I really liked the BGuILE article
and thought the ExplanationConstructor was an awesome tool to help scaffold
students. It really highlights
argumentation from evidence, which is such a key focus in science. Along with the ExplanationConstructor, I also
really liked how this approach allows for students to explore so many different
graphs/histograms of different data sets and pick what helps support their ideas
best. Looking back at on the standardized
tests in biology I reviewed a couple weeks ago, I noticed a significant portion
was focused on data and graph interpretation.
I think this approach will absolutely help students be a little more
prepared for standardized tests by having them engage in reasoning and
argumentation using evidence from analyzing multiple graphs. This approach also incorporates social
interaction through discussion (and small groups) and also allows for revision
of ideas throughout the investigation. The
ADI article highlights many of the same aspects that are considered so
important in the BGuILE article. These
aspects include identification of a task, laboratory-based experience,
production of a tentative argument, argumentation session, investigation report,
peer-review (discussion), revision, and communication.
I do like these two approaches and I think
they have many affordances, however I have some concerns about the BGuILE
classroom. I wonder how many different
scenarios and concepts are available with that software. I also wonder how user friendly it is. It seems to be filled with great
opportunities to explore, but I wonder if all of the different interfaces are
difficult to use or time consuming to learn.
The scaffolded approach to the ExplanationConstructor seems like an
awesome way to get students to think about how they are constructing arguments
and evidence, but I am not sure if it makes the process too prescriptive or
not? Each student has a different ZPD and
will need different scaffolding from peers and the teacher, so I wonder how
much of a role the software will play and if its it too much for some
students? Obviously the teacher should
be monitoring students’ progress and be scaffolding them, but since the
classroom described seems to be very reliant on the ExplanationConstructor it
seems if it is too prescriptive you couldn’t really make it less prescriptive
without abandoning the program.
I am also worried about the length of time it might take for students to learn the software, plus the amount of time it would take to complete the activities in the classroom. The curriculum described in table 9.2 seems to take multiple classes to cover one unit of content. While the program and the lesson allows students to have a deeper understanding of the concept, it sounds like the lesson would take most of a semester. Exploring the concept well would give students a deeper and better understanding, but I am not sure if such a long unit would keep a class's interest. Discussion, including explanation and argumentation might keep the class going, but for how long?
ReplyDeleteIn Modeling this semester we've been wondering at what point of exposure to computational modeling will our students see the benefits of learning through those experiences. You've seemed to think about this in your post. We'd have to design our classrooms around using these programs at an early stage, possibly even throughout the school or even in a middle school or junior high to see some great leaps in programming with our students. One scenario (that I could see working, but I've been wrong before) is using computational modeling, such as NetLogo, as the teacher on a projector. As a teacher your could walk students through some basics of the program that apply to most if not all models in the library. Then, possibly after some time, the students will be able to get on the computers and use the program. At this point they'd have a level of familiarity and hopefully some curiuosioty as well. Possibly this strategy will allow bubble level students and some lower level achievers a good scaffolding to begin using the program.
ReplyDelete