the larger concept questions.
One of the difficulties I am experiencing in this course is the frequent request to identify as explicitly either/or, without regard to context of student, topic, or situation. If inquiry is a continuum based concept, then does each item within inquiry similarly belong on a continuum?
(Jeff Menaker)
If the definition of fact vs concept is the degree of connectivity, the degree of investigabilty, or the specificity of topic, then any given topic remains in an indeterminate status until its role amongst the broader (or more specific) contents.
The other major component of this week involved investigable vs noninvestigable questions. This distinction proved useful in assisting with the development of concept and fact frameworks. With its emphasis on engagement and interactivity, inquiry thrives on investigation. Creating questions in which students can investigate, experience, and influence the results leads to greater inquiry, concrete results, and less abstraction.
But does the degree of invesitgability rely on the question or the student? Can the same question be of greater investigability than another when asked of different groups of students? Investigability emphasizes the placement of ideas into testable format. For some students, this may need to be explicitly broken into itemized questions, whereas students of higher abilities may be able to investigate independently from the larger concept questions.
One of the difficulties I am experiencing in this course is the frequent request to identify as explicitly either/or, without regard to context of student, topic, or situation. If inquiry is a continuum based concept, then does each item within inquiry similarly belong on a continuum?
(Jeff Menaker)
Sunday, February 12, 2012
EDIM 513 - Inquiry Week 3
This week focused on the abilities and understandings of inquiry. From reading the case studies and viewing the videos, it becomes apparent that there is great diversity in implementing inquiry based learning. From the course discussions on the three case studies, we can see much conflict in interpretation of when inquiry is present in the classroom, and when it is not. This is a result of a continuum of inquiry designs from Student directed to Teacher directed.
I am starting to transform some of my learning activities for next year from courseware direct instruction. At this point, I am uncertain how to fully implement student directed instruction, but am rewriting some of the online assignments to involve guided inquiry. This is a continuation of my product oriented approach to courses. Previously, I had used this with computer applications, but am now expanding it into other courses. The current assignment under review is a unit on electricity. Using online simulators, students will be challenged to create a variety of circuit styles without prior instruction on components or circuits. I hope to be able to expand this to other units as I locate appropriate simulation resources.
Without a realtime interaction with students, or large group instruction time, I am struggling with how to incorporate more of the dialog involved in inquiry. With limited direct interaction with the students, it is difficult to aid the students in developing their questions and using those questions to guide investigations. This difficulty is compounded when emphasis is placed on course completion and pacing rather than in depth learning.
But inquiry is a spectrum of conditions. I intend to implement some of it for next year, possibly with trial offerings to some students later this year. Some inquiry has to be better than none. I will continue to look for ways to expand the offerings and increase the transition from structured inquiry to guided and open inquiry.
I am starting to transform some of my learning activities for next year from courseware direct instruction. At this point, I am uncertain how to fully implement student directed instruction, but am rewriting some of the online assignments to involve guided inquiry. This is a continuation of my product oriented approach to courses. Previously, I had used this with computer applications, but am now expanding it into other courses. The current assignment under review is a unit on electricity. Using online simulators, students will be challenged to create a variety of circuit styles without prior instruction on components or circuits. I hope to be able to expand this to other units as I locate appropriate simulation resources.
Without a realtime interaction with students, or large group instruction time, I am struggling with how to incorporate more of the dialog involved in inquiry. With limited direct interaction with the students, it is difficult to aid the students in developing their questions and using those questions to guide investigations. This difficulty is compounded when emphasis is placed on course completion and pacing rather than in depth learning.
But inquiry is a spectrum of conditions. I intend to implement some of it for next year, possibly with trial offerings to some students later this year. Some inquiry has to be better than none. I will continue to look for ways to expand the offerings and increase the transition from structured inquiry to guided and open inquiry.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
EDIM513 - Inquiry Week 2 - Process skills and community
In this second week of class, we examined the relationships between community and inquiry, and inquiry skills. I agree with much of the writing about the process skills. I was surprised to learn of the organizations that were drafting these documents: Department of Labor, and Universities. In my Science classrooms, I have tended to emphasize processes and skills over details and facts. I have focused mostly on the scientific processes involved in each topic covered, rather than overall processing skills of critical thinking and analysis. With a renewed emphasis on more generic skills, I may be able to improve student understanding and transfer of knowledge.
I am concerned that such a transition will be difficult to achieve and out of favor with administration. It seems that we are in a crisis of assessment. With so much emphasis on preparing students for the standardized assessment, there has been much persuasion to offer only the knowledge that they will see on those tests. This year, as Pennsylvania is tracking graduation by cohort, we have even greater pressures to reward completion rather than learning skills.
In the alternative setting, it has been a difficult process to include such skills and community into the coursework. Our courses are designed around a credit retrieval model. Completing the course, receiving the credits, and moving on to new courses is highly encouraged and often distracts from the goal of deeper understanding or transfer knowledge.
I have started the process of including learning activities beyond the direct instruction and assessment offered by our courseware, but much work in this matter remains. At current, the majority of our coursework includes online instruction that emphasizes facts instead of processes and offers little opportunity for the generic process skills desired by the readings in Topic C of this week.
Another key discussion point this week was on community. I agree with the benefits of community, especially when relating to science and the scientific community. The ability to collaborate and interact with colleagues is a key part of modern science, with examples in the International Space Station and CERN. I am uncertain how to develop community in an asynchronous environment in which students interact only with faculty, and student-student interactions are considered distractions from the learning process. In the discussion board, classmates spoke of developing the many small communities of each single student and teacher, but I wish to pursue greater community and collaborative investigations. My current thoughts are to offer "science day" to students. Students may choose to take a break from the computer coursework in order to participate in a science investigation or activity. Many of these will be based on inquiry activities.
Due to the nature of our program, these activities will be disjointed and not consistent with any particular student's current coursework, but I hope that they will still offer the opportunity for students to interact with each other and engage the process skills that this week's topics covered.
My lasting concern is still how to overcome the persistence of completion vs learning. How do you transform a program that rewards so heavily on procedural completion, credit achievement, and graduating within the four year high school span into one that encourages dialog and inquiry?
I am concerned that such a transition will be difficult to achieve and out of favor with administration. It seems that we are in a crisis of assessment. With so much emphasis on preparing students for the standardized assessment, there has been much persuasion to offer only the knowledge that they will see on those tests. This year, as Pennsylvania is tracking graduation by cohort, we have even greater pressures to reward completion rather than learning skills.
In the alternative setting, it has been a difficult process to include such skills and community into the coursework. Our courses are designed around a credit retrieval model. Completing the course, receiving the credits, and moving on to new courses is highly encouraged and often distracts from the goal of deeper understanding or transfer knowledge.
I have started the process of including learning activities beyond the direct instruction and assessment offered by our courseware, but much work in this matter remains. At current, the majority of our coursework includes online instruction that emphasizes facts instead of processes and offers little opportunity for the generic process skills desired by the readings in Topic C of this week.
Another key discussion point this week was on community. I agree with the benefits of community, especially when relating to science and the scientific community. The ability to collaborate and interact with colleagues is a key part of modern science, with examples in the International Space Station and CERN. I am uncertain how to develop community in an asynchronous environment in which students interact only with faculty, and student-student interactions are considered distractions from the learning process. In the discussion board, classmates spoke of developing the many small communities of each single student and teacher, but I wish to pursue greater community and collaborative investigations. My current thoughts are to offer "science day" to students. Students may choose to take a break from the computer coursework in order to participate in a science investigation or activity. Many of these will be based on inquiry activities.
Due to the nature of our program, these activities will be disjointed and not consistent with any particular student's current coursework, but I hope that they will still offer the opportunity for students to interact with each other and engage the process skills that this week's topics covered.
My lasting concern is still how to overcome the persistence of completion vs learning. How do you transform a program that rewards so heavily on procedural completion, credit achievement, and graduating within the four year high school span into one that encourages dialog and inquiry?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
EDIM513 u01a01
edim513 is not my first experience with inquiry. I have had professional development sessions and a couple of Exploratorium workshops on inquiry. What this week did was reinforce some of the material that was presented in those previous experiences.
The two discussion activities completed this week helped to accentuate the needs for differentiation in curriculum and presentation. Looking at the responses to our memorable/best learning experiences, it becomes apparent that there are many preferred ways of learning. In our transition to inquiry-based activities, it must not be forgotten that direct instruction, auditory, and visual learning are still valid methods for some learners.
The other discussion thread, which asked us to differentiate inquiry from non-inquiry activities, shows that there is no clear cut definition or example of classroom inquiry. Inquiry is a type of approach, but it can vary in its degree of implementation. A single activity can also belong to multiple degrees of inquiry based on the advanced knowledge and preparation of the students.
As we continue this course, I am prepared to learn more examples and key components of inquiry. Although I have already been exposed to it, and have integrated some inquiry activities into my classroom, there is room for more growth. I would like to explore more ways to engage the students. I would like to evaluate cohesive ways of transforming the entire content into a dynamic experience rather than a set of activities dispersed throughout a mostly direct instruction course.
In the next few weeks, I expect to engage in the material and learn from other experiences to improve the degree of learning in the classroom. My goal is to use the learning from this course to reinforce the learning goals of my courses rather than completion goals.
The two discussion activities completed this week helped to accentuate the needs for differentiation in curriculum and presentation. Looking at the responses to our memorable/best learning experiences, it becomes apparent that there are many preferred ways of learning. In our transition to inquiry-based activities, it must not be forgotten that direct instruction, auditory, and visual learning are still valid methods for some learners.
The other discussion thread, which asked us to differentiate inquiry from non-inquiry activities, shows that there is no clear cut definition or example of classroom inquiry. Inquiry is a type of approach, but it can vary in its degree of implementation. A single activity can also belong to multiple degrees of inquiry based on the advanced knowledge and preparation of the students.
As we continue this course, I am prepared to learn more examples and key components of inquiry. Although I have already been exposed to it, and have integrated some inquiry activities into my classroom, there is room for more growth. I would like to explore more ways to engage the students. I would like to evaluate cohesive ways of transforming the entire content into a dynamic experience rather than a set of activities dispersed throughout a mostly direct instruction course.
In the next few weeks, I expect to engage in the material and learn from other experiences to improve the degree of learning in the classroom. My goal is to use the learning from this course to reinforce the learning goals of my courses rather than completion goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)