Reflective Summary #2

Reflective Summary #2

Question #1

The case study investigating participatory simulations, Chapter 9, looked at computer assisted simulation activities that require participation by all members. The hand held computer devices, “Thinking Tags”, allowed students an authentic instructional experience without actually being affected by a viral outbreak. The Thinking Tags mimicked a virus and how it spreads among community members. Once the students gathered data through the use of the tags, they engaged in discourse to determine what the simulators were trying to depict. The inquiry-based instructional strategy required students to revisit, reflect, question and compare each member’s information to determine the results. This activity is based out of Dewey’s Principle of Experience. The students were engaged in meaningful inquiry activities that built lasting understanding of viral outbreaks (Colella, 2001). This understanding-oriented activity design required the students to repeatedly conduct the activity until they were able to reach a conclusion.

The role of the teacher was critical in the success of the participatory simulation. Initially the teacher designed the Tag information content and how it was passed from one device to another. To ensure the students had an understanding of what to do, the teacher had to present lesson objectives, expectations and “how to” for using the tags prior to the activity. This provided the “what” and “why” questions for the student’s discourse. As the activity progressed, the teacher interjected, poise questions, and guided discussions ensuring learning opportunities were not lost among the students. The participatory simulations prompted each student to interact to fully understand the “what” and “why” questions. The design of the activity was broken down into stages to ensure quality knowledge growth. The initial simulations, discussion, and the final simulations manipulated the scaffolding of student knowledge. The activity relies upon the social constructivist theory, where learning occurs when individuals interact with one another (Jones & Bronack, 2007). The students could be viewed as a community of practice (Schlager, Fusco, & Schank, 2002). The teacher provided the minimal amount of information and through the participatory simulations, the students learned from one another.

Question #2

For my physics virtual community, I have chosen to use Moodle, an open source software package. Moodle capabilities include forums, journals, quizzes, resources, choices, surveys, assignments, chats, and workshops. In regards to scaffolding peer knowledge, students will participate in discussion forums responding to guided questions specific to the weekly content. The ability to chat synchronously will allow students to engage in discourse that can be saved for future review. Another collaborative feature is the wiki module in Moodle, allowing students to create and edit documents. All students can participate or just a few in the development of the document. Developing community requires individuals to have common interest and goals. Having a sense of belonging and the formation of trust among the members strengthens the community. Moodle allows members to enhance personal profiles enabling a closer connection among them. As members engage in forum modules, journal entries, and chat modules, they begin to develop rapport and appreciation for one another.

The decision to use Moodle will enable my physics class to have anytime access to course content. Due to the technology capabilities, students will be able to access their grades, participate in discussions, edit documents, and retrieve resources not only in class but also after school hours. The physics class will incorporate various collaborative activities were groups of two to three or the whole class will engage in inquiry and discourse. The Moodle modules will allow the groups to scaffold their knowledge as they progress through lab activities. Simulating a Knowledge Building Community, the knowledge of the group will enhance the understanding of the individuals (Hewitt, 2001). Throughout the collaborative activities, students will individually respond to guided questions posting to the forum module. This action will be very similar to the discussion threads in Dr. Ge’s class.

As a teacher of a virtual-physical community combined, I will have to create the course syllabus well enough to inter-mingle both mediums. I will have to keep in mind any students who do not have Internet connection at home, along with creating the modules that will progressively strengthen the community and enhance knowledge growth. Hewitt (2001) states, “pedagogical success is tightly tied to the teacher’s ability to deliver content.” Not only will I present material, design activities, and conduct labs face-to-face, I will also maintain course information virtually. All materials will be accessible from the course Moodle site. Students will engage in group discussions with the use of Moodle and post the course assignments to the Moodle class site. Moodle software will allow me to custom design my grading scale to differentiate course assignments, activities, and assessments. Time will be allotted each day to access Moodle allowing the students without Internet capabilities to stay connected to the virtual community. This will be done through the use of daily reflective questions at the end of the hour. Prior to leaving class for the day students will respond to reflective questions. This will allow me to know whether I need to reteach the topic the next day or whether I can move on in the curriculum. Moodle will also allow me to provide text feedback that will not get lost or thrown in the trash can.

Because the community I am designing is a secondary physics class, peer interaction and collaborative learning will be continually incorporated due to lab activities and projects. Physics labs are an integral part of the physics curriculum. As the groups work together to theorize and prove physics phenomenon, they will scaffold their knowledge and learn from one another. The initial material will be presented to them through demonstrations, lectures, and reading materials. But to ensure understanding and retention, activities, projects, and labs will be disseminated throughout the year. Through face-to-face and virtual pedagogical strategies whether conducted asynchronously or synchronously, students will be exposed to the physics curriculum in a manner that has never been done before at Maysville. Virtually, students will conduct physics Webquest, linking one Internet site to another while gaining knowledge to accomplish the prescribed activity task. Virtual lab simulations will be incorporated throughout the curriculum along with virtual field trips. As I begin to infuse roller coaster development into the traditional physics curriculum, I have accessed YouTube and other audio or visual sites. Numerous videos and podcast are available on every topic that must be covered in physics according to the Oklahoma PASS objectives. With many of my students, gaming is a favorite pass time; therefore, I will search for physics-type games to use as reinforcement activities. Since teenagers are entranced by technology, YouTube, FaceBook, MySpace, Wikipedia, I will strive to incorporate these mediums within my curriculum (Grossman, 2006). Time will be the limiting factor. Having enough time to try to develop a quality combination course will be my challenge.


References

Colella, V. (2001). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R, & Miyake, N. (Eds.) CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 357-407). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grossman, L. (2006, December). Time’s person of the Year: You. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html

Hewitt. J. (2001). From a focus on tasks to a focus on understanding: The cultural transformation of Toronto classroom. In Koschmann, T., Hall, R, & Miyake, N. (Eds.) CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 11-53). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jones, J. & Bronack, S. (2007). Rethinking cognition, representations, and processes in 3D online social learning environments. In Gibson, D., Aldrich, C., & Prensky, M. (Eds.) Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks (pp.89-114). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Schalger, M., Fusco, J, & Schank, P. (2002). Evolution of an online education community of practice. In Renninger, K.A. & Shumar, W. (Eds.) Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 129-158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.