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.

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

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.