These articles seemed to get more and more practical/applicational. I enjoyed this one (perhaps because it mentioned Eco-Beaker, which I have seen demonstrated and looked into using!).
Jonassen et al are using this paper to convince us that technology supported models constructed by students can affect conceptual change (=learning)(p16). As we've discussed last week, ASSESSMENT still seems to be a tough piece of this puzzle. This article says that rubrics can be used to compare models built over time to gauge conceptual change. However, the sample rubric (~p16) is quite vague (the sign of a poor rubric, in my mind). It would still require lots of trained, human input; and results may not be consistent between instructors.
One statement that resonated with me (p19) was, "We argue that the task that most naturally engages and supports the construction and reorganization of mental models is the use of a variety of tools for constructing physical, visual, logical, or computational models of phenomena. Building representational and interpretive models using technologies provides learners the opportunities to externalize, restructure, and test their conceptual models." They cite (Frederiksen & White, 1998; Mellar, et al., 1994; White, 1993) to say that "interacting with model-based environments does result in development and change of mental models." Hard to argue with that!
Another part I was excited about (because I'm constantly trying to find ways that I could make "high memorizing" courses like intro science [new terminology] or Human Anatomy include more active learning) was on p24. Here they say that "by modeling domain knowledge, students must understand conceptual relationships among the entities within the domain in order to construct the model." So, they're memorizing by building relationships (even as simply as on a concept map).
I feel like I didn't get enough info about the "ontology shifting" (p31); so should probably look into the paper they cite. I was happy to see them list the limitations to modeling in this paper (though they seemed to have an answer for each). An enjoyable paper!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I am glad that you enjoyed this article.
I am trying to select the articles that you will have an overview of the theoretical background but also see the application and research studies/issues that could guide your own studies if desired. For application and research I am selecting more on science education since it is one for it is a common interest. If there are other domains of interest let me know.
I liked that you caught "conceptual change (=learning)". Some people treat it as if it is a new thing. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It is certainly not new as mentioned by Jonassen, but somewhere along the line, we seemed to have left behind the emphasis on conceptual change to a view that emphasizes skill or domain-knowledge acquisition (as can be measured by standardized tests). Model-Facilitated Learning, in a way, brings back, the learning as conceptual change view. What do you all think? This is especially important in science education, where, there is strong evidence that student misconceptions in science largely inhibit their learning in science classes (just google student misconception science- long years of research just on this topic- which I had also studied years ago- will share stories in the class.
Mark: I feel like I didn't get enough info about the "ontology shifting" (p31); so should probably look into the paper they cite.
Ontology change relates to changes in philosophical perspective that underlines the learning theory foundation. Please check out my comments to Nelson's posting to Spector's PBL article. I tried to briefly explain how constructivism affects (and changes the definition of learning) related learning theories. I would argue that Model-Facilitated learning borrows more from constructionism than constructivism though
Post a Comment