Posted by: Christopher Fulton

This last task was by far the most interesting. First of all, the term “technology affordance” was a bit perplexing. This concept appears to have originated in 1979 (Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Perception) and means, very loosely, the usefulness with which we perceive an object. An examination of the concept is given further consideration by Hutchby (“Technologies, Texts and Affordances”, Sociology 2001 35: 441).

I was impressed with how different members of the group saw the collaborative mind mapping tool. Some members felt it wasn’t conducive to getting learners to discover more about learning theories as the technology got in the way of the learning. Others found the mind map to be a fine tool for note-taking and reflection. Might ones’ perception of the technology have any relationship to ones’ inclination towards a particular learning strategy?

First , I would add a few words on how I might use this tool. The mind map took a bit of getting used to. I think I would certainly introduce it with a demo or a video. Such a visual introduction might make it much more appealing to a large class. Again, is this in part because of my preference for one learning style? Or, could I be hardwired to learn primarily from visual stimuli?

I would also provide my learners with a clearly defined task. A task might focus on searching and listing links for each theory using 5 different sources, i.e. Google, Wikipedia, books, peer-refereed journals, and media sources. The mind map could be used for a variety of purposes: one group member suggested that we find and document criticisms of each theory. In any case, a couple of us thought the mind map would provide a very collaborative tool that could be used for a range of learners, although any activity conducted with this tool would require additional support, whether such support came from a video a teacher.

Did the mind map technology play a role in developing my understanding of learning theories? I do believe it provided an excellent platform that allowed me to take notes, research, document and share ideas. In my research I thought up several ideas on how I could use this tool in teaching, shared my notes with others, and even read about what my peers have expressed on this topic. I did not only focus on texts, but my research took me to audio sources. Indeed, one of the most thoughtful discussions on learning styles I heard last week on BBC4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rm072). I would highly recommend it. For those who are pressed for time, I have transcribed a few key passages.
Extract from “Inside the Brain of a Five-Year-Old”
“Learning styles... Well this is the idea that some children are visual learners, other children are kinesthetic learners, so that they learn best through manipulating things, and I'm some children are auditory learners, so they best they learn best through language-based instruction Whereas in fact all of those systems in the brain will be active all the time.
Well because the brain is a multiple interacting system you can ever isolate one component. That's the kind of neuro-myth. We can say that a neuro process goes on in the back of the brain. It doesn't mean that those are the only systems that are active when you're looking. This is because then you need to interpret what you're looking at or listening to, so other systems will be in play.

Then there's the scientific question, is it a preference something dictated by of the brain.”
What has not been shown by many studies, is that there is any educational advantage to having your learning advantage learning preference identified. There are various reasons why not. The brain is very interconnected. The second thing is that if you're are better at processing in one modality that there might be something said for getting practice in the other modalities. And when something becomes something more difficult we remember it better.

In fact a psychological study showed that some learners had done better in the learning style that they had not been identified as possessing. And yet it's very very popular.
There's so much in the popular media that teachers, like anybody else, are caught up in the media.”

What I found so fascinating was that this discussion on the radio ended with a conclusion that was very similar to a conclusion that my peers reached.

“When designing a teaching or learning activity it is also important to bear in mind that the teacher may play several parts (simultaneously or not): The teacher may be a facilitator, a leader, a role model or an active learner after all, in order to understand which activity best suits a group of students the teacher must learn something about them.” Hopwood & KopkeDonado

This activity has given me the chance to learn about my peers, and various views on learning theories. I also have a few hints about my professors’ research on related topics. I only hope they have somehow learnt a bit about me in the process.

Christopher
Shenzhen, 2010

Evaporation - Drying Rate - Activity Critique

Posted By Malcolm Drew


We discussed this activity in class as a group, and as such most of our combined or overlapping ideas have already been stated by the group members posting earlier.


The most significant problems have been mentioned as:

1. A poorly (or not at all) defined idea of rate (which is the main learning outcome of the task),
2. A mismatch between the learning object, the question sheet, and the stated learning outcome,
3. And the learning object's disconnection from the real world.

Points one and two have been thoroughly handled in the other posts, I'll contribute a bit more on the believability of the task.

The activity we chose used a Flash-based learning object which could only provide the learner with results programmed by the creator. The learner chooses parameters for temperature (hot/cold), wind (windy, no wind), and cloth size (small, medium, large). The simplistic choices for parameters, imply that the results come from a list that the developer created rather than from a formula. There is no reason given to the user that suggests why the results are true or meaningful in the real world.

I would intuit that the idea behind the learning object is to simulate a discovery experiment. Unfortunately the accompanying task did not follow an experimental method. The most value I see in this learning object is that it allows for the immediate testing of a hypothesis. Students could have practiced the steps of a scientific experiment by making a hypothesis, gathering data, analyzing the data, and performing a conclusion and discussion of the results. However, I believe that even this possible usefulness is lost because of the lack of any reason to believe in the results. Without that, there is no motivation to do any of these activities.

When using technology to simulate nature, the single most important aspect of the simulation is to provide the learner with a reason to believe that he or she is learning something real.

The greatest positive about the learning object is that it provides immediate results for a variety of combinations of parameters. With modification, it could be quite useful as an alternative to doing a lengthy real-life discovery experiment.

Activity 2A - 14/9/2010 Gavin Hopwood

Dry Rate

How will the size of of a wet object affect the rate of evaporation?

This is the question that is presented to the students.

Students are provided with an guided activity sheet and a flash applet to manipulate.

There is an obvious problem with this task. The activity sheet and flash applet do not relate to the question. Both ask the student about factors (plural) affecting evaporation but the question only asks for one factor, the surface area of the object. There is also no explanation of what rate is and a vague explanation giving a scale of 0-9.

There are some positive points to this task. The applet is easy to follow, very self descriptive, in some way is task oriented and is also fun to use. The exercise leans towards a cognitive approach but we feel as a group that there is a discrepancy between the complexity of the language of the activity sheet and the reality of the imagery. Not taking anything away from the applet, which obviously has taken time to design we feel that its function does not relate to the task.

The applet is only a simulation and does not provide for a realistic approach to the situation. For example if one is good at flying on a PC simulator it does not necessarily mean you can fly a real airplane. The activity sheet leads directly into students being asked to design an investigation to further explain the concept that they have learnt through this applet. We feel as a group that students should be exposed to a more tangible method before being asked to do this.

The applet does not provide sufficient information for the student to complete the task at hand. The applet is a nice idea but should be used soley as an introduction to the activity / topic but should not be set as a cognitive activity.

Reflection on Examples of Technology in Activities (By Christopher Fulton)

While riding my bike home from work, in the shade of large trees which separate the park from the street, I was struck with the idea that the science activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation" draws heavily on ideas contained within René Descartes text, Meditations. One reading of the well-known passage found in Meditation I, "I think, therefore I am," takes sensory perception as a very certain starting point. It is sensory perception that, argues Descartes, allows sensing beings to come to know something fundamental, something fundamental about the world or a state of mind. Similarly, the activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation," begins with a visual example. It is from sensory perception of a simulation from which learners, arguably, come to learn and understand something about how the world works. By observing and seeing the simulator run, learners are able to develop a model of how the world works. In this case, the learners would develop a mental model of how things dry.Our quick look at the activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation," gave many of us the impression that the activity draws heavily on a cognitive theory of learning.As requested, I'll provide a few very brief comments on the strengths and weakness of the activity; comments which surely don't do much justice to the effort which went into creating the Flash-based object and activity. One strength of the technology employed in the activity "Investigating Rate of Evaporation," is, in my eyes, is that it is a quick and possibly effective simulator. The simulator runs very quickly. A similar experiment would take quite a long time to do. This technology, the Flash-based simulator, also has the potential to involve and engage individual learners at individual machines.One critical weakness may be related to the learning outcomes. The learners are expected to learn about the relationship between area and drying rate. The simulator may not highlight the key concepts needed to solve the subsequent word problem. At first glance, it appears that the simulator only gives the drying rate in terms that are abstract. The speed or rate at which an area drive is not stated in meaningful turns in the simulator.One concern I have about the approach used in the example activity we looked at is, however efficient, it is somehow compartmentalizing knowledge by considering only evidence which is detached from real-world conditions. What strong reason do learners have to believe the model is valid? The simulation model is disconnected from the world and thus a gap between knowledge of the real world and the world of ideas is created. Put in other terms, knowledge of how to drive a car in a video game would not qualify one to drive a real car in the real world.