This week, I worked on selecting standards and a driving question for my PBL unit as well as considering what product students will produce. The Buck Institute for Education identifies eight essential elements for true PBL which this project will need to meet, one of which is the opportunity for students to present their project to an authentic audience. Rather than simply sharing projects with the class, students should be sharing their work with members of the community who have some connection to the content, either as stakeholders who could be affected by such a project or as experts who can provide an authentic evaluation of the project results. This element can be challenging for teachers to implement given the logistical issues involved, which can lead teachers to ask whether it is possible to skip the authentic audience and still consider a unit PBL.
Answering this question requires a look at what an authentic audience adds to PBL, beyond the heightened motivation that can come from new voices and perspectives in the classroom. First, an authentic audience can heighten the relevance of a project. Everyone, regardless of age, would like to do something that matters and the fact that someone not directly connected to the school cares enough about the topic to give time and attention to student projects sends a powerful message about the importance of the work students are doing.
Next, an authentic audience, as the name implies, can make the project more authentic. The most authentic learning for pre-service teachers happens during student teaching, when teachers are actively applying their content and pedagogical knowledge in a setting similar to actual job conditions. Research consistently shows that students learn the most about the scientific process and related schools when they must apply it in the lab in an authentic setting, rather than as a separate skill. I could easily go on with similar examples, yet most of the learning our students do is separated from the context in which the content is likely to be applied. The presence of an authentic audience, whether in the form of experts who regularly apply the content or community members affected by the content of the project, will go a long way toward placing the skills and knowledge students are developing into the context in which they are applied.
Can students engage in authentic, self-directed inquiry without an authentic audience? Certainly. Good STEM instruction will consistently connect to real-world problems and processes and provide opportunities for open-ended exploration to complex questions in ways that meet many of BIE's essentials without any consideration of an audience outside the classroom. But PBL comes with a high bar for authenticity and engagement that cannot be truly met without the layers provided by an authentic audience.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
Theories of Educational Technology
As Luppicini (2005) puts it, "...there is no single knowledge base to ground Educational Technology." There is, however, a very large knowledge base of education and theories of learning. Since both fields are concerned with how learners develop knowledge and skills, but educational technology simply focuses on a certain subset of methods and tools toward this goal, it makes perfect sense for educational technology to borrow from the more general knowledge base of education.
It makes sense, therefore, to follow a look at what educational technology is with an overview of different theories of education. As part of the coursework toward my teaching license, I got a very brief overview that primarily consisted of superficial definitions of a few key theories. This module started with a more academic look at the broad strokes of a few different theories of learning. Prior to this module, I would have defined myself as a constructivist and, while this is still true, I now have a much clearer idea of what it means when I say this and what areas of my instruction I fall short of constructivism in.
The theory I choose to take a closer look at was discovery learning, in part because it fits very well with the importance I place on inquiry in my classroom. Many science teachers take it as a given that the closer you can get your students to pure discovery, the better they are learning both the nature of science and the specific content, so I was surprised by the volume of criticism leveled at discovery learning. The specifics of the criticisms, however, are familiar to any teacher who has ever tried to jump too quickly into pure inquiry. Many researchers have found that students simply lack the required skills and cannot cope with the demanding cognitive load (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2004). I've certainly had students shut down or fail to learn the intended content when I made an inquiry lesson more open-ended than my students were really ready for.
This look at the theory behind discovery learning will not keep me from using the approach in my classroom. Rather, it has helped me refine my ideas of how to scaffold students in the meta-cognitive processes required by discovery learning. Hopefully, come fall, this will lead to more student learning when I give my students the opportunity for inquiry.
It makes sense, therefore, to follow a look at what educational technology is with an overview of different theories of education. As part of the coursework toward my teaching license, I got a very brief overview that primarily consisted of superficial definitions of a few key theories. This module started with a more academic look at the broad strokes of a few different theories of learning. Prior to this module, I would have defined myself as a constructivist and, while this is still true, I now have a much clearer idea of what it means when I say this and what areas of my instruction I fall short of constructivism in.
The theory I choose to take a closer look at was discovery learning, in part because it fits very well with the importance I place on inquiry in my classroom. Many science teachers take it as a given that the closer you can get your students to pure discovery, the better they are learning both the nature of science and the specific content, so I was surprised by the volume of criticism leveled at discovery learning. The specifics of the criticisms, however, are familiar to any teacher who has ever tried to jump too quickly into pure inquiry. Many researchers have found that students simply lack the required skills and cannot cope with the demanding cognitive load (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2004). I've certainly had students shut down or fail to learn the intended content when I made an inquiry lesson more open-ended than my students were really ready for.
This look at the theory behind discovery learning will not keep me from using the approach in my classroom. Rather, it has helped me refine my ideas of how to scaffold students in the meta-cognitive processes required by discovery learning. Hopefully, come fall, this will lead to more student learning when I give my students the opportunity for inquiry.
References
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103-109. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional science, 32(1), 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~bmann/0_ARTICLES/CogLoad_Paas04.pdf.
Monday, June 16, 2014
PBL: Finding What's Out There
The science teachers in my district have started looking at examples of engineering design challenges as part of some curriculum rewrites for our 9th grade science courses. It has been a source of frustration that most of what we've found has, at best, minimal integration of science concepts with engineering challenges. It turns out we were simply looking in the wrong places.
This week I explored online collections of units utilizing project-based learning. Given most of my summer will be spent writing curriculum for my 9th grade class, I decided to use this opportunity to look for examples of engineering in project-based learning (PBL). Since PBL, by definition, requires a broad scope, inquiry, and the application of higher-order thinking skills, I found numerous examples where engineering is truly integrated with science content. For example, in a curricular unit titled Energy Efficient Housing from Teach Engineering, the goal of designing a house that relies on passive solar heating is used to guide the study of heat transfer. This kind of approach is exactly what we've been looking for since it will make both the engineering and the science content relevant and meaningful to many of our students.
Regardless of the course I'm teaching, I try to make significant use of inquiry and hands-on learning in an effort to provide students opportunities to do science, not just to learn it. Many of the examples of PBL I found fit well with that approach. For example, the projectile motion project from High Tech High has students design and build their own ballistic launcher, then use it to explore principles of projectile motion. A project like this one would be an excellent fit for my 12th grade physics course. It has students design, build, and revise a product as well as conduct experiments to develop scientific knowledge (such as how the angle of a launch affects the range of a projectile) through experimentation and to use that knowledge to make predictions (what angle and initial velocity should be used to hit a target with the launcher).
For the project I'll be planning in this class, I want to select a topic that will support the 9th grade science curriculum rewrites I'm working on, which means I need an engineering design challenge that can be effectively integrated with the content covered in the course. I'm planning to start with a popular challenge where students build balloon-powered gliders that will travel along a suspended string and use principles of PBL to integrate the challenge with instruction over Newton's Laws. A good guiding question for this project would be "How can I build a balloon-powered glider which will cross the classroom the fastest?"
This week I explored online collections of units utilizing project-based learning. Given most of my summer will be spent writing curriculum for my 9th grade class, I decided to use this opportunity to look for examples of engineering in project-based learning (PBL). Since PBL, by definition, requires a broad scope, inquiry, and the application of higher-order thinking skills, I found numerous examples where engineering is truly integrated with science content. For example, in a curricular unit titled Energy Efficient Housing from Teach Engineering, the goal of designing a house that relies on passive solar heating is used to guide the study of heat transfer. This kind of approach is exactly what we've been looking for since it will make both the engineering and the science content relevant and meaningful to many of our students.
Regardless of the course I'm teaching, I try to make significant use of inquiry and hands-on learning in an effort to provide students opportunities to do science, not just to learn it. Many of the examples of PBL I found fit well with that approach. For example, the projectile motion project from High Tech High has students design and build their own ballistic launcher, then use it to explore principles of projectile motion. A project like this one would be an excellent fit for my 12th grade physics course. It has students design, build, and revise a product as well as conduct experiments to develop scientific knowledge (such as how the angle of a launch affects the range of a projectile) through experimentation and to use that knowledge to make predictions (what angle and initial velocity should be used to hit a target with the launcher).
For the project I'll be planning in this class, I want to select a topic that will support the 9th grade science curriculum rewrites I'm working on, which means I need an engineering design challenge that can be effectively integrated with the content covered in the course. I'm planning to start with a popular challenge where students build balloon-powered gliders that will travel along a suspended string and use principles of PBL to integrate the challenge with instruction over Newton's Laws. A good guiding question for this project would be "How can I build a balloon-powered glider which will cross the classroom the fastest?"
Sunday, June 15, 2014
What is Educational Technology?
Earlier in the MET program, I had the opportunity to examine in detail the AECT's definition of educational technology (2004). As a start to Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology, I added to that what other sources had to say in order to develop my own definition of educational technology. During my reading, two major themes caught my attention.
The first theme is the definition of technology. I tend to define technology in the same way as engineers, likely because of my original background in physics. According to Luppicini (2005), engineers view technology as the systematic application of knowledge regarding how to design and construct material artifacts. Under this definition of technology, the knowledge of how to construct a computer as well as the computer itself would fit, but the process of using a computer would not.
In the social sciences, which includes educational technology along with other areas of education, technology has a much broader definition. According to Januszewski (2001), technology is not only the objects produced, but "...a process and a way of thinking." This definition is arguably more relevant to the field of educational technology than the one typical of engineers. The view of technology as the systematic process of design and construction is relevant in only a few educational settings, but the way the objects and artifacts are used matters in every setting. It is a shift for me to think of technology in this broader sense, but it is a valuable shift.
The other major theme that struck me is the importance of including the theoretical underpinning in any definition of educational technology must include the theoretical underpinnings. As a science teacher, I try to pass on the habits I gained from my background in physics where you begin with data and objective observations, then gradually generate testable explanations. This approach is simply not viable in the social sciences, including educational technology, in which the nearly infinite variables affecting human behavior make it difficult to generate quantifiable data and firm explanations. Any interpretation of observations will be guided by the social context and the theoretical grounding simply because the data would be otherwise unintelligible.
The way a social scientist thinks about what educational technology is, by necessity, different than my instincts as a scientist would like it defined, but there are good reasons for the approach a social scientist uses.
The first theme is the definition of technology. I tend to define technology in the same way as engineers, likely because of my original background in physics. According to Luppicini (2005), engineers view technology as the systematic application of knowledge regarding how to design and construct material artifacts. Under this definition of technology, the knowledge of how to construct a computer as well as the computer itself would fit, but the process of using a computer would not.
In the social sciences, which includes educational technology along with other areas of education, technology has a much broader definition. According to Januszewski (2001), technology is not only the objects produced, but "...a process and a way of thinking." This definition is arguably more relevant to the field of educational technology than the one typical of engineers. The view of technology as the systematic process of design and construction is relevant in only a few educational settings, but the way the objects and artifacts are used matters in every setting. It is a shift for me to think of technology in this broader sense, but it is a valuable shift.
The other major theme that struck me is the importance of including the theoretical underpinning in any definition of educational technology must include the theoretical underpinnings. As a science teacher, I try to pass on the habits I gained from my background in physics where you begin with data and objective observations, then gradually generate testable explanations. This approach is simply not viable in the social sciences, including educational technology, in which the nearly infinite variables affecting human behavior make it difficult to generate quantifiable data and firm explanations. Any interpretation of observations will be guided by the social context and the theoretical grounding simply because the data would be otherwise unintelligible.
The way a social scientist thinks about what educational technology is, by necessity, different than my instincts as a scientist would like it defined, but there are good reasons for the approach a social scientist uses.
References
Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Definition and Terminology Committee. (2004). The definition of educational technology. Advance publication. Retrieved from http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/file.php/118/molenda_definition.pdf
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3), 103-109. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_3/10.pdf.
Januszewski, A. (2001). Educational Technology: The Development of a Concept. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Getting Started with Project-Based Learning
This week I began a course on technology-supported project-based learning. This course falls at a very fortuitous point in my career. My district is currently investing significant resources in curriculum revisions to integrate engineering into our 9th grade science sequence. Many schools teach engineering as a stand-alone process, but we are exploring options to connect science concepts to the engineering process, and project-based learning provides a promising avenue to achieve our goal.
The readings and discussion this week included some factors we had not previously considered, but will need to incorporate for truly meaningful PBL. For example, one of the essential elements of PBL is a public audience, so when developing new materials we should seek out opportunities for students to share the results of at least some projects beyond the walls of the classroom. We have also already discussed incorporating revision, as this is typical of the engineering design process, but PBL often provides opportunities for students to critique each other's work, a process which could prove valuable to our students.
The other aspect of PBL that caught my attention this week is the benefits it can have for at-risk students. In 9th grade science, we have been working hard to reduce our failure rate and to close our achievement gap. While we've made significant gains in these areas, we are seeking out strategies and instructional methods to increase student engagement. While PBL is not a silver bullet, there is research showing some students may have low academic achievement because their strengths and abilities are nearly unused in traditional classrooms. These students may be able to shine in a PBL setting better suited to their abilities.
An important theme throughout the articles was also that a good project should connect to students' interests and experiences, providing a real-world connection to the academic content. Anecdotally, many of the students with the lowest grades in my class tell me they don't see the point in learning science. The real-world aspects of PBL could improve the motivation of these students, thereby raising achievement. As the semester goes on, I intend to seek out research on how PBL impacts student motivation and engagement, but it certainly sounds promising.
I'm looking forward to gaining a much more in-depth understanding of PBL and gaining some experience with designing a unit utilizing PBL. The introduction makes it look like an extremely promising fit for integrating engineering with science content and for meeting my own instructional goals.
The readings and discussion this week included some factors we had not previously considered, but will need to incorporate for truly meaningful PBL. For example, one of the essential elements of PBL is a public audience, so when developing new materials we should seek out opportunities for students to share the results of at least some projects beyond the walls of the classroom. We have also already discussed incorporating revision, as this is typical of the engineering design process, but PBL often provides opportunities for students to critique each other's work, a process which could prove valuable to our students.
The other aspect of PBL that caught my attention this week is the benefits it can have for at-risk students. In 9th grade science, we have been working hard to reduce our failure rate and to close our achievement gap. While we've made significant gains in these areas, we are seeking out strategies and instructional methods to increase student engagement. While PBL is not a silver bullet, there is research showing some students may have low academic achievement because their strengths and abilities are nearly unused in traditional classrooms. These students may be able to shine in a PBL setting better suited to their abilities.
An important theme throughout the articles was also that a good project should connect to students' interests and experiences, providing a real-world connection to the academic content. Anecdotally, many of the students with the lowest grades in my class tell me they don't see the point in learning science. The real-world aspects of PBL could improve the motivation of these students, thereby raising achievement. As the semester goes on, I intend to seek out research on how PBL impacts student motivation and engagement, but it certainly sounds promising.
I'm looking forward to gaining a much more in-depth understanding of PBL and gaining some experience with designing a unit utilizing PBL. The introduction makes it look like an extremely promising fit for integrating engineering with science content and for meeting my own instructional goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)