Sharing #1: A guided-inquiry project on the Water Filtration System
Joshua & Mr Tang
Signed up for this session to get an idea of what the Sec 1 students are learning for the topic of water in Science (since there is also a topic on water in the new Sec 1 Geography syllabus), and possibly help students draw meaningful links between the 2 subjects.
A new 'framework' that I learnt about from this sharing: Design Inquiry of Learning
*which I have since realised, upon further research, is a model that guides teachers' curriculum design, where teachers follow a cycle of:
Defining the project
Investigating the context in which it is situated and identifying appropriate techno-pedagogical theories
Reviewing relevant cases
Conceptualising a solution
Implementing a prototype of that solution
Evaluating it
Reflecting on the process
Reflections/what I gleaned from this sharing:
Possibility of coordinating with the Science department when teaching this topic:
Students can first learn about the 'humanities' side of the topic of water, i.e. processes of the hydrological cycle, concepts of water budget, surplus and deficit. After they have learnt that present day challenges can threaten the amount of water available for usage, they can then better appreciate the 'science' aspect of the topic, i.e. using certain techniques (e.g. filtration) to ensure a sustainable source of potable water.
This way, we are also providing opportunities for students to experience the ‘aha’ moments when relating concepts to their prior knowledge from another subject.
OH thouugh we probably shouldn't venture into water GI because there seem to be significant overlap with what the Sec 1s will learn and do in the Science curriculum.
Reminder of an important element of a good GI:
(This might be a personal belief) A good/authentic GI should involve a real-life phenomena or problem for students to explore or find solutions to.
For instance, in the case of a Water GI, it would only be meaningful for students to measure water quality if there is past data available for students to be able to eventually discern e.g. temporal patterns (changes in water quality at a sample site over time).
A one-off water quality test just for the sake of going through the motion of data collection would not be helpful in helping students see the relevance of the different stages of GI, and how this frame can be applied to investigate other issues in the real-world context. (What I mean: students may not see clear links between GI Stage 2 and 3&4 if they are unable to make sense of the data they have collected in order to draw conclusions for their investigation - i.e. So what if the water I tested has a DO value of 7mg/l? Is this an improvement/deterioration in water quality? THIS VALUE ALONE MEANS NOTHING TO ME)
*I personally see more value in investigating temporal rather than spatial trends of water quality given the scale at which we are investigating these patterns - water quality of a pond/lake (feasible but not ideal) VS a bigger body of water (ideal but less feasible).
*Makes more sense to me to look into temporal patterns (e.g., changes in water quality at a sample site over time) instead of spatial patterns (e.g., changes in water quality across a transect of the river), because I am fairly certain that there would not be much (if any) spatial variations in terms of water quality in a pond/lake, AND WHEN STUDENTS STRUGGLE TO MAKE SENSE OF DATA THEY MAY FEEL THAT GI A WASTE OF TIME
*Though I do acknowledge that is important for students to realise that theory does not always match reality, and that this 'failure' - there not being spatial variation in water quality in a small body of water - can be an opportunity for students to appreciate the geographical concept of scale, maybe we can look into that in future GIs, not their first.
(Somehow this became a full on incoherent ramble on GI HAHAHA whoops)
Sharing #2: Joy of Learning in English Literature: Empowering Students Through Multimodal Alternative Assessment Tasks
Atikah & Wenting
Reminders of the essence of e-Pedagogy:
e-Pedagogy is pedagogy first and then enhanced by technology. KATs are a way to help us to consider the suitability of the choice of technology.
The Learning Experience is a pedagogy, with learning activities that are meaningfully planned for progressive attainment of content and skills.
Constructive alignment is alignment of LOs with Activities and Assessment based on the idea of constructivism, where students learn by doing. Active Learning is the process where constructivism is actualised.
The best way to see if students have learned is through the learning artefacts. This can be in the form of product or process (S-C, S-S, T-S).
Notes:
Good reminder that every student is unique - in terms of how they learn, and how they best show what they know, and the importance of student autonomy in cultivating self-aware and self-directed learners
Good reminder that it is important not to assume that every student is tech-savvy or equally comfortable on-screen
Thoughts/questions I have after listening to this sharing:
I see value in giving students the autonomy to decide the 'format' of their end-product (i.e. whether they will speak directly to the camera in the vlog OR only film the writing of the diary entry), though I wonder how the standardisation process for this WA was like (Were the rubrics for vlogs of different formats the same? Would it have been a fair comparison?)
Would it be useful to encourage student-student interaction in the process? (e.g. getting students to provide feedback/suggestions for their peers through the use of technology)
Comments