LEARNING IN LAMS: LESSON FROM A STUDENT TEACHER EXPLORING GENE ETHICS

• Authors: Carina Dennis
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Due to its complex and microscopic nature, genetics is a difficult subject for many learners to conceptually grasp. Graphics, animation and video material can be extremely helpful to their understanding. A wealth of educational online content about genetics has been created over the past decade in the wake of the human genome being sequenced. However, these digital resources are distributed across disparate sites and it requires a high level of content and pedagogical knowledge to orchestrate the progression and choice of material available to the learner, as well as technical expertise to bundle the resources in a meaningful and accessible format. A contextualised learning sequence, called ‘Gene Medicine’, has been designed in LAMS by the author, a student teacher who has a doctorate in human genetics, and who has undertaken a career change to teach science to secondary students. This paper reflects an ongoing professional learning experience as the author integrates her high-content expertise and developing pedagogical knowledge within the LAMS digital environment.

Keywords

EN

LAMS; contextualised learning design; genetics; ethics

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 74-87

Contributors

author

Carina Dennis

• University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

References

• Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1999). Human Genetic Variation: Molecular Medicine Comes of Age. Retrieved from http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/genetic/guide/activity3-1.htm
• Board of Studies New South Wales (2002). Stage 6 Syllabus Biology. Sydney: Board of Studies NSW. Syllabus links: 9.3 Blueprint of Life and 9.7 Genetics: The Code Broken?
• Bybee, R.W., Taylor, J.A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A. & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. Colorado Springs: BSCS.
• Cameron, L. (2009a). Using LAMS Chat and Forum to Promote Quality Conversations. Teaching English with Technology - Special Issue on LAMS and Learning Design volume 2, 9(3), 18-26.
• Cameron, L. (2009b). Assessing online discussions and forums. In Proceedings of the 2009 European LAMS & Learning Design Conference: Opening up Learning Design. Sydney, December, 2009. http://lams2009.lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04b.pdf
• Cameron, L. (2010). WebDilemmas and RolePlaying. Retrieved from http://implementinglearningdesigns.lamsfoundation.org/page6/page11/page11.html and http://implementinglearningdesigns.lamsfoundation.org/page6/page9/page9.html
• Campbell, C. & Cameron, L. (2009). Using Learning Activity Management Systems (LAMS) with pre-service secondary teachers: An authentic task. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ASCILITE Auckland 2009. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/campbell-c.pdf
• Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: the learning activity management system (LAMS). ASCILITE 2003, Adelaide 1-10 December 2003. http://www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/documents/ASCILITE2003%20Dalziel%20Final.pdf
• de Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management. London: Little, Brown, & Company.
• Dobozy, E. (2008). The use and usefulness of non-assessed online learning: Tracking students’ behaviour on LAMS. In L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd International LAMS & Learning Design Conference 2008: Perspectives on Learning Design, 5 December 2008 (pp. 59-69), Sydney: LAMS Foundation. Retrieved from http://lams2008sydney.lamsfoundation.org/papers.htm
• Genetic Science Learning Center (2011a). Pus-Poppin' Frogs. Learn.Genetics. Retrieved from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/health/pharma/frogs/
• Genetic Science Learning Center (2011b). PI: Pedigree Investigator, On the Case of Nicotine Addiction. Learn.Genetics. Retrieved from http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genetics/pi.html
• Goodyear, P. & Ellis, R. (2007). Students’ interpretations of learning tasks: Implications for educational design. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/goodyear.pdf
• Herreid, C.F. (1996). Structured controversy: A case study strategy. DNA fingerprinting in the courts. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(2), 95-101.
• International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001). Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409 (6822), 860–921.
• Jackson, K. (2010). What value assessment rubrics in shaping students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussions? In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppel, P. Gerbic & S. Housego (eds.), Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an Unknown Future. Proceedings ASCILITE Sydney 2010 (pp. 454-458). http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/crisp-symposium.pdf
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-61.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Critical thinking through controversy. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 58-64.
• Kearney, M. & Young, K. (2007). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of LAMS as a teaching tool. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ASCILITE Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kearney.pdf
• Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy, 70 (18), 630–646.
• LAMS (n.d). Identifying Misconceptions. Retrieved from http://lessonlams.com/lams/pedagogicalPlanner.do?method=openSequenceNode&edit=false&uid=6.
• LAMS (n.d). Six Thinking Hats. Retrieved from http://lessonlams.com/lams/pedagogicalPlanner.do?method=openSequenceNode&edit=false&uid=37.
• Malone, M. R. & Lepper, M. R. (1983). Making learning fun. In R. E. Snow & J. F. Marshall (eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction: Cognitive and Affective Process analyses (Vol. 3, pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Mann, S. (2008). The problems of online collaboration for junior high school students: Can the Learning Activity Management System (LAMS) benefit students to learn via online learning? In L. Cameron & J. Dalziel (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International LAMS & Learning Design Conference 2008: Perspectives on Learning Design. (p.p. 81-86). 5 December 2008, Sydney: LAMS Foundation. http://lams2008sydney.lamsfoundation.org/papers.htm
• McAndrew, P., Goodyear, P., & Dalziel, J. (2006). Patterns, designs and activities: unifying descriptions of learning structures. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2 (2-3), 216-242.
• Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Learning & Leading with Technology, 36 (7), 14-18.
• Nandi, D., Chang, S. and Balbo, S. (2009). A conceptual framework for assessing interaction quality in online discussion forums. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ASCILITE Auckland 2009. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/nandi.pdf
• Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.
• Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2010). Evaluating secondary students' scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1073-1098.
• Tytler, R. (2003). A window for a purpose: Developing a framework for describing effective science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education, 30(3), 273-298.
• Watters, B.L. (1995) Attacking ideas, not people: Using structured controversy in the college classroom. Teaching Excellence, 7(7). Retrieved from http://www.podnetwork.org/publications/teachingexcellence/95-96/V7,%20N7%20Watters.pdf