creative cognition

Google Images 2008

Well, not actually on deck, but on the smart-board! And how did this occur? I guess I should set the scene. I was trying to be a little more ICT focussed, and had decided to use a circuit-builder simulation from the PhET website with my year 8 class. I’d asked a student to create a simple circuit, consisting of a light globe, connecting wires and a battery. She was using her finger to drag equipment into the middle and get the electrons flowing. Unfortunately, she created a short-circuit, due to a problem with the connection between the wires and the light globe and subsequently, massive current was unleashed, due to reduced resistance.

The whole class (including the volunteer) screamed with laughter as they watched the tangerine flames crackle fiercly on the screen. I have to say I had a bit of a chuckle, too, and we talked about why this might have occurred. It had actually happened in the lab the day before, but as the students said, the Power Pack had switched itself off due to an inbuilt safety-feature. In this way, the simulation taught the kids something they wouldn’t have necessarily learnt while using tangible equipment.

Computer simulations are great, because they are dynamic models which make visual what is invisible in real life. They encourage problem-solving, critical thinking and reduce cognitive load, as variables can be manipulated, reduced and simplified. They’re also inexpensive and can allow students to explore extreme circumstances in a safe environment (Wieman, et. al. 2008).

I really enjoyed this exercise, and it complemented what we were doing in the lab. I also like the fact that it can challenge and extend stronger students, while aiding conceptual understanding in struggling students, as well as reducing misconceptions via vicarious learning (Muller, et. al. 2007).

They provide immediate feedback, and are great for visual and auditory learners. Another plus, is that they help students to cultivate scientific procedural and reasoning skills such as manipulating variables, receiving data, then analyzing and interpreting it (Pyatt, et. al. 2007).

Next time, perhaps we’ll cause an ice-age (but perhaps that’s for another day and another topic).

Extra reference (couldn’t be linked):

Muller, D., Sharma, M., Eklund, J. & Reimann, P. (2007). Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting. Instructional science, 35 (6), 519-533.

I cannot help agreeing with Kim with regards to this. I believe that children require adult supervision and need time to socialise with their peers in spaces where technology is not present. Technology is a great tool to fine tune learning and to explore multiple webs of knowledge, however a bit of ruff and tumble and good old experiments in the lab are vitally important too.

I guess the challenge for us as educators is to get the balance right between the computers at our disposal and the kinds of pedagogical strategies that will allow us to switch seamlessly between exposition (instructioninsm) and constructionism (student-centred problem-solving), which may or may not involve computers!!

I was reading Esraa’s post referring to her article on collaborative editing and felt sad that many students, by the end of year ten do not like science and do find it difficult, boring and irrelevant to their lives. I feel angry, too, that teachers do not try to make it more interesting, as it’s not that hard to make links with science to everyday life.

The whole idea of using different people’s strengths to improve a project, such as good note-takers, talented organisers or deeper thinkers (putting subjects into a broader context) is an excellent idea. I guess with group work, people are more likely to find out what they’re good at and what others can bring to the table. It’s exciting that collaborative editing isn’t just for university students, but for school students, too.

Students who are separated by time and space can also contribute to work, and I liked the idea of colour-coding, so that everybody knows who’s contributing what. Building community can occur in so many different ways, and kids who are geographically isolated or hospitalised can still participate in constructivist learning with their peers, which I think brings an egalitarianism to learning, too.

Back in the day (early 2000’s), I was finishing off my first degree and I did this via distance education. I was lucky to have a view back then, enjoying watching the swaying of the trees and the odd passer by. I became very disciplined with my study time-table and had sporadic phone tutorials with my lecturor and peers. My ear used to get really hot during this, and a little itchy, but I’d switch to the other ear and get on with it. 

Google Images 2008

Now of course, I’m doing a face-to-face degree, but alot of our learning is still at home, on the computer, and we’ve had to contribute to discussion boards, write blogs and search for database research. I was reading a paper by Choy, et. al. (2007) and it was all about distance learning at an open university in Hong Kong. The use of wikis was looked at in detail and important considerations with thier use included number of users (critical mass), pedagogy and the role of the instructor.

Basically, because the users of a wiki are also its creators, in order to be effective, lots of contributors are required. Social tagging, editing, organising content, putting in links, writing and researching are all part of the process, which is dynamic and constructed by the students. The tutor’s role is to design projects that require negotiation and spark conversation. They should facilitate, but not be authoritarian in their leadership style.

Other issues included educating students on the technical aspects of wikis to reduce cognitive load and get them focussed on some higher-order-thinking/creativity, rather than becoming stressed or distracted by how to operate them. Strengths of wikis, as opposed to online learning environments (discussion boards, web based email and electronic assignment handling systems) were better structural features (all the information could be viewed at once on the wiki) and multimedia/powerpoint presentations did not require attachments.

I quite liked the comment that one of our lecturers made earlier in the year that primary teachers believe they teach children, whereas secondary teachers believe they teach subjects (namely, their own KLA). I of course, laughed at this, thinking they were trying to insult our intellingence, however it is backed up in the literature from qualitative questionnaires, etc. Coming from a health science background, spending years studying about holism and treating the ‘whole person’, I couldn’t fatholm such a blinkered view of my job and the students I will teach.

I guess the good thing about web technologies is that the’re so fluid and dynamic. The learner can switch from one paradigm to another, integrate subjects and ideas, and create a great web of learning and discovery. O’Hear (2006) writes that web 2.0 technologies are creative, individually driven, have an exploratory feel and are very flexible. Feedback is also facilitated via student networking and media sharing. Students can publish their work, which generates pride in performance and would trigger intrinsic motivation.

Responsibility for learning would also be increased via these tools and a ‘pioneering’ spirit would be fostered. The four walls of the classroom dissolve when kids get into the virtual world and the sky’s the limit when it comes to learning curves.

Google Images 2008

At this time of the year, when my friends are out at the weekend, doing normal, weekendly things like going to the movies, taking the dogs for a walk or simply lounging on the deck, I feel the prison-like status of my bedroom with its view of the brick-walled house next-door quite keenly. I’m wearing an interesting assortment of clothes of colours that shoudn’t be mixed and my hair is hicked up on the top of my head with a hastily secured clip.

The only way I’ve really kept in touch with people is via phonecalls and email (or sms). The whole idea that Web 2.0 is social software interests me, as I think it’s a great way to spark conversations on various topics, and perhaps a good way of meeting ‘kindred spirits’ (Alexander, 2006), whether they’re from your school or on the other side of the world. The whole idea of collaborating and networking is great, and peer editing with group projects online is probably a very efficient use of time.

The good thing about blogs, is that they are in reverse chronological order, so the reader is kept up-to-date with current affairs and research, which can then be traced back in time if required. Wikis are great too, however when I was using Wikipedia recently for a science subject I’m doing (finding a benthic, freshwater marine bony fish can be a little challenging in a text-book), I was surprised that the information is at times incorrect, incomplete and rather general. It also has the potential to be corrupted and hence, must be checked constantly for errors from the online community.

Web 2.0 technologies are very convenient, and a good way for students to network, however they should also be adept at verifying information and considering bias in terms of their peers’ opinions and persuasions. The good thing, though, is that you don’t need to put on any make-up before you start the journey!  

Reference:

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0 a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educase Review March/April.

Romeo (2004) communicates that using technology responsibly and sensitively to create meaningful learning experiences is of paramount importance in and outside of the classroom. Developing expertise in an area requires many complex processes such as experience, trial-and-error, self-regulation, recognizing patterns, deep understanding and a broader contextual framework. This can be facilitated in schools by teachers who are willing to use a variety of student-centered activities (as well as a little thoughtfully placed teacher exposition)!

During my last practicum placement, I was encouraged to make more use of IT. I was a little tentative at first, however in the last two weeks I played some U-tube videos, did some smart-board animations with Phet (electricity) to reduce student misconceptions and played videos on the computer. I was teaching my year 9 class acids and bases, and had just introduced them to the concept of neutralization. I scoured U-tube for relevant videos and eventually found one on fire ants and a ‘miracle’ cream that took away the pain almost instantaneously.

Before I played the clip, I asked the students to note down what this cream did that others on the market did not. The story went that a man put his hand into a mound of angry fire-ants and allowed himself to get bitten. As he cried out from the pain, a special cream called ‘Stops the Sting’ was applied and within about five seconds, most of the discomfort and itching had subsided. Another man explained that this cream neutralizes the acid from the ant, whereas other creams simply numb the area.

The students picked up on this, and couldn’t stop laughing at the hilarity of the man and his bitten hand. They had been working hard on the theory of neutralization (an acid plus a base gives a salt plus water) but now had a real-life example of how it could be put into practice usefully. We then talked about blue bottle stings (basic) and how people were advised to put vinegar on them to neutralize the wound (acidic). Latest research has now revealed that putting bites under hot water is the best option, as it denatures the toxins.

A potentially dry topic was brought to life via this little projected video and I encouraged the students to do more internet research on neutralization and its uses. Their interest in the topic was sparked and they realized that science could be relevant, even if it was chemistry! I had catered to auditory and visual learners, too, via this process.  

On the first day of my last practicum placement, I was invited to participate in the judging of the school science expo which involved an investigation of students’ own choice. Students from year 7 were in the first category and students from years 10 and 11 in the second. There were three judges in total, myself, a microbiologist and an astrophysicist. To say that I was intimidated would have been an understatement!

We had to interview students and ask them what their hypothesis was, what research they had done, their independent/dependant/controlled variables and if they had done repeat trials. A lot of their research had included internet searches and we were very impressed with the students’ visual displays (which included Microsoft Excel graphs and tables), articulation and inspired conversation about their science projects. Topics ranged from the amount of vitamin C contained in oranges to the best materials to insulate penguins with after oil slicks. Papert (1980) states that personal projects can help students to explore new ways of doing things which are suited to their own style, personality and interests. He also talks about the importance of learning being related to the real world, and practically useful if possible.

I witnessed this in the students I interviewed and realized that if you give students choices, they blossom intellectually, emotionally and socially. They were experts of their own little domain, and we three judges enjoyed learning from them and congratulating them on their discoveries. They probably learnt far more about the scientific method than if they’d written notes from a text-book, filled in a work-sheet or conducted a recipe-style experiment in the lab. Intrinsic motivation was also increased, and student responsibility for learning enhanced.

I was recently perusing the internet when I came accross an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about Michael Phelps, the American swimmer who has won multiple gold medals at the Beiging Olympics. I’d noticed his superior style on T.V. and observed that he had a dolphin-like movement through the water; incredibly flexible in the shoulders and torso and very energetic. I’d heard that he had some very unusual physical attributes which were said to make him a better swimmer than many other mere male mortals!

His wing-span (length of arms from fingertip to fingertip) is longer than his height, he has double-jointed ankles, knees and elbows and grew unevenly as a child. Due to these physical factors, doctors tested to see whether he had Marfan syndrome, which is characterised by multiple possible symptoms, such as hyper joint-mobility, elongated digits and limbs, scoliosis and spontaneous pneumothorax, being a genetic disorder of the connective tissue.

I began clicking through Wikipedia at all the active links, ending up with a ballet dancer’s point (wearing a pointe shoe). His ankles are supposedly more flexible than hers, which allows him to achieve a ‘flipper-like’ effect with his feet! Ackerman talks about constructivism versus constructionism and the importance of contextualised learning as well as taking a step back into objectivity, or gaining a bird’s eye view of the situation. I thought the Beiging Olympics was a great context to start with looking at all sorts of things kids could learn on myriad topics. Since every body knows Michael Phelps, hopefully this process could be kicked off with a bit of intrinsic motivation aimed at task-mastery.