Growing up digital, wired for distraction

Hi guys, just thought I'd post this as it seems every time I read the news "Something" related to ICT, learning with technology, etc. comes up....or maybe I'm just more attentive to it now?

Anyway, its a nice article for NYtimes which kind of gives a challenging perspective for teachers (like us!)

Here is the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?_r=3&ref=education

Data loggers and analytical software in Science

Posted by Ingrid Kopke Donado

One of the aims of the International Baccalaureate experimental Science program is to ‘develop and apply the students’ information and communication technology skills in the study of Science’ (IBO, 2007).

As IB Science teachers we are encouraged to use ICT in practical work throughout the two year IB Science courses. An effective way to do this is through the use of data logging sensors and data logging analytical software. As commented in (Newton & Rogers, 2001) ‘the attributes of the data logging method offer scope for these software-supported approaches to be deployed in a wide range of science practical settings’. The promotion of data logging analytical software can be implemented in all areas of Science and offers an alternative approach of collecting, storing and presenting scientific data for analysis.

Data logging tools and software allow for superior high quality data collection methods and if used correctly provide little error. Without having to worry about the data collection itself a learner can focus more on the scientific problem and as commented in (Newton & Rogers, 2001) ‘ there is potential for pupils to use software tools more creatively’. They go on to say ‘consequently there is some scope within the data logging approach for pupils to devise their own strategies for using the software to investigate phenomena’.

At the Diocesan Boys’ School we have chosen to use the Pasco brand of data loggers and data logging software. The plug and play application of this equipment is very attractive and little time is spent investing extraneous cognitive load in working with the sensors. Students are quick to grasp the use of this tool and make effective use of its application. Using notebooks as data loggers, students are free to move around with the sensors as is shown in the presentation. Pupils are also free to analyze data using software provided by Pasco or can use alternatives as they see fit. The data logging software is also compatible with other input mobile devices and although as a department we are still in the learning process of integrating other mobile technologies with this software, we have managed to use cameras effectively as a data collection tool. Another important component of the IB practical science investigations is for students to design their own investigation. This is where students become creative with science and can start to incorporate the use of data logging sensors and software as well as other mobile devices into their work in a sense gaining ownership of the technology around them.

IBO. (2007, March). Physics subject guide. Retrieved October 30, 2010, from OCC: http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/documents/dp/gr4/physics/d_4_physi_gui_0905_1_e.pdf

Newton, L., & Rogers, L. (2001). Teaching Science with ICT. London , New York: Continuum.

Short and Long term memory and other links to design, learning and teaching.

I had looked at this website a few weeks ago when researching on Long and Short term memory (LTM and STM). The link directs to the actual section on LTM and STM (with some reference to their limitations). However on the navigation bar there are many other useful links to other issues related to instructional design,teaching and learning.

I have found that the topics on instructional design can be helpful in making me "think twice" about what it is that I am actually doing with technology in the classroom.

In addition, for general interest, some of the other learning theories are explored and ideas / links to activities are provided throughout the website.

Voicethread presentation on Vuvox

These are our views on applications, affordances, limitations and possible uses of the learning tool Vuvox. We used voicethread to compile our opinions.

Reflections on using a learning object in class

“Cognitive load theory is concerned with techniques for reducing working memory load in order to facilitate the changes in long term memory associated with schema acquisition”. (Howard, n.d.)

“Cognitive load theory has many implications in the design of learning materials which must, if they are to be effective, keep cognitive load of learners at a minimum during the learning process”. (Howard, n.d.)

As a Physics teacher I decided to apply one of the many learning tools found on web 2.0 into one of my lessons. The learning tool I chose was a Physics simulation provided by Colorado University. I would then reflect on the usefulness of this learning tool after my lesson and discuss the implications of this simulation regarding cognitive load theory.

This simulation helps students understand the concepts of Newton’s laws related to various objects sliding down a ramp. The simulation is interactive allowing students to change the angle of the ramp, the weight and coefficient of friction of the object, the opposing force to the movement of the object and they can also change the friction qualities of the ramp. The simulation provides real time force measurements and students can also observe what is happening to the work and energy of the object at the same time.

I also created an instruction guide to go with this simulation that gives students a step by step process to follow. Links to both the simulation and instruction guide are given at the bottom of this post which I have placed on Risal, the HKU repository.

Artino (2008) states that when “intrinsic cognitive load refers to the number of elements that must be processed simultaneously in working memory for schema construction”. He calls this “elementary interactivity” and goes onto say that “elementary interactivity is dependent on the complexity of the to-be-learned material and the learners’ experience. My class has students of varying capabilities and different experiences and the object of this exercise was to get all students engaged in their own learning from the word go. The simulation allows students to bring previous knowledge to the activity and apply this knowledge in a fun and interactive manner. It also allows them to test their knowledge if they were already familiar with the concepts under discussion. For students unfamiliar with the concepts it allows them to play and interact and become more comfortable with these ideas without having to perform calculation.

Sweller’s work on Extraneous cognitive load (Sweller, 1994 as cited in Artino, 2008) states that “Extraneous cognitive load which is also known as ineffective cognitive load- is the result of instructional techniques that require learners to engage in working memory activities that are not directly related to schema construction or automation”. I believe that this simulation requires too much extraneous cognitive load and that students spent most of their time wondering which buttons to press and where they could retrieve the relevant information so they could follow the task at hand. A good learning tool must be self explanatory to use or must have a simple tutorial in order to get the user engaged. This application had neither and this hindered the progress of most of my students especially those who were already unfamiliar with concept of Newton’s laws and coefficients of friction.

Artino (2008) states that “when intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load leave sufficient working memory resources, learners may invest extra effort in processes that are directly relevant to learning.” He calls this germane cognitive load, “effective cognitive load”. In my opinion I do not believe that this is an effective learning tool in understanding the concepts of Newton’s laws related to inclined planes. I do not feel that this simulation produces positive schema construction when used on its own. However if it were to be used as a tool to introduce the concept, learners could then further develop these ideas to bolster their understanding.

My scaffolding approach to this simulation was wrong and counterproductive. In my attempt to try and apply order to the simulation the creative and fun part of the simulation was lost. These simulations are useful as introductions to new ideas or as simulations to further enhance understanding at the end of a unit. I intend to use a simulation in my personal assessment at the end of unit 6024 and these are points that I must consider when using this type of learning tool.

Bibliography
Artino, A. J. (2008). Cognitve load theory and the role of the learner experience: An Abbreviated review for eductaional practitioners. AACE Journal , 425-439.
Howard, S. (n.d., n.d. n.d.). Cognitive load theory (J Sweller). Retrieved 10 11, 2010, from http://tip.psychology.org/sweller.html

Gavin's learning object - Projectile motion

This applet is one of many simulations provided by the University of Colorado. I use many of these applets as introductions to units of work that need to be covered on the Physics IB syllabus. Most of the Universities simulations are useful teaching aids as it provides a learner with hands on experience and a good understanding of the phenomena without teacher intervention. Not only is the applet easy to use and understand but it also means that the learner is directly involved in the unit from the start and because most of these applets are fun to use, the learner is engaged and motivated with the activity.

I have chosen to use the projectile motion applet as this is one of the learning objects I intend to use for my final assignment in this module. A simulation is a good starting point as a motivational tool but without further development of this tool in enhancing a learners understanding, it can start to lose some of its effectiveness. Therefore a learners understanding of this projectile motion concept can be further enhanced if the learner then takes what they have learnt from this simulation and apply the concept to the real world.

Not all simulations can be enhanced this way. For example applets on Qunatum Physics are a little hard to apply to the real world unless you happen to have a partical accelerator in your back pocket. However practical hands on experience is a great learning tool and I have found in the classroom and laboratory that this simulation helps to develop a learners scientific process of developing ideas into practical activities.

Use of Vuvox for Experimental Design

Vuvox is a freeware which allows users to create -amongst others- presentations and videos using a wide range of sources including existing or new videos, documents, sound clips etc. Because of its versatile nature into what can be included, Vuvox allows the creation of very didactic animations and presentations -a nice change from the Power Point Tradition -which although useful- can be severing to creativity.

In Science, students are often required to "plan" experimental designs. For this purpose, students are usually asked to submit a form-like report which describes -in a written manner only- the way in which they expect to develop and carry out the experiment of their choice.

Although the nature of this task is to enhance the learner's ingenuity, the manner in which the learner is usually asked to "present" this ingenuity seems like deterrent to creativity -after all, how many artists produce a beautiful sculpture by first describing it on paper?

Bearing in mind that the design of an experiment is in many aspects no different to the creation of a piece of art, it would seem more adequate that a student asked to develop an experimental design should be able to visually describe what it is that he/she is planning on. Vuvox could therefore be used to allow students to "plan" experiments with the use of visual aids: photographs or videos of the way in which they plan to set up apparatus; sources of inspiration or models for comparison; the manner in which data will be recorded or even the means for controlling experimental values.

When asked to produce an experimental design, students often overlook many of the concepts listed above. By encouraging students to make videos or take photographs of their design as they produce it -and persuade them to organize it in a comprehensive manner- we as teachers may be facilitating this creative process. In addition, by having a hands-on activity in the creation of their design, students are more likely to gain a deeper understanding of what they are doing and the implications of their experimental design, than if they were just describing it in abstract. Because of the nature of Vuvox, students working "together" may combine individually obtained ideas/images/videos and organize them without having to be working "together" in a temporal frame. This is an advantage over designs produce on a paper whilst students are sitting together -not necessarily close to sources of ideas or inspiration-.

Producing an experimental design through Vuvox, has the added value that the experimental design is more readily available for other members of the class: By embedding it on You Tube or a similar file sharing platform, students may "see" what it is that their peers have designed and share their creations in a more user friendly manner: Teenagers are, after all, more likely to click on a youtube link than read an academic journal.

By using Vuvox as the medium to display an experimental design and Youtube as a means of sharing it, the additional message of the much needed creativity in Science is underlined. The concept of using an interactive platform to design and present the design an experiment strays away from the traditional image of the scientist as a man in white coat piled up with papers and complicated abstract calculations and links the activity to the reality of the student.

Ingrid's learning object - Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a concept in evolutionary genetics that is part of the course I have to teach. It involves certain mathematical calculations which, for the non mathematically oriented students (as I would consider myself), results in a series of mathematical equations from which students can calculate a value for "p" and "q" - a value which they might have to calculate in exams. In reality, this "p" or "q" value results as meaningless to the students as it probably is to you as you read this. (If you are interested in finding more about the "p" and "q" values please do visit the applet I have embedded below).

Although I am not a big fan of java simulations which are at risk of "taking reality" away from the topic, I like the Evo Tutor applet developed to "simulate" the changes in allele frequencies that are linked to concepts associated to the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is a rather abstract topic which relies on the learner being able to interpret, not only an intangible concept (such as a frequency of gene alleles) but also an entirely conceptual time-frame (the model is represented over several life generations, a time frame that by nature it is harder for us to grasp). Taking these issues into consideration, I believe that the simulation -together with empirical case studies were the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is thought to have existed (or exists)- can be used as a useful learning object through which students may to an extent, compare "real" data (i.e. from empirical studies) to the expected outcome as predicted by these "formulas" that they have to use. Furthermore, if the situation permits so, this applet allows for students to predict, for example, what a certain experimental set up will result in before they actually set up the experiment.

I consider the value of this LO lies in the fact that it can aid the understanding of this abstract concept. On its own, although a nicely setup applet, the applet does not do a lot more than a teacher might represent on a whiteboard or a student watch on a video. The LO's added value is the way in which it can expand the dimensions through which learners are presented with this highly theoretical model and the way it can be molded to contribute to the understanding of the Hardy-Weinberg principle in real-case scenarios.



Posted by: Ingrid Kopke Donado

Science Teachers Mind Map on Learning Theories

After reviewing a series of Learning Theories, we have "Completed" a Mind Map of them on Meindmeister which can be accessed from the link below.

http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/61822538

The map -a glimpse of which can seen above but not posted as an image because of its extension- could continue to grow indefinitely with further ideas and comments.

Some of these ideas and comments are annotated below.

Posted by Malcolm Drew

With the wide array of learning theories in existence, it often seems there is something to suit any teacher’s pet learning style. However, rather than finding a philosophy to match personal learning ideals, I believe a teacher needs to start with an in-depth analysis of his desired learning outcomes. The analysis should then lead naturally into the selection of an appropriate learning style as a model for classroom activities.

I certainly agree with Gavin and Ingrid on their description of over-using the behaviourist theory in some cultures despite its unpopularity in others. It should neither be embraced as a predominant method of teaching nor ostracized for its lack of cognitive or constructivist principles. I’ll add a bit of my own views and experiences on behavioural theory, then continue into a brief discourse on constructivism (hard to avoid it in any learning theory discussion) and the use of analogy, followed by motivational theory, and connectivism theory.

Mathematics is a subject that has suffered from each of the extremes on behaiourism. For example, with learning multiplication tables there was a shift from extreme overuse of the behaviourist approach to its effectual abandonment in primary schools in my home country of Canada. Many teachers of middle and secondary schools could be heard in teacher staff rooms grumbling about students’ lack of mental multiplication skills as a result.

A more rounded approach is now used where students learn the 1 to 10 multiplication table through a behaviourist model, then learn higher multiplications through a more cognitive approach. For the higher multiplications, students are expected to understand the nature of the number operations (multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction) to use the 1 to 10 table to mentally work out the answer (13 x 9 = 10 x 9 + 3 x 9, for example). In a topic such as introductory algebra, a teacher would likely use a constructivist approach by handing out algebra tiles and allowing the students to learn basic skills through their knowledge of shape areas. The important aspect is that the learning theory is now chosen to match the desired learning outcomes in these cases.

In my own teaching, I try to be wary of using behaviourist strategies since I believe them to be the ‘easy’ way out for an educator since they can so readily give the illusion of learning. Despite the nice feeling of having the students give me back all the ‘right’ answers, I remind myself that such training leads to unstable knowledge. The students will lack a fundamental understanding to power them through stressful times in their future.

Constructivism has also become an ‘easy’ choice for educators with its wide acceptance. For a subject such as science, it has the added benefit of fitting with an accepted scientific view of how humans view reality called model-dependent realism: “(model-dependent realism) is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world.”(Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010). Learners would then modify and/or affirm their model(s) based on new experiences that either agree or disagree with their expectations.

Personally, I’ve found that many educators rely on analogies in constructivist activities when trying to combine present concept learning with a student’s pre-existing knowledge. Analogies are a double-edged sword, however, and must be used with great care since all analogies eventually break down. For example, a student who is taught to see the universe’s expansion in terms of an everyday explosion may understand that celestial objects are forever moving apart, but may also have difficulty conceptualizing curved space-time.

The trouble of analogies even happens in understanding educational theories themselves, such as the often-disputed Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Many arguments are based on the analogy of the mind conceptualized as distinct compartments instead of on the developmental theory itself. Gardner’s theory, whether an officially valid theory or not, is valuable for classroom teachers in diversifying and differentiating their practices.

Motivational Theory suggests that students need personalized reasons to open themselves to learning. A person can easily make the argument that it is human nature to want to learn, for natural selection reasons at the very least. However, motivational theory claims that even though people naturally want to learn they still need to believe that school-learning is personally valuable. I imagine that few experienced educators would disagree. In his book, “The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 secrets to Turning on the Tuned Out Child,” Richard Lavoie outlines 8 primary motivators, given that basic human needs are met in the classroom. They are: Gregariousness, Autonomy, Status, Inquisitiveness, Aggression, Power, Recognition, and Affiliation. The majority of students, he claims, can be motivated through at least one of these areas, once identified. Motivational theory is invaluable to educators, whether using Lavoie’s specific notions or another theorist’s ideas, in encouraging students to confront new experiences and develop their learning. In working to motivate the students, educators may also realize why (or why not) their teaching is truly valuable to each student.

Connectivism, dubbed a theory for the digital age (Starkey, 2010), has been developed in response to perceived changes in the nature of knowledge itself in the current world of technology. Whereas constructivism focuses on an individual learner constructing her own meaning, connectivism focuses on a learner building links between specialized sets of information; properties in one set of information link to (and thus become) properties of another set of information. The act of forming the connections, and using them in different contexts, is said to build additional knowledge and understanding as well.

One notable difference with connectivism is with how subject content may be made accessible to the students. Traditionally, a teacher would transform subject content into teachable bits for student digestion, in order for the student to find his own meaning. In connectivism, it would be equally valid to select resources and teaching methods that enabled students to find their own connections, without repackaging the content in any way for students to more easily understand. This would completely remove the teacher from the role of a transmitter of information.

The differences seem subtle at best between this new theory of connectivism for the digital age, however most new theories are mainly combinations of different existing theories. It’s the way that the ideas are integrated and placed into the modern day context and needs for learning that makes connectivism valuable. Personally, I’ve only learned of connectivism from working on this learning theory - mindmap exercise. I find it interesting, and look forward to learning more about it and how it may help focus my pedagogical ideas in my classes.

I love having this mind map of learning theories laid out. I’m sure we’d all benefit from gradually adding to it throughout the term for our own interest and to use on our individual assignments. It’d be wonderful to have countless technology uses linked to each of these learning theories to guide us in our teaching as well.

Hawking, S. W., & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Mystery of Being. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam. Print.

Lavoie, Richard D. (2007). The Motivation Breakthrough: 6 Secrets to Turning on the Tuned- out Child. New York: Touchstone. Print

Starkey, Louise (2010) 'Teachers' pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age', Teachers and Teaching, 16: 2, 233 — 244

Siemens, George (2010, June 1). Connectivist Learning Theory. Retrieved from: http://p2pfoundation.net/Connectivist_Learning_Theory_-_Siemens

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

Posted by: Gavin Hopwood & Ingrid Kopke Donado

Mindmeister on its own has proven to us to be an example of the differences in learning styles. For some of us, it has shown to be a simple tool to use, to others, it has been time-consuming and little advantage and great frustration.

In a similar way following one learning theory to design teaching activities may benefit one group of students but prove inadequate or even detrimental for others.

When designing a teaching or learning activity it is vital to clarify who the learner(s) is/are and what are the learning objectives. When this is taken into account, a single learning theory may not prove enough and elements of different theories may have to be placed together to design a more productive learning experience. The learning objectives must match with the strategies used, and in turn this strategies must be flexible enough to fit the learning objectives.

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.

Matthews (2000) has critically indicated that “Constructivism has become education’s version of the Grand Unified Theory”. This analogy may be interpreted as a criticism to a model which attempts to root all methods of learning through a single approach. Whilst the prospect of a Grand Unified Theory of Education appears luring, the reality is that it has its pros and cons.

The Constructivist approach aims at a teaching and learning strategy in which the teacher acts as a facilitator to enable the learner to explore and reflect upon meaningful learning experiences. This approach promotes metacognitive learning in which the learner fine tunes mental models to accommodate new incidents that result in improved cognitive skills. By relying on open ended questions and extensive peer interaction (Funderstanding, 2010), the learner is bound to become more open minded, develop critical thinking abilities and become a better social learner. In this sense, Constructivism supports the Vygotskian perspective of the learner as a social being whose interactions with the culture play an important role in the learning process. Nonetheless, the Constructivist approach does not fully deflect Piaget’s theory of individual cognition, as it too heavily relies on the experiences of the individual learner as the gears for the modeling and improvement of functional mental maps.

The Constructivist model may appear as the optimal approach when not placed in a particular context. In reality there are numerous factors that influence the applicability of the model: the society, culture, religious background, nature of the curriculum, parent and student expectations and resources amongst others.

“Constructivism calls for the elimination of grades and standardized testing” (Funderstanding, 2010) but in most global educational contexts, grades are the final outcome which permeate the access to further education. Hong Kong is a classical example of this situation. Likewise, certain curricular components (eg. religious education) mandated by a higher educational authority cannot be tackled through a constructivist approach without the possibility of upsetting students (or parents) from different cultural backgrounds. For the better articulation of a Constructivist model of learning, the curriculum would have to be modified on an individual learner basis, which is unrealistic and time consuming.

This may be the reason why many teachers adopt a Cognitive approach into their teaching and learning practices. The most commonly seen educational model involves the scaffolding around content based learning for the development of a set of skills. Deubel (2003) outlines this scaffolding from a Vygostian definition of a “zone of proximal development [where there is] a gradual removal of a tutor’s support for the individual to become an independent problem solver as the individual appropriates knowledge and brings it under his/her own conscious control”. Although this model falls into the fallacy of assuming knowledge is “out there” waiting to be acquired, it is understandable that the prescription of the content of the curriculum forces time-constrained teachers into adopting this model. In many instances, student, teacher and parental expectations rely heavily on standardized external models that are heavily content based. In addition, although the Cognitive model should allow for the development of knowledge recall as well as intellectual skills (Lane, 2010), some teachers are biased towards the knowledge (content) learning and do not aim at developing other intellectual skills. “Traditional schooling tends to favour abstract perceiving and reflective processing. Other kinds of learning aren’t rewarded and reflected in curriculum, instruction and assessment as much.” (Funderstanding, 2010). Although Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Model has been criticized for deriving “more strongly from his own intuitions and reasoning than from a comprehensive and full grounding in empirical research” (Smith, 2002, 2008), its adoption can be understood from a perspective which attempts to reduce knowledge recall and highlight other learning skills and styles. Gardner’s ideas appear to have a valid application when the development of adequate ICT components is evaluated: The use of ICT in education allows for a range of these intelligences to be developed and promoted, although not necessarily in the isolated manner that Gardner proposes.

The Behaviorist model for learning which is often seen in contrast to the Constructivist model (Funderstanding, 2010) would seem to be the least popular approach in modern educational settings. This, considering the seeming popularity of the former. However, some of the Formal Hong Kong Public Education System, appears to rely almost entirely on the method of knowledge regurgitation. Although the Behaviorist model has widespread criticisms (Chomsky ) it is obvious that it is still implemented in many instances to accommodate the cultural needs of a society largely driven by the need to “score” and “rank”. While the expectations of students and parents remain linked to a position within a class or the number of “As” achieved, the method of instruction of the teacher is forced to remain linked to the passive transmission of content based knowledge. In these settings, it is predictable that the teacher would attempt a different motivational approach than that which leads the student into scoring well in an exam. A Motivational Learning approach which promotes different avenues to enhance learning and offer benefits to the learner, could support this kind of educational background to ensure that student and parents expectations are targeted and met.

Learning theories hardly contextualize the environment in which they are practically developed. It is clear that no single theory will work the same when socio-cultural aspects of the educational situation are explored. What works in one context may not work in another, and teachers must learn to be versatile –not to adhere to a single theory as if indoctrinated by it, but rather to have the ability to mold their advantages and deal with their disadvantages according to the settings in which they may be applied.

References
Deubel, P. (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,12(1), 63-90.

Funderstanding (Ideas for Improving Education) (2010). Funderstanding: Education and Training for Active Learners. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.funderstanding.com/content

Lane, C. (n.d.). Blooms Taxonomy. The Education Coalition. Retrieved September 18, 2010, from http://www.tecweb.org/eddevel/

Matthews, M.R. (2000), 'Constructivism in Science and Mathematics Education'. In D.C. Phillips (ed.), National Society for the Study of Education, 99th Yearbook, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp. 161-192

Smith, Mark K. (2002, 2008) 'Howard Gardner and multiple intelligences', the encyclopedia of informal education, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm. the encyclopedia of informal

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.

Reflections: On technology in teaching and learning

These are our group's initial reflections on how we have seen/experienced technology being used for teaching and/or learning.

Reflections

Posted by: Christopher Fulton

Reflections

The train slides into Fanling Station, and I jot down ideas coming to me.

What's is it about this course that is somewhat frightening? For someone who has given such assignments, I suspect it's the challenge of creating or innovating. We are being asked to design learning activities; this means creating, innovating and possibly imagining something new. A real challenge.

In a traditional course, I might be required to analyze or synthesize ideas or arguments. Such ideas of education appear to have emerged from Benjamin Bloom's taxonomy of the educational objectives.

What is being asked of us, willing participants, is that we develop five learning activities. I am reminded of Sir Ken Robinson's talk on TED (https://myhkusu1.hku.hk/owa/redir.aspx?C=700272ef889b46ecbf9922b4025e5e2a&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ted.com%2fspeakers%2fsir_ken_robinson.html). His position is that education systems that prepare learners for the future will prepare students to be creative. Arguably, understanding, knowing, analyzing, and synthesizing information or ideas is quite different from creating.

I should add that I do see technology as a catalyst for change, and cost-effective change. As private companies make mobile devices and networks more readily available and affordable, the opportunity for educators to scale up education on mobile platforms is, I believe, inevitable. I see an opportunity for educators to get a jumpstart on the technology that will be used in future learning environments. In addition, I think this technology could greatly improve the chances of poor and underprivileged people to receive an education -- or opportunities to participate in society -- that they may not otherwise receive.

The train now jostles into Lo Wu station. Might my next blog entry end with "sent from a mobile device"?

Technology in My Teaching Career

Posted by Malcolm Drew

The first school I worked in was a typical Canadian public school of the time. “Technology” meant an overhead projector in every classroom, whiteboards instead of chalk in some classrooms, and one interactive whiteboard on wheels with a projector that would sit on top of a desk positioned roughly in front of the screen. The interactive whiteboard was housed in the Tech classroom where students learned how to use its drawing tools during 1 or 2 of their lessons in their approximately two month tech course. Later on, the school received an interactive whiteboard for each floor (3), all on wheels. Despite the wheels, the department heads held the boards hostage in their classrooms to become the experts on their use. The mathematics head was learning to use the board with Texas Instruments software when I left the school.

In officer military training I underwent around this time period, courses with a classroom component were conducted through PowerPoint presentations. The students in these courses coined the phrase “death by PowerPoint”.

Another school I worked in had the boards mounted in each classroom, with projectors mounted from the ceilings. This was a private school, and the owner wanted to showcase the boards. Teachers were required to have lessons using them every day, and upload the lessons in pdf format to the school website for students and parents to view. This lead to many teachers using the boards in a PowerPoint slideshow fashion, including myself. As much as possible, some teachers, including myself, working to add interactivity to the lessons with varying degrees of success. The highest degree of success came from students using the boards themselves. This lead to a “My turn, my turn!” environment with younger students. Other students, who were more prone to shyness, there would be difficulty in motivating participation.

Grades 9 to 12 at this school were in a 1 to 1 Macbook program. This put technology into each of their hands, but unfortunately many used the computer socially during school which lead to website blockages and discipline issues. The students wanted to use the computers in ways that did not conform to what their teachers wanted. Most teachers wanted the computers used for note-taking, making presentations, and doing online research.

In my present school, the classroom is structured much the same way. The toys are mainly developed for the teacher. We have 1 interactive whiteboard, and 1 visualizer per classroom. The visualizer is a device for projecting a real object onto the board. You can also take a picture or a video of the object with the visualizer’s camera. The school is currently grades 6 to 10, and will age to 6 to 12 one year at a time. All students are in a 1-1 MacBook program. Similar discipline issues arised for much of our first year that also lead to website blockages and discipline problems. Now in our second year, our focus on students making proper choices seems to be having a good effect. Teachers again largely focus on note-taking, presentations, and online research. The presentations have explained into video and podcasting, but they’re still presentations rather than students and teachers just telling or showing each other things.

From these experiences I would reflect that technology works best in meeting learning outcomes when it is in the hands of the students and the teachers are planning activities that do not simply replace normal classroom activities (like note-taking, and making linear presentations). One of the reasons I am in this program is to develop my own ability in using technology to its fullest extent in the classroom.

I asked a few of my students to briefly explain how they perceive technology in education, Satchet's response in particular raised some of the more physical demands of using laptops in school.

Samuel:

Technology is a tool to better help my understanding and to make the work simpler and quicker. So you work smarter rather than harder. I use laptops, use youtube videos, Word, and other programs.

Satchet:

It has brought down my attention span and does make my eyes hurt a little because I used to use the laptop for every class which makes me feel tired from staring at the screen almost all day but it’s improving now because I don’t use my computer for each and every class. I find the internet very useful because I can find out about different people’s opinions and pick out what information is reliable, it has helped me in finding out what is lies and what is not.

Theo:

It (laptop) is dependable, and worth working on. Saves paper, allows you to keep a copy of your work. You can search for things you’ve never seen before. Using a computer makes me feel like I’m getting useful skills.

An initiation into technology usage in teaching and learning

Posted by Ingrid Kopke Donado

A reflection on the beginnings of my use of technology for teaching and learning

A few years ago, I walked into my Friday afternoon Biology class ready to give a talk on Biochemical Evolution, only to be jumped on by one of my quietest student saying “Hey Ms. K, saw you walking to school this morning, yelled at you to see if you wanted a lift but you totally ignored me”. I was a bit startled by this accusation of “rudeness”, but then realized I had had a reason to ignore my student -I was wearing my new ipod, listening full blast to Guns N Roses.

As I explained this to him, he smiled and said “thought it would be something like that, what kind of ipod do you have?” What kind of ipod? There were KINDS of ipods? It never occurred to me that ipods, like biological species, received a taxonomic classification of their own; at the store, I had simply picked up one that attracted me.

“I don’t know”, I said in complete honesty, “It is just an ipod”.

“I bet you don’t have a nano or a mini and definitely not a shuffle”, he answered back (obviously not aware of my absolute ignorance on ipodology) “I bet you have classic”.

My face must have looked absolutely blank because then he went on to say “well, let’s get this right Ms. K, considering how much you like things to be clear and obvious I just don’t see you buying an ipod without a screen, and the screen on the nano or the mini is just too small for you –no offense to you being myopic and all, so I’m guessing you have a classic”.

I shrugged, smiled and pulled out my ipod from my pocket.

“See? I told you it was a classic.” He said.

I stared at this Knowledgeable Being holding my newly baptized ipod and smiling. This had been the most I had ever heard him say in a single lesson. A century suddenly crept between this 1991 model and myself, his outdated teacher. Where was my Scientific credibility now that it was obvious that I couldn’t even name my own ipod?

The issue however petty, bothered me for a few days, yet I wasn’t sure why. It was not the fact that I couldn’t name the little gadget, after all I have more than once in class admitted not knowing something with the promise of a research for the answer. What was really bothering me, was that I had walked into the class, convinced I had all grounds covered though absolutely unaware I was functioning at a completely different level to that of my students; I had a student who could from a hazy outline (correctly) establish the most fitting ipod for his teacher and yet in over 7 months of knowing him, his teacher had failed to find a way to engage him more in class.

My years at University and all my teacher training had prepared me to know the content of what I was supposed to deliver, but had left me in a time warp when it came to effectively delivering it to this techno-centered generation.

Sure, we used webcity at school to communicate with both students and parents and sure enough we looked at websites and research of others when it came to subject matters, but somewhere along the way I felt we were still not stepping into these teenagers’ ground.

I approached my boss at the time and expressed my concerns (and frustrations). I could see him and I were not synched in the subject, but he suggested I undertake an ECDL/ICDL course and considering “How important technology is”, as he put it, he even offered for the school to pay for it.The purpose of the ICDL course, as quoted from the ECDL website, is to “support the continuous development of ICT skills through the use of structured training and certification programmes”. I endured over 60 hours of lectures on how to maximize the use power point, excel and access (amongst others), completed a series of multiple choice answer tests (for which the answers could be memorized beforehand) and obtained a white and blue diploma stating I was “ICDL certified”. I hardly learned anything new from the course itself, but the experience led me to unlearn many things I thought about teaching and learning with ICT. I realized that the ICT skills I was looking for, had to come from elsewhere.

In the subsequent days, I walked around the school field during recess informally chattering with some of the kids. I realized that although I was only a few years older than them, in reality they were miles ahead of me. When I asked how they spent their afternoons, the name “Facebook” was unanimously expressed, together with “MSN” and “blog”. These were rated top in their activities, and if I wanted my passion for Biology to be extended to them, I had to find a way to integrate myself into this cyber-ecosystem.

The journey started with a simple forum on the webcity, Q&As I called it. My original idea was to open a space in the Friday afternoon Biology class webpage to allow for students to ask questions which they came across. I had reevaluated my Molecular Evolution course and instead of my ever prepared lecture had given my students a series of sources on the topic –some less reliable than others- to read and evaluate. It was their responsibility to analyse them and arrive to some conclusion responding to some guiding questions.

The first week a few questions were posted in the forum, factual in nature. The second week, the forum received more activity (as expected, given the deadline for submission was being approached), but now the questions were a bit more open ended. I did my best to try to keep up with everyone’s inquiries, which wasn’t easy considering the more extensive nature of these questions and my tight work schedule.

One afternoon, however, I got held up at a meeting and could not check on the forum until the next day. I was worried about the number of unanswered questions that would now be posted, and was incredibly surprised to log in and realize that my students had not waited for me to provide an answer, but had started answering –and arguing- themselves based on their own postings, research and ideas. I slowly began to change my participation in the forum (after all, this too was a learning curve for me!) and became less active in giving straight “answers” and more active in providing new questions and offering links. After 4 weeks of project activity, I was sure my students had learnt a lot more than I could have ever “taught” them, but I was even surer I myself had learned –and unlearned- a lot more than any of them.

When the time came around for teacher/parents day a few weeks later, I met up with over 100 parents. 10 of those, were the parents of my Friday afternoon Biology class. 10 of those parents, I am proud to say, were extremely grateful at how I had managed to involve their children in an activity that fascinated them: I heard parents say it was great to see that the many hours their children were spending “on the computer” had an academic purpose to it and how they felt this forum established a healthy competition into being more knowledgeable. I also heard concerns from parents, who although interested by the activity felt a bit confused and outdated in their roles as mentors and wanting –like me when face with ipod ignorance- to learn more about these forums and how they worked.

A week before the end of the school year I asked all of my students to fill in a review for the class. It is an anonymous survey done after reports are handed out which provides me an insight on the students’ perspective of the course. My Friday afternoon class reported the class that been challenging and interesting and surprisingly indicated that “many of the postings on the forum were those interesting things that would come back to memory in the middle of a test” and that “the forum allowed students to ask questions without the need to be face to face”[1].

I felt proud of myself, I had extended my passion to my students, and had heard and read proof of it. Technology now offered me a whole new range of teaching and learning skills that I needed to develop –and incorporate- into my own teaching, so that the incoming year it would not be just a class, but all of my classes, who could benefit from their inclusion in teaching and learning.

Some 6 years later, what I am aware of, is that although friendlier with technology, there is so much still for me to learn, to explore and to incorporate into my own teaching and my own learning. This IS why I'm here.

[1] I have loosely translated this from spanish, language in which these comments were originally written.

References:ECDL Foundation. (2010). About ECDL Foundation. Retrieved September 8, 2010, from ECDL Foundation: http://www.ecdl.org/index.jsp?p=93&n=94

Breaking Technophobia

Last Thursday evening my wife (Ingrid Kopke) and I were reading one of the assigned articles for the MSc(ITE) 6024 module titled Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail and learning 2.0 by John Seely Brown and Richard P.Adler (2008). After reading this article we started to discuss the points that it had addressed and I happened to mention that although I believed in the benefits of technology as an incredible tool for learning, I still felt that interaction through a keypad and screen was somewhat sterile. Ingrid, who is nine years younger than me pointed out that she did not feel that this would be unusual for me as the first time I had ever interacted with a computer was when I was a teenager (she knows me very well), whereas computers were always in her life from an early age. This conversation carried on for some time but it started to raise the question, when did I start using technology for learning?

My first ever computer was a ZX Spectrum 48K. My parents bought it when I was in Secondary School. They had no idea on how to use the thing and neither did I. For most of the time I used the Spectrum to play Daley Thompsons Decathlon which took 45 minutes to load up from tape and this was only for 5 of the events. Mossley Hollins High School, located 11 miles outside of Manchester, England had purchased 15 BBC computers at the same time as my own Spectrum. However none of the teachers at my school knew how to use them and for most of the time we taught typing skills on them although I do remember one kid showing me how to scroll my name on the screen using two lines of programming. For most of my education I recall very few times where technology played a part in my own learning. At university I mastered the skill of low level language programming and spent countless hours writing simple lines of hexadecimal numbers for EPROMS. High level language programming was a course that eluded me and I was amazed the day a friend showed me how to send a message from one computer to the next in the same room. Apart from this I rarely interacted with technology for learning benefits and it was not until I started teaching Physics in 1996 that technology started playing a key role in both my teaching and my learning.

Over the past 14 years I have seen the use of technology grow steadily within the classroom. Woodchurch High School in Birkenhead, Merseyside, England was my first teaching position. Each classroom had one PC that if we were lucky if sometimes it connected to the Internet. For the most this PC was used to show Doring Kindersley CDROM’s and to print out labels for posters. The reason for this lack of use of the PC was because nobody really knew how to use the things and the teaching staff at the school had never been taught how to use them properly. Sure we knew how to use Microsoft Word and some of us Microsoft Excel but none of us had been shown the power of the PC as a learning tool. I started working at the Colegio Anglo Colombiano, Bogota in 2001. This was my first International Baccalaureate School (IB) and this was also the first school I worked in that attempted to introduce a wireless internet connection and a learner management system called Edline. Both of these had relatively little success for several reasons. Connectivity was very unreliable, very few of us (teachers and students) had access to a computer and very few of us (teachers and students) knew what we were doing. It was also at this time I was introduced to vernier data loggers. These are electronic sensors that connect to a Texas GDC and can be used to collect data from scientific experiments. Again my first introduction to this technology did not go very well and although we had tutorials on using the devices, the calibration and setup procedure that was needed in order to use them required a degree in IT and took most of the class time before we used them. They also required additional PC software and with only one portable PC in the Science department this made them very ineffective.

My technophobia was broken by two people:

The first person is my wife whom I was very fortunate to meet whilst teaching at the Colegio Anglo Colombiano in Bogota. Ingrid is a fantastic Biology teacher and she was my driving force in helping me to understand how to use technology effectively in Science teaching with a particular aim to data collection and processing which is an internal assessment requirement for the experimental sciences in IB. We both currently work at the Diocesan Boys’ School here in Hong Kong and we have managed to implement the use of technology in scientific research effectively by using various software packages as well as using the newer plug and play data loggers by PASCO. We have also been using various platforms such as moodle and managebac to enhance online learning. Not only is Ingrid my partner and best friend but she is also an amazing work colleague whom I owe much of my current understanding and success in technology to.

The second person is a fellow Physics teacher called Chris Hamper who works at the Red Cross united world college in Norway. He is an experienced workshop leader for the (IBO) and is the author of Higher Level Physics (Heinemann) and co-author of Standard Level Physics (Heinemann) both books which have been published for the IB Physics syllabus. Chris is also an active believer in sharing his expertise and knowledge with the world. On his third generation website Chris Hamper (2010) states

As teachers we put a lot of effort into developing resources for our own students, it's a simple thing to share them with the world. Physics teachers are a rare breed often working alone, it's always useful to see what others are doing even if it’s not the way you'd do it yourself and it is in that spirit that I have put together this website.

I have personally used and applied a lot of Chris’ ideas from his website into my lessons and I was also very fortunate to meet the man in person last February at and IB endorsed In-thinking workshop for Physics teachers. I have also frequently emailed Chris for further ideas and he was instrumental in assisting my wife and I when we were selecting data loggers for our current school.

In the modern classroom it is obvious that the modern student in technologically savvy. As a Physics teacher my job is made a lot easier in my current school where students are fortunate to own their own laptops, wireless is reliable and students are not startled by using and manipulating new software in the classroom or laboratory. On a number of occasions they show me how to use our new toys. However I am pleased that as a teacher I can provide them with some guidance in the use of technology for learning and one of the reasons for taking the MSc(ITE) is to further my understanding and to make my teaching much more effective.

Bibliography

Brown, J.S & Adler,R.P (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0 Educause Review, 43, 1, (January/February 2008). Retrieved 9th September, 2010 from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420

Hamper, C. (2010). In thinking subject sites. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from In thinking: http://www.physics-inthinking.co.uk/