Circuit City: Classroom - Using Urban Planning Techniques and Movement of Traffic to Teach Electric Theory
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Circuit City: Classroom Using Urban Planning Techniques and Movement of Traffic to Teach Electric Theory Ed 342 – Child Development and New Technologies March 21, 2004 Eric Bailey Tamecia Jones Jennifer Steinman
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction................................................................................... 3 2 Design Objectives and Significance ............................................. 3 3 User Scenario............................................................................... 4 4 Design Rationale .......................................................................... 7 4.1 Learning Theory ..................................................................... 7 4.1.1 Theory of Conceptual Change ......................................... 7 4.1.2 Analogy as a tool for teaching.......................................... 9 4.1.3 Mental Models................................................................ 12 4.1.4 Socio-Cultural Activity and Transformative Experience. 14 5 Design Process .......................................................................... 16 5.1 Immersion in the Problem .................................................... 16 5.2 User Scenario ...................................................................... 18 5.3 Prototyping ........................................................................... 18 5.4 Next Steps............................................................................ 19 6 Potential Impact.......................................................................... 20 7 Annotated Bibliography .............................................................. 21
1 Introduction The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of Circuit City Classroom, an interactive curriculum and supporting physical model that supports elementary student learning with regard to abstract electricity concepts. Within this document, in addition to explaining the curriculum using a specific user scenario, we will address the theoretical rationale for the design of Circuit City Classroom as well as the design process the team undertook to develop the prototype for the model. 2 Design Objectives and Significance Description Circuit City Classroom is an interactive three-dimensional model, and series of collaborative activities for the instruction of electricity theory. The model is a miniature representation of an urban setting with city streets, houses, a factory, automobiles, bridges, and other metropolitan objects. Its configuration is flexible; panels are interchangeable as well as expandable. Components may be added or subtracted and rearranged. Our model is designed to give sensory feedback, providing various responses to various inputs. The primary platform is wired so that the various elements, pathways, bridges, cars, and traffic controls transmit, receive and respond to electrical current. These elements represent the various characteristics of electric circuits including: electrical flow, open circuits, closed circuits, series, and parallel circuits. The Circuit City Classroom curriculum is a series of problem-based activities revolving around use of the model. The activities present urban planning problems as a context for constructive exercises in experimentation, design, testing and redesign. Problem scenarios are introduced to learners through the model. Learners are expected to work in groups hypothesizing possible solutions to the problem, designing their solution into the model, testing their solution, understanding the outcomes and feedback and making the necessary changes to correct for anomalies in their hypothesis. These analogical activities are a practical study of the nature of electrical circuits. Ultimately, parallels must be drawn between the occurrences and phenomena in Circuit City and those within the world. Design Goal The goal of the project is to teach electric theory. Our design revolves around the identification of existing conceptions of electricity, correction and then change, or adoption of those conceptions. The fundamental principle of our design is the use of physical models and visualizations in bridging the gap between learners’ understanding of the physical world and their understanding/misconceptions of the abstract concepts of electricity.. Collaboration is integral to this end such that
it provides for socially distributed knowledge and a shared development of new ideas. An ultimate goal is to change learners’ understanding of electrical phenomena and the properties that govern the workings of their every day worlds. Target Population It is designed for use in upper elementary classrooms as an object that facilitates conversation around problem-solving. It can be expanded into higher order models for middle and high school students, by covering higher-order relationships and performing mathematical proof by attaching numerical values to various components of the model. Our target skill goal is to focus on explanation and to the beginning of conceptualizing so that mathematical proof will be a smooth transition. Significance It is an important product to be made available to children because electric theory proposes a challenge in teaching. Its abstractions are not easily demonstrated through physical action. In addition, the abstract representations currently used are not accessible to young learners. They do not provide enough understanding to prepare learners for understanding real-world situations. We have identified unique opportunities to represent electricity theory and explain electrical phenomena through problem-scenarios. These scenarios turn abstraction into physicality and, in turn, misconception into understanding. 3 User Scenario In July, Martha Saraniti decided to begin preparing for 5th grade science class a bit early this year. After teaching Science for 5 years, Martha had noticed that her students always seemed to have difficulty during her unit on Electricity. It was apparent that her students often had misconceptions of how electricity and electric circuits work. She had also noticed that when she used diagrams to better describe the structural and functional properties of circuits, her students were still confused and could not apply any of their learning during circuit-building workshop. During the workshop, her students always followed the series of instructions until they had built a functioning solution. However, they never seemed to innovate or create solutions to the problem on their own. Martha’s students didn’t seem to understand how the concepts she was presenting to them applied to real life situations. While doing some research, Martha returned to a favorite resource, the San Jose Tech Museum website, for ideas. It was there that she found recent literature on theories of conceptual change in science education as well as curricula and physical models for use in the classroom. Martha downloaded the Tech’s Electricity Unit and sent away for the urban planning “Circuit City: Classroom” model.
In December, Martha’s class had reached the unit on electricity. She addresses
the class: “Okay kids, for the next week we’re going to talk about electricity.
We’re going to talk about the different kinds of circuits and how they work. We’re
going to look at how cities, cars and traffic have some of the same
characteristics.” Pulling out the Circuit City model, “…and we’re going to have
fun!” “WOW!” Martha’s class gives instantly jubilant feedback.
After several days of working with Circuit City: Classroom, the students have
gained an understanding of how cars and traffic are used to represent electricity
flow and understand how open and closed circuits work like open roads and
blocked roads. Now the class is moving on to a difficult concept in electricity:
series and parallel circuits.
Figure 1 – Circuit City Model Diagram
As Martha pieces together the model and explains that in Circuit City, everyone
works in the Factory during the day. She picks five children for the exercise:
Alice, Bea,
Cassandra, Daniel,
and Eric. Each lives
in a house along the
main road. She
explains that the
main road is a one-
way route that loops
around the
neighborhood and
back to the Factory,
and that at the end
of each day, each
child drives home,
one-by-one (A, B, C,
D, E) to their
respective homes. She presses the “Run” button on Circuit City’s Factory, and,
true to her prediction, the cars file one-by-one to their respective homes. Each
arrives after the other.
Then Martha poses a problem to the class: “Suppose Alice wants to build an
extension onto her house? Because she is in the first house, construction is now
blocking the only path around town. Eric, if you wanted people to get home, how
would you redesign the roadway?”
Figure 2 – Circuit City in the midst of problem solving developmentEric thinks intently and begins adding pieces to the model. He adds a long strip
to the roadway accessing his particular house and then looks at Martha. “Good
job. Why did you choose that design, Eric? “Because the flow of traffic has to
avoid the
construction, so I put
it there.” “Okay then,
can Daniel get home
now?” “I think so”,
replies Eric. “Try it
and see”, says
Martha. Eric presses
Run. All of the cars
drive out and line up
at Eric’s house.
“What? How did
THAT happen?”
questions Eric.
Cassandra adds to
the discussion, “Daniel can’t get home like that. Neither can we.” Martha inquires,
“What would your design look like, Cassandra?” “I would add a street here for
Daniel, one here for me, and one here for Bea to get home.” “What about Alice?”,
asks Daniel. Bea asserts, “Alice can go this way”. Martha challenges her, “Bea
why don’t you try it and see if traffic gets to Alice’s house. We can also see if
everyone else was right about getting home.”
Figure 3 – Circuit City Model in phase two of solution development
Bea presses Run. Each car leaves the Factory in order (A, B, C, D, E). Alice’s
car stops dead before it reaches her house. The other cars follow the paths
constructed by the children and reach their respective homes. Martha prompts
the children, “Did you notice that Cassandra, Daniel and Eric’s cars all arrived
home at the same
time? Why do you
think that is?”
“Because they could
take their own paths
home”, explains
Bea. “Good, Bea!
Now why do you
think Alice DIDN’T
get home after all?”
“Because it’s a one
way street; I forgot
that. She can’t drive
that way to get
home. I guess shecan never get home until construction is over.” “Very good”, encourages Martha. Martha explains further, “If this were a circuit, the Factory would be our power supply, your houses could be lights, and the cars would be the flow of electrons through the circuit. The first design we saw was called a Series circuit. Electrons would flow to each light in order, or in a sequence. In that design, if the flow of electrons is broken, no lights can receive electrons.” Eric asks, “Why would you want it that way, then?”. Martha explains, “Because you might want the lights to light up in order, so you would need that kind of design. The second design, the one YOU guy’s made, allows you to turn off one light but keep the others lit. Your design is called a Parallel circuit. Just like on Christmas lights, if you had one bad bulb, you wouldn’t want all of the others to go out.” Martha’s students seemed to understand much more this time around. For workshop later in the week, Martha designed activities in which her students could experiment in groups, trying out their own designs towards solving a particular problem. They made few mistakes, but when they did, they referred back to the Circuit City activity for insight into how to make corrections. Martha was thrilled. She resolved to use Circuit City to teach her Electricity unit every year. 4 Design Rationale There are multiple learning theories that guide the design of the product. The integration of these theories helped us to form the design principles that guided the developmental affordances of the product. Our goal is to use analogies and metaphors to change (conceptually) the mental models of learners. We do not purport that we have a perfect analogy, but it can be successful in providing visuals and sensorimotor experiences in different ways from connecting and combining circuit elements. We also address the social contexts of learning as suggested by “Driver et al. (1994) and Cobb and Heinrich (1995) that science learning involves both individual and social processes”, (Clement & Steinberg, 2002, p. 442). 4.1 Learning Theory 4.1.1 Theory of Conceptual Change Conceptual change is a science education theory out of the constructivist foundation. It uses the preexisting framework of the learner’s understanding to create conflict between the learner’s perception and actual phenomenon in order to inspire motivation to change their understanding. “Conditions for conceptual change to occur, according to Posner et al. (1982): 1. Dissatisfaction with existing conceptions
2. A new (alternative) conception must be intelligible
3. A new (alternative) conception must be appear initially feasible
4. A new (alternative) concept should suggest the possibility of fruitful
research (testing) program.”, Suping, (2003).
Circuit City: Classroom is designed so that students and teachers may model
their understanding to see if it is correct, but depending on the configuration of
the roads and pathways, all movement will not imitate that of cars on highways.
For instance, if programmed to “flow” counterclockwise, the cars will not be able
to go in Reverse such as cars in reality. In our user scenario, the teacher has
previously explained that the cars must go one way because current flows one
way and they do not have the reverse function. If the cars go one way, this
provides a discrepant event opportunity when one of the houses will never be
reached because of the counterclockwise constraint. It can be explained to
students that traffic may go the other direction, and that would mean that current
could go the other direction if there was an element or some type of ‘detour,’ but
individual cars may not go in the opposite direction of the rest of traffic safely.
After the discrepant event is demonstrated, the teacher and students as
individuals or groups may create an alternative, discuss its feasibility, and then
test it with the model by building it, and pressing, “Run.” Additionally, students
are asked to predict what will happen and participate in active problem solving.
The process of participating in making predictions is important to conceptual
change, (Watson, 1990).
The model is robust enough to demonstrate erroneous misconceptions and
provide observational data for motivation of change, yet it does not appear faulty
as if it is broken or something is configured incorrectly. It is built so that light
sensors provide feedback that distinguishes between a misconception being
tested and an unviable circuit configuration. It serves as a shared reference
point to facilitate precise conversations with the teacher and other classmates.
• Model provides visualization support and feedback through color coding,
arrows, and sensors.
• We choose to allow learners to apply magnet arrows to identify what paths
they believe current will flow, and then the model has light sensors
embedded or placed along all pathways so that when the students press
“Run,” they can see if the lit sensors match the arrows. Then students
may change configurations and arrows and test the model again.
• Students may also embed buzzers into certain contact points to detect
open and closed parts of the circuit.• Colored arrows and lights may distinguish different pathways or individual
group member’s models so that qualitative observations can be made by
the instructor, students, and the group.
• Higher order models may include compasses underneath wires to show
direction and flow.
• Higher orders models may also include ammeters and voltmeters to
measure current and voltage.
4.1.2 Analogy as a tool for teaching
Analogies in science involve the use of one situation as a framework for
constructing a causal model of another (Oppenheimer, 1965). We choose to use
the analogy of urban planning as the problem-solving source and a city setting
because children are familiar with cities either through living location or through
toys that provide imaginative forums. In order for this product to be a successful
tool, learners must be able to understand the metaphor and have appropriate
analogical thinking skills that they may apply to problem-solving. Some research
suggests that analogy is the basis for metaphor or metaphor shares processing
with analogical thinking, so in this section we will discuss analogy, metaphor,
analogical thinking, and the developmental literature around analogical thinking.
Analogy links internal models through cognitive isomorphism, (Sietz, 2000f).
Analogy and metaphor are based on three kinds of constraints: (a) similarity of
elements, (b) structural parallels between the source and target domain including
one-to-one correspondence, and (c) the purpose or context in which the analogy
or metaphor operates (Holyoak & Thagard, 1995).
Highlight structural parallels between the source and target domains.
Cars are one common analogy for teaching electricity. (Gibbons, 2003) We built
upon this analogy in Circuit City: Classroom. We used concepts of traffic and
cars using the following structural parallels to electric circuits:
(Source) Traffic (Target) Electric Structural relationship parallel
Roads Wires Serve as channel for travel
Cars Electron Particles Object that move through the
system
Switches Drawbridges Elements that open or close
loop of traffic/electricity
Houses/street lights Resistors/Bulbs/Motors Elements for delivering power or
changing output
Gas Station Battery Provides energy for movement
Table 1. Structured Parallel between the Two Domains“Developmentally, the process of analogy creation involves linking two domains through three central features of resemblance: attribute mapping, relational mapping, and system mapping. Mapping of attributes of pairs of objects begins around 18 months of age. Mapping of relationships among things begins at around 36 months such that by 48 months young children can note the distinctions in a simple proportional analogy (e.g., flower : plant : : dog : animal). By 60 months, young children are capable of abstract mappings of higher-order relations by way of a one-to-one correspondence across people, objects, and events." (Holyoak & Thagard, 1995).” Seitz, (2000f). The main processes of analogical transfer are problem representation, search/retrieval, mapping, and problem representation. Children as young as two years can combine two separately learned solutions in a novel way to obtain a goal—under certain circumstances, and transfer is efficient in children in this age range, (Crisafi and Brown, 1986). Mapping processes seem to underlie both social modeling and “make-believe” play, which are clearly exhibited by three year olds, (Garvey, 1977). Experiments show that children as young as four years old can solve a problem by analogy to a superficially dissimilar problem and that a high degree of perceptual and functional similarity of the corresponding instruments is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for success, even thought it will probably be helpful, (Holyoak, Junn, Billman, 1984, p. 2052). Since our target population is for fifth graders, we assume no cognitive load challenge in the ability to transfer based on some features of the analogy. How do children do this? There are differences in the use of analogy by novices and experts. Often the features in [the] solvers’ representations of the target problem are used as retrieval cues for a related problem in memory. For novices, this implies almost exclusive reliance on salient surface features of the target. Experts, however, will be able to use both surface and structural features as retrieval cues, (Novick, 1988, p.511). Constrain relations to provide guided mapping. The tendency of young, novice learners to map literal surface features, nonsystem relations, or alternative relational systems rather than relations or relational systems rather may conflict with the analogy’s instructional purpose and could serve as a roadblock to comprehensive understanding. The pervasive tendency to focus on irrelevant surface features and relations is congruent with the present findings; children do include object attributes and nonsystem relations in the mapping process, (Zook & DiVesta, 1991, p. 251). Sometimes, in analogies, the attributes of objects are similar, and literal similarity is achieved, but this is not always the case. Young learners will require, through specific instruction, not only an accurate representation of base and target domain relations but also constraints to be placed on the mapping process, (Zook & DiVesta, 1991, p. 246).
For this reason, it was important to build Circuit City Classroom such that the
analogical constraints are clearly explained through the tightly integrated
curriculum that highlights where analogical mapping is appropriate or
inappropriate to ensure students transfer the analogy correctly. For example, it is
very important to make sure students understand that the use of one-way traffic
flow is meant to be an analogy to electric current since they will likely want to
solve problems through the use of two-way traffic.
Structure Mapping Theory of Analogical Thinking
The structure mapping theory asserts that identical operations and relationships
hold among non-identical things, (Gentner & Gentner, 1983, p. 2). It describes
the use of analogy to teach, and outlines the parameters for effective teaching.
The base domain of an analogy is the known domain and the target domain is
the domain of inquiry. The theory breaks analogies down into attributes or
surface features and relations, and provides the conditions for successful
transfer. These two conditions are:
1. Preservations of relations – relational predicates, and not object attributes,
carry over into analogical mappings
2. Systematicity – predicates are more likely to be imported into the target
into the target if they belong to a system of coherent, mutually constraining
relationships, the others of which map into the target.
There are educational implications for using analogies with young learners.
These two implications are:
1. The instructional purpose of an analogy needs to be explicated and
understood by the learners.
2. Prior base-domain knowledge of learners should be evaluated to
determine potential sources of misrepresentation, (Zook & DiVesta, 1991,
p. 251).
In order to address these issues, we embed the model in a classroom and
provide a curriculum so that the students will be aware of the purposes of the
analogy, and the discussion around the model will allow the teacher to identify
prior base-domain knowledge of the students. The conceptual change approach
to the teaching meshes with the implications from the structure-mapping theory in
that both use pre-existing knowledge to determine misrepresentation possibilities
or set the stage for a motivational discrepant event to occur.
The curriculum will outline all one-to-one relationships and highlight those
relationships or surface features that should not be mapped by the learners
through systematicity. Systematicity aims to capture the intuition that
explanatory analogies are about systems of interconnected relations, (Gentner &
Gentner, 1983, p. 105) through placing constraints on the mappable relations
and specifying the rules for relationships. In our user example, the relation of
cars traveling across roadways is a structural feature that we want to map, butwe do not want the superficial reverse feature of cars to map with the analogy because at the level, none of the elements in our desired circuit have reverse characteristics. 4.1.3 Mental Models Our model is designed to tap into learner’s pre-existing models in order to facilitate conceptual change by teaching with analogy. Mental models link an internal representation to the external world. (Sietz, 2000f) A broad definition for the term model is a simplified, general, and usually idealized representation that can predict or account for a system’s behavior, (Clement & Steinberg, 2002). The model supports development, and evaluation of explanatory models. This is a special kind of model that is explanatory in the sense that it represents hidden, unobserved mechanisms that can be used to explain observable properties of circuits. It involves thinking about the system in terms of hidden material elements that are thought to be working as causal or functional agents within the system, (Clement & Steinberg, 2002). Provide a way to represent externally model elements that are invisible in the actual circuits (Clement & Steinberg, 2002, p. 431). In order to make visual the hidden elements in the circuit such as electrons, we use cars to represent movement of electrons in current through a circuit, just as cars travel across highways and roads. We represent resistance with curves, rocks, or changes in terrain. We represent opening and closing of switches with working drawbridges. We represent capacitance, charging and discharging of a capacitor, (in higher order models) with metering lights on roads, tolls, and ramps. The cars, road panels and transportation elements are interchangeable, so students can correct mental simulations by evaluating and modifying them or “image” them, (Clement & Steinberg, 2002). Imaging is accessing and conducting mental simulations with images. If students are able to do mental simulations, then it is possible that they might be able to use simulations to investigate or discover relationships between certain elements in the model and in circuits. Students then can create models that have modest or intermediate generality, in that they can be applied to a broader number of situations than just observations particular situations. The cycle of development we want to frame is the GEM model of generation, evaluation, and modification. Models are generated, evaluated, and depending upon the problems observed, modified or regenerated. If observations from the evaluation reveal major problems, the model is regenerated. If observations from the evaluation reveal minor problems, the model is modified.
Model
Generation
Major problems
Evaluation
Minor problems
Modification
Figure 4. GEM Model, Clement & Steinberg, 2002.
The interaction of models and analogy in conceptual change can be observed in
the diagram below. The GEM model The analog schema serves as a source of
elements for constructing or modifying the developing model, (Clement &
Steinberg, 2002). “Transfer of runnability” is the transfer of schema elements that
generate imagery from the conception to the model.
Analogy
Model A Model B
Observation
Figure 5. Interaction between analogy and model evolution
The learner starts with an original explanatory model and makes an observation
of an evaluation. Analogy adds to the following model and it is explained by
events in the preceding observation.4.1.4 Socio-Cultural Activity and Transformative Experience. These perspectives focus on person-world relationships with respect to learning. In particular, they examine the implications of social activities, and prior and current experiences on conceptual change, as well as the implications of conceptual change in reverse. These perspectives on learning look beyond the specific cognitive conditions required for, and processes involved in conceptual change and put it within the context of human experience. They attempt to understand the consequences of conceptual change- the extent to which conceptual change makes a difference in that human experience. 4.1.4.1 Socio-Cultural Activity Vygotskian theory posits participation in cultural activity as the impetus for learning. Learning occurs through an interface with word meanings- it is here that symbolic languages and personal thought intersect. It is believed that this interface occurs during the active participation in culturally-determined tasks, and that it leads to higher-order understanding. Pugh (2001) proposes an examination of how socio-cultural activities are effected by the processes of conceptual change, in other words, how the transformation of mental models- through identification, modeling, correction, and coaching will facilitate a learner’s ability to function successfully in life. In turn, he suggests investigating how this process of conceptual change can be mediated by socio-cultural activities. These notions are of particular interest to us as they take into account the role of active engagement in developing new concepts. In our case, the transformation of learners’ conceptions of electrity can be mediated first, through activities that are constructed around their initial understandings. These activities must then entail opportunities for controlled failure- an experience disproving their current notions. Lastly, these activities mus be designed in such a way that a moderator can solve these anomalies, and co-construct a new understanding with learners. We believe problem-based activities would provide a context for these events to occur. Through problem-solving exercises, learners hypothesize, experiment, discover and re-discover- constructing higher-order understandings of the properties of electricity. According to Pugh, Vygotskian theories also take into account the social nature of learning. They posit learning as an inherently social endeavor, one not only internal and individual, but one external and shared by a culture. Accordingly, learning cannot occur in a vacuum, but through the meaningful exchange of ideas between groups of people. This consideration is paramount in the design of the aforementioned learning activities. Activities must take into account the social setting of learning, and social interaction amongst learners. They must also represent the shared experiences, values, understandings and beliefs of a culture. The design of collaborative activities embody the former principles such that they support an environment in which, as a group, learners co-construct
understandings and acquire new, shared understandings. Problem-based
activities that are embedded in a community context embody the latter of these
notions such that they entail familiar cultural scenarios, familiar cultural problems,
and situations derived from everyday life.
4.1.4.2 Transformative Experience
Pugh also discusses Dewey’s theoretical views in relation to conceptual change.
He explains the Deweyan notion of transformative experience- depicting learning
as part of life events, events that elicit a transformation of understanding in the
learner. This occurs through an expansion of perception and an expansion of
meaning and subsequently shapes a new perspective on the way the world
works. Pugh elaborates on this idea, explaining Dewy’s notions of conceptual
change as the following:
1) “…An expansion of perception whereby an idea transforms the way an
individual perceives objects, events, and/or issues in the world…”
2) “…An expansion of meaning whereby the individual attaches new value
to those aspects of the world more fully perceived and to the
experiences opened up by the expansion of perception.
This culminates into a significantly altered person-world relationship. This
perspective illuminates the fundamental importance of the acquisition of an
understanding of electricity. It defines the implications of how new
understandings of electrical phenomena can change the way learners both look
at, and see the world. Again, these considerations are critical in the design of
learning activities. Conceptual change activities should not only consider the prior
understandings of learners, but should take into account the prior experiences of
learners. By considering the experiences that shaped a learner’s models, one
may better design experiences that can change them. To that end, culturally
contextual activities provide instrumental opportunities such that they use familiar
objects, settings, events and issues of the world. They occur in familiar contexts,
not abstract ones, and represent the learning landscape of every-day life.
Additionally, by perceiving learning activities as opportunities for transformation,
new design considerations arise. Activities must begin with properties of “the
world”. They must strive to expand meaning and instill new values, not only of
circuits, not only of electricity, not only of wires and bulbs, but of electrical
phenomena, of experiences in the world. Learning activities must expose the
similarities among world events, among different domains in order to illuminate
the fundamental, underlying principles of electricity.5 Design Process In arriving at our solution we followed a user-centered approach to design- pursuing the design of affordances through an in-depth understanding of learners, their environments, their particular learning needs. We looked to the principles proposed by Hanna et al. (1999) for guidelines for analyzing users, analyzing tasks (or in our case learning needs), and prototyping, testing and iteration. Additionally, we have chosen to use of middle-tech types of materials (Eisenburg, 1999) because they allow for a combination of the physical nature of hands-on experience with the high-tech nature of learning electricity concepts. 5.1 Immersion in the Problem Our process began with observations and analyses of the learners in their learning environments. Our team leader has had extensive experience with Science instruction in a variety of alternative learning environments and has gained an intimate familiarity with the challenges of electricity concepts. She has spent time facilitating and observing engineering summer camps as well as tutoring students in electrical engineering coursework. During work with the San Jose Technology and Science Museum, our leader facilitated a multitude of workshops including the Tech Challenge Engineering Workshop. During this workshop, learners built functioning electrical devices using electrical circuits, batteries and light bulbs. Portions of this exercise were video taped for the purposes of observational analysis. The footage entailed multiple camera views of student workstations, instructors and tabletops. This data provided clear representations of how instructors present electricity concepts, and how young learners apply these concepts in the process of building prototypes. As a group, we watched this video and did an analysis of its implications to our project. It provided insight into both the successes, and weaknesses of this particular type of instruction in addition to the capabilities and limitations of learners (skills, knowledge –ibid). After performing an analysis of these observations, our group divided up recent literature and shared the basic concepts as a group. We looked at various theoretical approaches to science instruction, in particular, applications of theories of conceptual change in instruction on electricity. Additionally, we learned about various design methodologies that have proven instrumental in developing effective conceptual change instruction. During an exploration of these theories we developed sketches of models of the various properties of electrical circuits (Figure 7). These models were either the most popularly used in science instruction or were reflections of misconceptions held by both adult and young learners. This analysis was of utmost importance in identifying the specific learning needs of our users.
Fig. 7
As a group we discussed and identified the particular learning problem at hand.
After determining the problem, we identified key learning objectives to be met by
our design. We developed a matrix (House of Quality) to organize our ideas. We
discussed the necessary design principles that an effective solution would have
to embody in order for each learning goal to be accomplished. From each design
principle we derived a set of design features. These features, or affordances
became the characteristic qualities that activities (curriculum) and a physical
model (prototype) would need to have. This process of analyzing and
determining learner needs, and synthesizing needs with functionality towards a
final solution was the most productive aspect of our endeavor. It enabled us to
brainstorm the many types of experiences that could be depicted by a user
scenario. It also enabled us to begin acquiring components for, and building a
working prototype.
Learning Design Principle Design Affordance Design Affordance
Theory (prototype) (activity)
Conceptual Visualization 3-dimensional Group activities
change Embed in Feedback (sensors, Model, coach,
community context lights) practice
Sensorimotor
Problem-based
learning
Structure Visualizations Interchangeable panels Problem from kid
Mapping Real world problem Templates experience
solving Familiar Objects (cars Problem-based
Visualizations ,bridges, etc.) complementary
lessons that mirror
using electricity
Mental Models Visualization Expandable
Table 2. House of Quality5.2 User Scenario In developing a user scenario, as a group, we talked about how activities would play out in the classroom. As determined from our House of Quality, learning activities should involve group collaboration, problem scenarios involving familiar problems, both electric and non-electric problems, and a mediator or coach. We also determined that an effective model would have to be three-dimensional, give clear positive/negative feedback, have interchangeable components, utilize familiar objects and be expandable. Given these hallmarks, we outlined a 3- scene story in which a teacher is introduced to the model and corresponding activities, undertakes the task of using them in the classroom, and successfully accomplishes her goals. Once this clear outline was established, we discussed the details of the story as a group, ironing out inconsistencies and filling in gaps. We were sure to determine where each feature of the design would be covered in the narrative. Ultimately, one team member was responsible for articulating the entirety of the story. We found the Bamberger article on Action Knowledge and Symbolic Knowledge (1999) to be of particular salience and relevance to our scenario. It articulated the special individuality of one learner (Leon) and his mental models. We felt this depiction spoke to the qualities of every learner as having built a unique understanding of the world and as a designer- actively constructing new understandings. We were inspired by this depiction and decided to use our class presentation as a platform for re-enacting the user scenario narrative for the class. We felt this would be the most compelling representation of our design, such that it would highlight the nature of individual understanding and individual purpose during the activity of learning. Given the uncertain outcomes of problem- based learning situations, however, we decided to informally test the concept on a user, presenting them with a problem and an opportunity to play and design with our prototype. The experiment rendered positive results, but gave clear suggestions for necessary augmentations to our presentation of the problem. One in particular, drove our decision to create a progressively complex problem and to determine a particular order in which the learners should build roads to solve that problem. 5.3 Prototyping In the development of our prototype, as a group we sketched multiple versions of the model’s primary components. With focused instruction on Parallel and Series circuits we narrowed down which circuit characteristics were most representative and began sketching detailed depictions of the prototype’s various components (Figure 8,9). We developed a final sketch of the specific elements of our prototype (Figure 10). From this we determined that we would need five cars, five houses, one factory one central track with complementary track sections, and one cow. We created a shopping list of components and one member purchased
the supplies. We met as a group to build the final prototype. Each member was in
charge of assembling a portion of the model and the final piece was transported
by a single member of our team.
Fig. 8 Fig. 9
Fig. 10
5.4 Next Steps
We were unable to complete our design process within the time allotted by our
class. In order to design an effective and fully operational prototype and
curriculum we would have to conduct more research and extend our efforts in the
development process. The next phase of our design process would entail testing
of this user scenario with an actual group of children learning electricity concepts.
The group would consist of 10-15 learners and would take place in a learning
environment familiar to our subjects. We would plan on testing various learningscenarios, and various learning activities. During this test we plan on collecting observational data on the processes of instruction, the dynamics of group work, the outcomes of the activities, as well as the use of the physical model. An analysis of this observational data would be to determine the degree to which learning occurred during our exercise. We would also hope to gain further insight into the effects of the environment on that learning. Lastly, our analysis would also attempt to illuminate an understanding of the successes and limitations of our physical prototype- to assess its usability. This process would inform any necessary revisions to our design. We would make those augmentations and test the effectiveness of our revised design. This phase will take place in the coming months and will be completed in May, 2004. 6 Potential Impact Circuit City Classroom can help elementary students develop an understanding of electricity concepts at a much earlier age than is currently common practice in most school settings. This builds an important foundation for scientific understanding later in middle and high school, when mathematical and scientific calculations will be applied to these concepts of electricity. The Circuit City Classroom curriculum and instructional product bridge the gap between abstract theory and creating a concrete, relevant mental model through the use of analogous thinking. Additionally, because the curriculum and artifact are inquiry and problem-based they encourage conceptual change and help ensure students truly understand the abstract concepts of electricity theory. This type of learning has the potential to impact student achievement and transfer of abstract electricity theory to later learnings in higher scientific concepts.
7 Annotated Bibliography (* indicates annotation) *Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The computer as mediator. High technology and low-income communities. pp. 235- 262. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. *Bruckman, Amy. 2000. Situated Support for Learning: Storm’s Weekend with Rachel. In Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 329-372. *Clement, J., Steinberg, M. (2002). Step-Wise Evolution of Mental Models of Electric Circuits: A “Learning-Aloud” Case Study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 11 (4). Pp 389-452. Crisafi, M. and Brown, A. 1986. Analogical Transfer in Very Young Children: Combining Two Separately Learned Solutions to Reach a Goal. Child Development. *Di Vesta, F., Zook, K. (1991). Instructional Analogies and Conceptual Misrepresentations. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 246- 252. *Einsenburg, Mike and Ann Nishioka Eisenburg. 1999. MiddleTech: Blurring the division between high tech and low tech in education. In Ad. Druin (Ed.) The Design of Children’s Technology. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers. *Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. (1983). Flowing Waters or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity. In D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 99-129. *Gibbons, Patrick, Ann McMahon and John Wiegers. “Hands-On Current Electricity: A Professional Development Course.” Journal of Elementary Science Education, Vol. 15, No. 2. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education and Human Services, Western Illinois University. Fall 2003. pg 1-11. *Goldman-Segall. 1999. Minding Machines. From Points of Viewing: A Digital Ethnographers Journey. Cambridge: MIT Press. *Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Savage, M. 2001. A Study of the Effect of Sensorimotor Experiences on the Retention and Application of Two Fundamental Physics Ideas. Journal of Elementary Science Education. Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 9-21.
*Hanna et al. (1999). The role of usability research in designing children’s computer products. In A. Druin (Ed).The design of Children’s Technology. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers. Holyoak, K. J., Junn, E. N., Billman, D. O. (1984). Development of analogical problem-solving skills. Child Development, 55, 2042-2055. *Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1996). A learner- centered tool for students building models. Communications of the ACM, 39(4). *Jonassen, David. Operationalizing Mental Models: Strategies for Assessing Mental Models to Support Meaningful Learning and Design-Supportive Learning Environments. Pennsylvania State University. Date Unknown. *Norman, D. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24-27. Novick, L. 1988. Analogical Transfer, Problem Similarity, and Expertise. Oppenheimer, J. R. Analogy in Science. American Psychologist, 1965, 11, 127- 135. Seitz, J. A. (200f) A Developmental Theory of Analogy and Metaphor. Aquired from: http://www.york.cuny.edu/~seitz/metaphoranal.htm *Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2). *Suping, S. (2003). Conceptual Change Among Students in Science. ERIC DIGEST *Watson, Bruce and Richard Kopnicek. “Teaching for Conceptual Change: Confronting Children’s Experience.” Phi Delta Kappan. May 1990. pp. 680-684. *Yim, Mark, Mark D. Chow and William L. Dunbar. 2000. Eat, Sleep, Robotics. In Druin, A., and Hendler, J. (Eds.), Robots for Kids: Exploring new technologies for learning. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Bamberger, J. (1999). Action knowledge and symbolic knowledge: The
computer as mediator. High technology and low- income communities. pp.
235-262. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Bamberger talks in terms of the study of, and design for children and about the
notions of active learning, building and the consideration of individual challenges.
She argues the importance of the following points:
1. Knowledge and learning are not equivalent. Knowledge is acquired
through structures such as experience, interpretation, construction,
questions, failures, successes, and values.
2. Education traditionally addresses children as passive learners, instead of
the builders of knowledge that they can be.
3. The world is changing and children build things in order to survive and
navigate that world.
4. Pre-packaged digital information may not be accessible to many children.
She was inspired by the phenomenon of children who were exceptionally gifted
builders, but were challenged in traditional learning environments. She
introduces the concept of the Symbolic world and the Active world in reference to
the different realities that children learn through. The active world entails sensory
experience within the event-context of every-day life. The symbolic world entails
descriptions of that sensory world, abstractions, ideas and models. Bamberger
tells the history of the endeavors of the Laboratory for making Things in the
Graham and parks Alternative School in Massachusetts. She explains her
particular study as a quest towards determining the differences between the
thinking utilized in hands-on design, and that used in more symbolic situations-
namely computer simulations. She also explains her attempts to identify common
structures, the means of bridging one towards the other. She identifies one
technique as the extraction of principles- from success in building activities. She
also defines transitional objects- ones that represent both sensory and
conceptual worlds as powerful mediating tools. In particular, the construction of
music through MusicLogo proved an effective tool in bridging understandings
between sensory experience and abstract math concepts. Bamberger illustrates
a very profound discovery during a depiction of one of her students. She
discusses the challenges that Leon faces in incorporating the abstract concepts
into useable information. She observes him using a unique methodology for
understanding the phenomenon of music. He experimented, performed actions,
tested their outcomes and adjusted his action in response. Bamberger explains
what he learned through this process as: “The symbols Leon typed became what
they stood for”.
This depiction of Leon was particularly compelling in light of our discussion of
activity and learning. We believed that the problem-based learning scenario is
the most effective method with which to communicate the abstractions of electric
circuits. We believed that this example of experimental discovery embodied theunique intersection of symbolic knowledge and action knowledge. We believe it spoke to our own transitional object (Circuit City). This depiction of Leon’s discovery through that object inspired us to present our project in the form of a scenario- a life-like user scenario richly embodying the spirit of prior knowledge, discovery and transformed thought.
Bruckman, Amy. 2000. Situated Support for Learning: Storm’s Weekend
with Rachel. In Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 329-372.
This article focuses on a concept called situated support. Basically, this
represents a shift in focus from the content of support to the context of that
support. The focus of the article is on the interaction between a 12 and 13 year
old girl while playing MOOSE Crossing, a text-based virtual reality constructionist
learning environment that lets the users build reading, creative writing and
programming skills.
A new girl, Storm, age 12, advances very quickly during her first weekend with
the help of a more avid user, Rachel, age 13. They are remote from each other
but all of their communications are captured through MOOSE Crossing. Rachel
introduces herself to Storm and offers help. Storm later accepts and the girls
form a friendship. Storm learns how to use MOOSE Crossing with a combination
of individual progress and support from Rachel. This combination of individual
progress and the social aspects of the game and obtaining support were critical
to Storm’s quick learning curve with the tool. In this case, the social and
intellectual activities were inseparable. The social opportunities provided
motivation to learn.
The article references differences in theory about the source of support. It
references Fable (1989), who argued that the power should be equalized as
much as possible and that instead of status and age a more natural authority of
knowledge and experience should emerge. The articles also references Rogoff
(1994), who had a different perspective and argued that there should be a
balance between adult-run and student-run models of learning. Johnson and
Johnson (1987) take an argument that is consistent with both of these; they
believe that peer tutoring can be a powerful technique that should be employed
more in our educational system.
Computer-supported collaborative learning systems, such as MOOSE Crossing,
assist in creating environments where peer learning is practical. The MOOSE
Crossing environment was highly social, open-ended and rewarding for creativity
and individuality.
This article makes the case that support for learning is more powerful when the
support contains the following features:
(1) from source with whom learner has positive personal relationship
(2) ubiquitously available
(3) richly connected to other sources of support
(4) richly connected to everyday activities
While our Circuit City Classroom curriculum and artifact are used in live
collaborative settings instead of virtual ones such as MOOSE Crossing, this
article supports our belief that, in both a classroom and museum setting, it isimportant to have peer collaboration in solving the problems with electrical currents.
Clement, J., Steinberg, M. (2002). Step-Wise Evolution of Mental Models of Electric Circuits: A “Learning-Aloud” Case Study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 11 (4). pp. 389-452. This article is a singular case study of a 16-year-old subject where the goal was to identify the steps in her mental model evolution, and how models affect conceptual change. The subject was tutored in electric circuits using analogies and experiments using physical electrical elements. The researchers recorded the tutoring sessions and analyzed transcripts, drawings, and gestures. The subject has positive contrasting pretest and posttest confidence and expression competencies, and showed improved content domain knowledge. The article provides a background in conceptual change, and then describes the GEM model of mental model conception. The GEM model includes generation, evaluation, and modification. It uses the learner’s pre-existing knowledge to create a model, then that model is tested and observations cause modification of the model. An instructor may influence the developing model with the use of analogy which may become integrated in the newer mental model. Since analogy, mental models, and conceptual change are interwoven to create the underlying framework for our design, the article articulated how the three coexist to facilitate conceptual change. It provided examples of discrepant events that we may be able to build into our Circuit City: Classroom model. It also gave a qualitative insight into evaluating how conversation and gestures can be superficial data sources for mental processes.
Di Vesta, F., Zook, K. (1991). Instructional Analogies and Conceptual Misrepresentations. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 246-252. This article describes the effectiveness of using instructional analogies for teaching, and investigates the vulnerabilities in using analogies to facilitate transfer in young learners. Specifically, the article discusses the issues around young/novice and adult/expert learners in successfully mapping from the base domain to the target domain, and how constraints will help the learner see the goal of the analogy. It is important to discriminate between relevant relations and superficial attributes of the object. There is often a difference in success rates of mapping of novice and expert learners, and research has identified sources of vulnerability in young learners. Young learners have difficulty separating the analogical structure and relations from superficial features of the comparison. The article discusses research to see if mapping decisions of young learners is influenced by increasing awareness of constraints placed on the analogy’s relational system. An experiment was conducted of 205 third-grade students to test constraint effects on three relational systems: mutual base relations, conflicting base relations, and mutual target relations. There was a control group for comparison. The groups were given written stories and pictures to map mutualism relationships between two sets of objects, ants and aphids and marps and zummers. Experimental findings show that target-domain knowledge is important in reducing erroneous target-domain inferences. Results also showed that knowledge of the analogy’s purpose is important, and prior base-domain knowledge should be collected and used to identify misrepresentation possibilities. This article guides us in the effective use of the analogy so that we might place more emphasis on expressing the relations in the analogy through visualization and sensorimotor features since some concepts are abstract and invisible by nature. It also helps us to make sure that our purpose is clear and that we can extract prior base-domain knowledge through situated discussion around the model and configuration of the model for evaluation and modification.
You can also read
