|
After class, Nick, Chris and I briefly talked about our ideas for STRONG. In our class, we have often talked about learning being affected by motivational issues and cognitive issues. I believe an expectation failure or cognitive dissonance initiated through a discrepant event can influence learners' motivation. I shared my passion for identifying, using, and embedding student misconceptions as stories in STRONG scenarios because, like Schön's reflect→choose→act algorithm, I believed the stop → reflect → think → act algorithm fostered by STRONG will rekindle players' intentionality and inherent preference for goal-oriented actions while launching them into active inquiry learning. Nick mentioned that he found his physics classes interesting last semester because his Instructor made them reflect on some scenarios a week prior to class, write down these reflections, before discussing the topics and concepts in class, and used the clicker effectively to determine student misconceptions (sometime even putting everything planned aside and addressing student misconceptions). Gerhard, in our class too, I think does something similar by asking us to respond to the articles before class. The mutilated checker board, cat under wire, flight with and without wind, product = 36, and 2 gallon/5 quart/3 quart, or mirror problem's we thought were also intersting because the solutions were often counter intuitive. At any rate, besides a pre- and post-test, we were also going to use the reflection space in STRONG to elicit students' rudimentary conceptual knowledge and understanding. In fact, there are numerous times I have thought about STRONG during our class readings and I will summarize those thoughts in another link.
|
