I have finely received my text book and was able to read this week’s assignment. Reflecting on the strategy on how the Generating and Testing Hypotheses relates to constructivist/constructionist learning theories. I personally don’t believe there is a relationship between the hypothesis and the theory. According to Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski “Technology can play a vital role in generating and testing hypotheses because new developments in probeware and interactive applets allow students to spend more time interpreting the data rather than gathering the data-a process that can be tedious and error prone” (p. 203). This hypothesis takes away from Dr. Orey’s dog and cat constructivist theory (Laureate Education, 2010) where learning is a step-by-step journey though it can be tedious and error prone. The hypothesis is bypassing the building and the construction of everyday education.
If the Generating and Testing Hypotheses does correlate with the instructional strategy and the constructivist/constructionist I did not see it in the multiple examples that were used excessively throughout the chapter.
10 Years of Blogging: Time for a Change and a Book
14 years ago
I can find a relationship when Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) state that students are “engaging in complex mental processes, applying content knowledge like facts and vocabulary, and enhancing their overall understanding of the content” when they are “generating and testing hypotheses” (p. 202). I believe that the strategy of “generating and testing hypothesis” correlates with the constructionist/constructivist learning theories. Dr. Orey (DVD) described constructionism as “learning through creating an artifact or something that can be shared with others” and constructivism as “each individual actively constructs his or her own meaning”. In “generating and testing hypothesis”, students are engaged in inquiry, problem solving or creating an artifact and constructing a decision or meaning for what they are investigating.
ReplyDeletePitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) suggest using technology programs like, “spreadsheet software, data collection tools and Web resources” (p.203) when “generating and testing hypothesis” to allow students more time for “interpreting the data” (p. 203). I believe that my students would be very motivated to use simulations or interactive programs for learning. Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, and Malenoski (2007) provide a list of such resources for integration in curriculum (p. 214-216). Using these types of programs can allow students to investigate “situations that would be impossible or financially unfeasible in real life” (p. 213). I found that Astroventure (http://astroventure.arc.nasa.gov/) is an additional resource that has programs for students to inquire, problem solve and create artifacts using technology. For instance, students can design a planet on Astroventure, but they need to understand aspects of the solar system to be successful. I did not fully understand how to use the NASA Solar System Simulator (http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/) but I did explore some of the other connections from this link. If you click on the heading at the top labeled Earth you can find an additional link to a kids’ page and other resources (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/kids/index.cfm).