Attempting to Avoid the Problem of the Student who Holds the Mouse Dominating the Activity.

Miguel and Gabriela discussed the type of borders they would erect in their panda habitat and then Miguel entered their selection into the Activity Object. They both were pleased with how their selection protected this endangered species. As they continued their explorations they deepened their understanding of ecosystems, communities, populations, species, and concepts to consider in designing protected habitats for endangered or threatened species.                                                                                                               

In the spring semester of 2008, I was part of a team evaluating the use of Adaptive Curriculum by middle school students in a low-SES school (89.2% free or reduced lunch) in Phoenix, AZ. The school had one laptop cart with 14 computers, so teachers had students doubled up, two to a laptop.

The two-students-to-a-computer environment worked for this particular school year. Ironically, last year it wouldn’t have worked. Class sizes were pushing 35 students, so it would have required some triples for the laptop cart. I was told the population of the school dramatically fell as a result of a new Arizona law requiring more stringent proof of immigration status to obtain employment.

Students seemed to work quite well in pairs using Adaptive Curriculum. As with Miguel and Gabriella, there were many good discussions observed between partners. But the lack of discussion is not as obvious, and there were situations where the old maxim of “he/she who controls the mouse tends to dominate the activity” probably applied.

Some simple things can be done to alleviate the one-student-dominating problem in the use of shared computers at school. For example, if one person controls the mouse, the other could control the keyboard. This presents a more cooperative situation, where hopefully sharing of control will lead to sharing of ideas and plans. If the computer activity is one where there is a greater use of the mouse than the keyboard, instructing students to switch roles after certain periods or segments could be helpful.

But why not have computers with two mice? Wouldn’t it be great if both partners had equal access? Sure they might try to get to things quicker than the other person, but it would make for lively interactions. Two-mice computers might even have specific activities designed for them, from cooperative tasks to competitive events. The two-mouse computer is not so useful in the business world, so that is why we don’t see them, but computers in schools should have hardware and accompanying software optimized for student learning. Two-mice computers should be an option. Just as surely as Miguel and Gabriella designed an effective habitat for the pandas, we should optimally design the learning environment and not just take what is given to us.

 References/Resources

Habitat Designer: Panda. Adaptive Curriculum.  http://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSSM190101

 

With the dawning of the age of Spore (September 7, 2008) and its potential to help students learn about ecosystems, evolution, genetics, animal behavior, anatomy, and outer space, I decided that my son and I should take a peak at the free version of Creature Creator. How good is this software? Will it play a role in science education?

I won’t generalize from Creature Creator to Spore, as the former seems to be just a teaser.  So I will try to limit my review to Creator and see what value it has for science education. We can wait for Spore, and see its value later. 

It was fun to create different organisms in Creature Creator, to name them, to see them dance, and even to see what their offspring would look like. It was intuitive and easy to do; my 11-year-old son had no problems doing any of this without guidance. But after you create them, what can you do? It seems, to the disappointment of my son, not much. Trying to figure out something more to do, I took a video of my creation and put it on YouTube. This is my first uploaded movie, so I felt a bit of accomplishment (My Creature).

Spore promises to grow organisms from a single cell. Not so with Creature Creator, where you produce an adult by sticking various anatomical parts together, starting with skulls and progressing to horns or feathers. While there is some picking and choosing from different parts, and there are very good 3D graphics, at times it felt like a somewhat sophisticated Mr. Potato Head.

Okay, maybe that is because I used the free version my anatomical choices were limited. For example, I had to choose from only carnivore skulls, when what I really wanted was an omnivore. What was impressive and instructive was manipulating anatomical parts once they were selected. For legs, I could decide the length, where to put the knees and hips. I found it quite interesting to see how the placement of the hips had a profound effect on the stature of the organisms.

 I can see some uses in science education for Creature Creator. The first thing that comes to my mind is scientific nomenclature, where after students learn about naming conventions of genus and species, they create their own organisms and give them Latin sounding names (like Harry Potter spells), as I did for my green, observant creature, Virenta observicus. I could also see creating a bunch of organisms and using them in classification schemes such as making a dichotomous key (see Animal Classification) to separate or identify them. Within anatomy, concepts related to structures and functions, comes into play as learners look at different choices and select the structures that optimize the functions they want their organisms to have.

Spore itself is promising four activities: (a) CREATE Your Universe from Microscopic to Macrocosmic, (b) EVOLVE Your Creature through Five Phases, (c) EXPLORE Other Players’ Galaxies, and (d) SHARE with the World. It is intriguing to see what will be unleashed. It is being called an “asynchronous sharing” game because you can do your own thing when you want to and make contributions to the universe. Certainly, Electronics Arts has muscle in graphics and programming, and after three years of development, it could be a pretty exciting project. Perhaps there will be learning about science concepts such as ecosystems, evolution, genetics, animal behavior, and outer space. Time will only tell.

Ironically, Creature Creator may be more useful in the classroom than Spore because it is easier and faster to use.  It doesn’t involved immersing yourself into a virtual world for 15 to 20 hours. Students can make fun creatures within one class period and teachers can use this to teach important concepts. As a simple to use free or inexpensive tool, Creature Creator, can be put to immediate use for school or homework. If you have some ideas, please share them.

Resources:

Animal Classification, Adaptive Curriculum https://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSSM180202

Creature Creator  http://www.spore.com/trial

Spore http://www.spore.com

(Note: I completed a review of science software for a project I was working on in 2000. As I re-read the review, I remembered some of the titles that I really liked. I also remember the state of science software, still dependent on the CD-ROM. I think it is good to remember the old titles and contributions to the field, so I am reproducing this review. I deleted some sections and the WWW links that are no longer working. Prices are from the era.)

—————————————————————————–

Effective Science Software for Elementary Science Teacher Educators

I attempted to find quality science software for use in the elementary science classroom.

Probe, database, and spreadsheet software are valuable in science education and offer great possibilities for promoting inquiry. However, I did not focus on these resources because many of us are already familiar with the value of these time-tested resources. Other software continues to be developed and it is much more difficult for science educators to stay current on effective software.

 Effective and Ineffective Strategies to Identify Effective Software

1.     Searching the ERIC database was not a good avenue to find science software. They do not publish abstracts for reviews of software.

2.     Discussion with classroom teachers revealed some highly praised titles and series. 

3.     Submitting a request for effective software to the AETS listserve produced some recommended titles and series. 

4.     I found software review sites on the Internet. The best ones are: www.childrenssoftware.com and tic.cuesta.com. The latter, from the California Instructional Technology Clearinghouse, is indexed to standards.

5.     I found the best way to identify excellent software is to try them. Some programs had one or more features that made me really like them.

 

Distinguishing Characteristics for Effective Science Software

The state of science education software is far from perfect.

“There is widespread agreement that one of the principal factors now limiting the extensive and effective use of technology within American schools is the relative dearth of high-quality computer software and digital content designed specifically for that purpose….The commercial availability of software and information resources designed to support student-centered, constructivist approaches to education is even more limited, and there is little evidence to date of large-scale, well-funded efforts by either traditional educational software vendors, multimedia developers, or textbook publishers to develop such content” (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, 1997).

I think the whole field is best thought of as a “work in progress” with some software having excellent features. Important characteristics that emerged in my search are:

1.     Fostering quality learning experience for important science content and processes.

2.     Providing an effective context for learning.

3.     Having a high degree of usability.

4.     Using a computer’s abilities to provide interactive or simulated experiences that go well beyond simply reading.

Reference

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (1997). Report to the President on the Use of Technology.  The White House  http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html#4.6

A Review of Computer Software for Elementary Science Education

            I did not have a budget to purchase software, so my personal review is limited to titles that I could borrow. The software is listed from most recommended to least recommended. All titles are for both Macintosh and Windows platforms unless specified.

Zurk’s Alaskan Trek (Soleil Software, 1995)

Ages 6-10, $28.95

This is a good overall program with a fabulous ecosystem feature called Animal Theater. Children add different species of plants and animals. They click “play” and observe how the animals interact and what they eat. For example, the bear eats some cow parsnips but avoids the Labrador tea; the ground squirrel runs from the arctic fox and sometimes gets caught. Children can write their observations below the interaction and save it to their portfolio. In MovieMaker children choose sentence options and create their own movies. Relative weights (and ideas of less than, greater than, and equal to) of animals are explored through a scale activity. How many lemmings equal the weight of a bald eagle?  Also includes plant and animal field guides. Can choose from English, French, and Spanish.

Sammy’s Science House (Edmark, 1994)

Ages 3 to 6, $19.95

Brilliant sorting section, where living things and rocks are sorted in hundreds of ways (for example, sorting animals by fur, feathers, vs. scales and sorting omnivores vs. herbivores). Items must be clicked on to sort. The click causes the item name to be said, which helps children learn the names of living things.  Make Your Own Weather has children control rain, wind, and temperature and see the effects. “Seasons” presents a view of Acorn Pond where the children can click on organism to find out information and then change the seasons. Both of these sections present temperatures in Celsius and Fahrenheit scales. All the explorations have a free or guided mode.

Telling Our Stories: Women in Science (Tom Snyder, 1997)

Ages 11-15, $79.00, www.tomsnyder.com

Program goals include providing a personal introduction to real-life scientists and breaking traditional stereotypes. Good database of information about 120 women in science. In-depth multimedia focus on 8 selected women scientist with useful in-computer science experiments that reflect their work, such as on superconductivity, viruses and hormones, and animal communication. Includes a useful teacher guide and student handouts to prompt students to search the database and process learning from the experiments.

Zap: Thinking Science Series: Save the Show with Sound, Light, and Electricity (Edmark, 1998)

Ages 8-12, $29.95

Entertaining, good problem solving, appeals to older children. Excellent hands-on science simulations for light (plane and spherical mirrors, lenses, color mixing) and electrical circuit. Decent simulations for sound.

Gizmos and Gadgets: Super Solver Series (The Learning Company, 1995)

Ages 7-12

This was the best at combining an arcade style game (Donkey Kong) with interactive science activities and science learning. The game took some getting used to for me but children would probably pick this up quickly. As you go through doors in the game, you solve science problems and collect parts to build cars or airplanes to race the villain.

Zurk’s Rainforest Lab 2.1.3 (Soleil Software, 1995)

Ages 5-9, $36.95

Does a good job of showing the vertical layering of the tropical rain forest and promotes animal identification. Egg hunt with changing rain forest backdrop is fun for young children, but there seems to be no science objective. Photograph portfolio is a good idea. Animal sorting activity helps reinforce animal classification (mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, and insect). Text and narration are in English, French, or Spanish.

Science Sleuths Volume 1, The Mysteries of the Blob and the Exploding Lawnmowers (Videodiscovery, 1995)

Ages 11 to 14, $39.95

Very good use of interviews, science tools, print resources, and a personal notebook to solve fun and interesting problems. Like some Tom Snyder products, but can be done in far less time.

Rainforest Researchers (Tom Snyder, 1995)

Ages 11 to 14, $199.95, www.tomsnyder.com

Excellent Jigsaw Cooperative Learning Model, good use of data analysis, and excellent focus on problem solving. Created for the “one computer classroom” but the process can take a long time to complete.  Although this software is recommended for middle school students, it may be too advanced for this age level.

I Love Science (Dorling Kindersley, 1997)

Ages 7-11, $17.95

Many simple interactive science activities, questions after each activity, point reward system for certificates or hands-on science activity sheets. Matter section activities are the best. They are organized by sorting, testing, changes and separation.

My First Amazing Science Explorerr (Dorling Kindersley, 1999)

Ages 5-9, $19.95

Motivational sticker and badge system includes a tracking system for students to see their progress. Excellent open ended questions in Science Workbook including a section “What About Me?” Includes printable hands-on science activities. Limited interactive activities in the program, all 8 involve sorting. Life Cycles also involve sequencing.

Thinkin’ Things: Galactic Brain Benders (Edmark, 1999)

Ages 8-12, $29.95

I only reviewed one free download from this program, Kinetics Lab, and it was great. You have control over balls on a table and you can do millions of things to see how they move. The software was one of the highest scorers on the Children’s Software Evaluation.

Thinkin’ Things: Collection 1 (Edmark, 1999)

Ages 4 to 8, $29.95

Very motivational activities and great opportunities to develop skills in observing, comparing, pattern recognition, and combining things in creative ways. Science content does not seem to be a goal, but there are opportunities to adjust variables and make observations regarding moving objects and musical notes.

Thinkin’ Things: Collection 11 (Edmark, 1999)

Ages 6 to 12, $29.95

Advanced version of Thinkin’ Things: Collection 1 but allows for more opportunities for creativity and spatial perception.  But again science is not a major goal.

Stellaluna (Living Books/Random House, 1996)

Ages 3 to 7, $49.95, www.intellitools.com

This living book follows the journey of Stellaluna, an African fruit bat separated from her mother. After the text is read, there are excellent graphics, sounds, and animations. You have the option of making it so children can touch “hot spots” to see things happen. There is also a bat quiz. CD-ROM can be put into a stereo to listen to Stellaluna songs. Package comes with original book by Janell Cannon.

Triazzle (Berkeley Systems, 1995)

$23.95, www.dangilbert.com

Fun tropical rain forest puzzle. This is an electronic version of the triangle board puzzles sold in stores. Brilliant animation when pieces are connected, for example joining like halves of a frog causes it to move in a realistic manner. Good for observing and problem solving, but limited science content.

The Way Things Work version 2. (Dorling Kindersley, 1996), $24.95

At best an encyclopedia with stuff about principles of physics, names of inventors, and how machines work. Lots of text, very few useful animations or interactive science activities. Buy the book, not this software. Includes some graphics, sounds, and movies to use in other applications.

The Magic School Bus Explores the Ocean (Microsoft, 1996)

Ages 6 to 10, $19.99

Brings back the famous cast from the TV show, but this program was buggy and confusing.  There are some simple experiments and games. Lots of things to click on. But overall, this was not a satisfying experience.

Multimedia Bugs: The Complete Interactive Guide to Insects (Inroads Interactive, 1996).

Excellent high level information about bugs with clear graphics and great photographs. Too advanced for elementary or middle school students. Interactive activities are not thrilling; they consist of moving a mouse over a field to reveal an insect name, photo, or sound.

Earth Quest (Dorling Kindersley, 1997)

Ages 10+, $49.95

Well-done graphics, but you need strong Earth science knowledge to get moving. Far too advanced for middle school.

Cosmic Osmo and the Worlds Beyond the Mackerel (Cyan, 1989, 1990, 1994)

Ages 5 and up, Macintosh only

$49.95

Old style software put on a CD-ROM and packaged in a modern wrapper. Its black and white, no moving graphics, but it is a fun and clever exploration of a different solar system. Most time seems to be spent in buildings, so there is limited science learning. Yet some consider this HyperCard program a classic.

 

—————————————————————————–

 

(FINAL NOTE: Remember the above is a reproduction from a work I completed in 2000. I was judging based upon the context of other software and my experience. I respect the contributions of all, even those that I did not judge as highly.–PR)

               “Teaching means creating situations where structure can be discovered.” –Jean Piaget

Many science teachers struggle with the idea of free exploration. Free exploration takes advantage of the natural tendency for children to just mess around with materials, without following any rigid procedures. If you have ever watched a child playing in sand, you have seen free exploration.

I have observed some preservice teachers struggle with a hands-on science lesson because they pass out the materials to the children and then they try to explain what they should do with them. More experienced teachers know that once children start to interact with the materials, they begin to tune the teacher out. A better strategy, therefore, is to explain to the children all that they need to know before passing out the materials.

Free exploration purposely allows students to mess around with the materials. It is a shame that for so many teachers, science experiences are always canned (first do this, and then do this). I have no objections to well articulated experiences that lead to discovery, but students also need opportunities to mess about. Each time they change something and see the result, they are developing ideas and approaches that will deepen their abilities to design and understand experiments.

The virtual world can be a great place to mess around without causing a great mess! The activity object, “Space Objects Interaction Explorer,” presents a great canvas to mess around with. Students are presented with two celestial objects, larger than the other. By changing the size and direction of the arrow, they control their initial velocities. Then they hit the play button and the objects move according to their initial velocities, and their motion is immediately influenced by gravity. Lines are drawn as the planets move so the orbital paths are evident.

Experienced teachers also are aware that challenges can really keep students engaged, such as with GEM’s Bubble-ology, where the teacher walks around and says, “Okay, let’s see who can produce the largest bubble!” or “Wow, great! Now, can you blow a bubble within a bubble?”

In “Space Objects Interaction Explorer,” the first challenge is easy. Make the objects collide. A fiery explosion rewards success, but there is no big bang—of course, contrary to Hollywood misconceptions, sound does not travel in the vacuum of outer space.

The second challenge is to make the smaller object orbit the bigger one. Most children can’t do this at first, but neither can most adults. It is interesting that most adults know what an orbit is, but they can’t at first produce one. It is very different being able to define the term orbit versus being able to explain why an object orbits another. Through trial-and-error learning, both children and adults can get one object to orbit the other—and develop intuitive ideas about orbits.

Inevitably, the first orbit produced by the learner is not a circle but an elliptical orbit. The third challenge is to achieve a circular orbit. When this task is completed it helps students really understand that orbits are an interplay between velocity (moving tangentially to the orbit) and gravitational interaction. Then, when orbits are explained, students have the experiences to understand why they occur.

 The fourth challenge involves three objects and asks that two of the objects orbit the largest one, which I will call the star. In putting this together, students (and adults) usually place one object closer and one farther from the star. And they initially make the farthest one have the bigger initial velocity. When they hit play, the nearest object crashes into the star and the larger object shoots out of the star system. Through trial-and-error learning, students will get it right, and later when they learn that Mercury is the fastest moving planet, it isn’t just an isolated fact to be memorized, but becomes an example of a concept they already know.

The last challenge is, appropriately enough, the most difficult to achieve. Appropriate because the really smart kids that solved the other challenges with great speed are fully engaged as everyone else catches up. The challenge is to make the small object orbit the medium object as the medium object orbits the largest object, or in other words, they are challenged to create a moon that orbits a planet, while the planet orbits the star. Students can, of course, adjust the position and velocity of the objects, as well as their masses. Success with this challenge isn’t easy and it takes a lot of messing about, but it is fun to see the interactions and patterns drawn of the paths followed. And when success arrives, it feels sweet!

References:

Adaptive Curriculum. (accessed August 7, 2008). Space Objects Interaction Explorer. https://www.adaptivecurriculum.com/us/details/USSSM150202

Barber, J. (1987) Bubble-ology (Great Explorations in Math and Science). Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California. http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/gems/

Hawkins, D. (1965). Messing about in science. Science and Children, 2(5), 5-9.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child’s Conception of Space. New York: W. W. Norton.

 

 

Paul Marshall shared an early version of his doctoral thesis with me that is important for science teachers teaching about moments, torque, and levers. His thesis compared physical and virtual environments for balance beam learning. The balances used are made from strips of wood with a fulcrum in the middle and weights that are hung from nails at fixed distances on either side of the fulcrum.

Marshall’s work is impressive and his writing style is refreshingly communicative without the vague obscurity of many contemporary researchers attempting to sound intellectual. Marshall presents key aspects of the long history, starting with Piaget, of balance beam studies. This is important for his coding scheme of the results. In this way, he goes beyond whether there was a difference in physical versus virtual representations of the balance beam on pretest-posttest content gains. I won’t attempt to describe an entire doctoral dissertation in a blog—but I will point out some salient findings.

In Marshall’s own words, “The main question to be addressed by this study was again whether using physical rather than virtual materials while completing the learning task would produce measurable differences in learning outcomes between the groups.” The subjects were 32 college students who worked in pairs on the physical or virtual tasks. They were given the pretest and then asked to explore the balance beam so they could perform better on the posttest. Students were limited to a maximum time of 30 minutes for the explorations. I consider this a “free exploration” situation rather than the typical “guided-inquiry” approach.

The results are similar to a study I described by Klahr, Triona, and Williams (2007). In both studies, all of the students had higher posttest scores, but there were no differences between the physical and virtual groups. Because all the interactions on the task were videotaped, Marshall was able to look at the type and duration of experiments. The physical group did an average of 28.8 experiments versus 37.2 for the control group, but these differences were not statistically significant. The mean time for physical experiments was 24 seconds versus 28 seconds for the virtual group, again not statistically significant.

Marshall classified the student experiments by how rich they were for providing useful data. There were no differences between the physical and virtual groups on this measure. Marshall also classified the experiments based on the Vary One Thing at A Time (VOTAT) protocol (Tschirgi, 1980). Again, there was no significant differences here either.

“In summary, there is little evidence that using physical materials in the balance beam task has a significant effect on participants’ choice of experiment search strategies. This contradicts predictions that subjects using the physical materials might engage in greater and more fluid collaboration with physical materials.” Once again, although for most teachers the virtual environment would be easier to implement in a classroom, the data suggests no significant differences between physical and virtual groups.

Marshall’s study went on to analyze the conversations between the pairs working on the physical and virtual tasks. There were no statistically significant differences in the amount of dialog that was coded as hypothesis, summary of data, prediction, alternate hypothesis, critique of a hypothesis, agreement with a hypothesis, extension of a hypothesis, justification by several experimental results, plan to test hypothesis, discussions about testability, arguments against a justification, or requests for explanation.

The virtual group, however, did have statistically significant more talk about suggestions of new experiments. This result was expected because when one student controls the mouse, there is more need for conversation about what they should do next.

The physical group had statistically significant more talk about description of results. Marshall suggests that this may have been because in the virtual situation both students could easily see what was happening, but in the physical situation, when both were sitting next to each other, each had slightly different perspectives.

“It must be concluded that using physical materials has little effect on learning about the concept of balance as presented in this study.” Marshall’s study adds to the nascent number of studies suggesting that virtual tasks make equivalent gains to physical tasks. Interesting wrinkles are the increased talk for planning experiments in the virtual environment and increased discussion of results in physical situations. Opportunities to extend all elements of discussions in all situations need to be explored.

References:

Klahr, D., Triona, L.M., & Williams, C. (2007) “Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical Versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), pp 183-203.

 

SCIENCE EDUCATION, CRITICAL THINKING, and INQUIRY SKILLS

My wife suggested that we have lunch at Chase Field, the home of the Arizona Diamondbacks. There was no game today, but there is a Friday’s Restaurant where you can eat in the outfield and look out onto the field 364 days of the year.

Along the walls of the first and third base lines sat batteries of large spotlights on wheels shining on the field. These were brightly illuminated, so much so that they were hard to directly look at even though I was 400 feet away. I asked our server, a baseball enthusiast, about the lights and he told us that at some times during the day, parts of the field were in shadows, and these artificial grow lights were supplementing the natural light.

Looking out over the game-less baseball field, I thought about what our waiter said. I observed that every bit of the grass field was now being illuminated by the natural intense Arizonan sunlight.  Yes, this was mid-day and the sun was high in the sky, so I can accept that there would be shadows in the morning and evening. If we accept the idea that the light needs to be augmented, it would seem to me that the artificial light would benefit the grass more if it was only turned on in the mornings and late afternoon and directed at parts of the field that were actually in the shade. If you have ever experienced the intense, Arizona, mid-day, July sun shine on you, you know it packs serious energy. If the grass receiving this sunlight hasn’t slowed its photosynthesis because it is in survival mode from the intense heat, it seems safe to say, that the grass at this moment is optimally photosynthesizing with this intense natural light source.

So, it seems like an incredible waste of energy to shine grow lights during midday. In Arizona, utility rates are cheaper before 9:00 AM, which is another reason to shine the lights on certain parts in the morning. I won’t even delve deeply into the idea of whether parts of lawn that get shaded during different times of the day need light augmentation (my small lawn, which is the same Bull’s Eye Bermuda species as the stadium, does quite well with some parts getting lots of shade and I can assure you that professional ballplayers are no match in the trampling department to my energetic sons, their friends, and our young sheltie). Nor, will I delve deeply into the possibility of using reflectors to reflect natural light, for instance from the base path areas to areas that are sometimes in the shadows.

Eating my tilapia tacos, I thought about developing workforces with critical thinking and inquiry abilities and the importance of high quality science education.  If we apply critical thinking to the case of grow lights at Chase Field, what argument can be made for grow lights to enhance the midday sun?  Then after logical discussion, we should ultimately test our assumptions. The grounds crew could choose three of the shadiest areas, illuminate one with grow lights only when it is in the shade, illuminate one with grow lights only when it is in the sun and don’t artificially illuminate the other, and then compare the results. And as Sean, in the movie Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius (2001) said, “Never argue with the data.”

Are we helping students leave our science classrooms being able to critically think, to have mindsets favorable to inquiry, and sufficient inquiry abilities? The grow lights at Chase Field may be a small example of misdirected technology, but many other technologies are certainly high stakes. Hopefully, we can work to avoid misdirected technologies through developing critical thinking and inquiry abilities in the future workforce. And to use a baseball line from Field of Dreams (1989), “If you build it” they will have tools for life long learning and decision-making. 

 

Most Americans know the story of the powerful John Henry, the man who drove steel into rock. There are many versions of the story and songs that have been passed from generation to generation. For example, listen to a version sung by Van Morrison. With a huge sledgehammer, John Henry drove steel spikes into rocks, as his partner turned them in ¼ rotations with each strike, to help make way for the westward moving railway lines. A salesman had a steam-powered drill that he said could do it faster than a human. John Henry challenged the machine, and with a fantastic display of energy, John Henry beat that machine. We could probably find scores of John Henry teachers in schools, those who, if pitted against a computer for helping students to learn, would handily win. John Henry won the competition but sadly died of exhaustion in the process. I don’t think the experienced teacher would suffer from exhaustion, but I do know many new teachers who are exhausted and overwhelmed by the demands of teaching. 

Today, railway workers use powerful drills to make holes in rocks; someday, teachers will make computers a powerful core tool in student-centered learning.  But it hasn’t happened yet.

While most of us can adduce examples of great things happening in schools with technology, and while students certainly do use computers as tools, such as in writing, presenting, and researching, there is a sense that we haven’t pushed the envelope.

The fault doesn’t lie with the teachers. A recent National Education Association (2008)/American Federation of Teachers survey indicated that (a) there were not enough computes in classrooms “to use computers effectively for classroom instruction;” and (b) training in technology focused more on non-instructional uses of computers. Teachers in the survey were not technophobes, they almost all had internet access at home and 95% answered that technology improved student learning, 89.1% indicated it made student learning more enjoyable, 86.4% said it saves time on the job, and 87.5% said it improves job effectiveness. These results suggest that if computers for student use were provided and better training in using computers for instruction was presented, teachers would make greater use of computers to support student learning.

As schools try to do so many things for so many different children, effectiveness and efficiency are not as easily discerned as they are for drilling a hole in rock. Even as the effectiveness and efficiencies are developed and revealed, the traditions and culture of “the school,” will not change easily. I predict that virtual schools will be the catalyst to transform schools and let teachers drop their “sledgehammers.”

Virtual schools will demonstrate the efficiencies of the extensive use of computers to support student learning. When today’s students show a great proclivity for learning with computers, when parents and students want more and more online classes, when more and more students start attending virtual schools, and when student learning is discovered and efficiencies are dramatically demonstrated, then finally physical schools will have to start rethinking the role of computers in student learning.

Of course, traditional public schools may be the last to change their ways. Charter schools and private schools will be in the vanguard, because if they don’t, many will fail and close their doors. In Arizona, a state that is second to California in the number of publicly supported charter schools (Center for Educational Reform, 2008), charter schools are struggling to compete primarily because they are trying to do the same things with less money. When I see charter schools with untrained teachers and inexperienced teachers, and large class sizes that resemble traditional classrooms, I wonder why anyone would send their children to these schools. I also read about closures of private schools (i.e. Goodman, 2008), most particularly Roman Catholic schools, because the expenses are growing faster than the tuition.

Look to see the charter and private schools emulating the successes of the virtual schools. We will see some charter schools go completely virtual and we will see many more online classes, especially in areas where it is difficult to get qualified teachers (such as Advanced Placement Chemistry, Physics, or Calculus).

The revolution I am most interested in will eventually happen in the “bricks and mortar” classrooms. Parents, teachers, students, and administrators will continue to value the physical presence and great influence of a teacher, but at the same time will also seek the learning gains and efficiencies of computer-based learning. As virtual experiences become a significant part of the classroom enterprise, teachers will increasingly assume the role of the “guide on the side” (rather than the “sage on the stage”), students will have enhanced motivation, and the work of the teacher will be easier. All this will encourage many more teachers to remain engaged in the profession.  In a similar way to railway workers using mechanical drills to make their work easier, computers will be core tools in student learning, and virtual schools will start the revolution.

 

About these images:

The first image is from the Library of Congress. it shows Fred Dapp in a rock-drilling competition between 1880 and 1900 probably in Colorado.

The second image is from Adaptive Curriculum‘s Activity Object “Nuclear Energy: Fission” showing a scene from an activity with a nuclear submarine.

References:

Center for Educational Reform (2008). National Charter School Data.

Available at http://www.edreform.com/charter_directory/data2.cfm?CFID=3853032&CFTOKEN=44663510

Goodman, J. (2008). Catholic schools’ decline here among worst in U.S. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.

Available at http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080425/NEWS01/804250368

National Education Association (2008). Access, Adequacy, and Equity in Education Technology.

Available at http://www.nea.org/research/images/08gainsandgapsedtech.pdf

Hear also:

Joe Brown and Lonnie Thomas (1939). “John Henry.” Available at

http://memory.loc.gov/afc/afcss39/271/2710b1.mp3

 

 

 

Adaptive Curriculum, describes its core learning segments as “Activity Objects.” This is, as far as I know, a new term that has evolved from other terms including “Learning Objects.” In case you are not familiar with the term Learning Object, I will describe this, touching briefly on its origins, and then explain why I think Activity Objects is a well-chosen term.

What is a Learning Object?

The term Learning Object grew from computer object-oriented programming, a paradigm of creating reusable and cooperating “objects.” As with programming objects, the generally accepted criteria for Learning Objects are that they are digital, cooperating, and reusable. Unfortunately, as so often happens in education, terms are used in so many different ways, they start being less useful.

From a broad perspective, a Learning Object is any instructional resource that can be combined with other resources. This is formally presented as “independent pieces of instruction that may be reused in multiple learning contexts” (Fernandez-Manjon & Sancho, 2002). To many of us, that is too wide a definition as almost anything can be considered a learning object.

Wiley’s (2000) definition—more useful because it is narrower—is as follows: “Any digital resource that can be reused to facilitate learning.” According to Wiley, “Learning objects are generally understood to be digital entities deliverable over the Internet, meaning that any number of people can access and use them simultaneously (as opposed to traditional instructional media, such as an overhead or video tape, which can only exist in one place at a time). Moreover, those who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions.”

Friesen (2003) describes problems with terminology involving Learning Objects and makes a call for clarity: “Using a term that make sense only in abstruse technical discussions, and that is opaque and confusing to practitioners does not make its potential benefits clear to teachers…. It is simply that innovations must be presented in terms that are meaningful for teaching practice.”

I think teachers need to be able to easily differentiate between online resources that are relatively passive (such as text based web pages) and those that have strong elements of student interactions. I believe that the term Activity Object is a term that will make sense to practitioners and will help differentiate online resources with strong elements of interactivity. There is a big difference between some current science articles versus cool science experiments online.

What is an Activity Object?

An Activity Object, as the name describes, is a learning module that puts the emphasis on active learning rather than just passively reading text or viewing images or movies. It is designed to compliment other instructional approaches.

I propose the following definition of an Activity Object: An Activity Object is an online digital learning module featuring high-quality student interactions that help to achieve narrow learner outcomes.

To be sure, the Activity Objects of Adaptive Curriculum feature engagements, animations, closures, activity sheets, and assessments, but these are supportive of the high-quality interactions. Of course, some may take the definition I propose and say that many online materials are Activity Objects. To me the question resides in whether or not it is a high-quality interaction. If students mainly read text or watch movies, even if they are answering some questions as they go, this just doesn’t rise to the level of being a high-quality interaction and should not be considered an Activity Object. I propose that we use the term Learning Object for those online materials that support learning but that don’t have high-quality interactions, and that the term Activity Object be judiciously used for learning experiences with high-quality interactions. Therefore, the resource with current events in Earth science can be considered to be a Learning Object but the science project, science activity, and interactions would be considered Activity Objects.

 

References

Fernandez-Manjon, B. and Sancho, P. (2002) Creating Cost-effective Adaptative Educational Hypermedia Based on Markup Technologies and E-Learning Standards. Interactive Educational Multimedia, No. 4, April, 1-11 

Friesen, N. (2003). Three objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards

Wiley, D.(2000). The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Agency for Instructional Technology and the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Available at Reusability.