Hi, 

  An intriguing environment.  I am curious what it takes for teachers to learn to make use of the automated scoring, and whether they disagree with the judgement of the system -- and what you do about differences in judgment?

Thanks for your question. PLANS makes several uses of automated scoring. For essays, the most common is to use the scores to guide students to revise their essays. We find that teachers are glad to have help in guiding student revisions. Teachers often comment that they emulate the knowledge integration guidance that the system provides when they make their own comments. 

For MySystem diagrams, students also get knowledge integration guidance and use the guidance to make revisions to improve the accuracy of the diagrams. Teachers applaud the system since it would take them considerable time to give similar guidance. They are able to spend their time guiding students on other challenges.

See: 

Gerard, L., & Linn, M. C. (2016). Using automated scores of student essays to support teacher guidance in classroom inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 111-129. doi:10.1007/s10972-016-9455-6

Gerard, L. F., Ryoo, K., McElhaney, K. W., Liu, O. L., Rafferty, A. N., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Automated Guidance for Student Inquiry. Journal of Educational Psychology: doi:10.1037/edu0000052.

Hi folks,

It would be great to hear your experiences combining hands-on and simulation-based investigations. 

Let us know your ideas.

Wow: this is an ambitious project and I love how it integrates hands-on and computer-based exploratory learning. Like Marcia, I am curious about other experiences in this area. But my biggest question is: assuming data show that students learn a variety of things, and that participating teachers can handle the complexity of the environment, how would or could you get this type of hybrid exploration into more classrooms? 

I love how students can manipulate aspects of models and view graphs. I wonder what students are learning about the data they generate. You mention that students are learning about the content, but have you been able to demonstrate that students develop deeper understandings about collecting data or using evidence to support claims?

Hi Jackie,

Yes, getting our students to think deeply about data is definitely one of our goals. One of the ways we've done this is by "flipping" the traditional 'run the model' -> 'view the data' ordering. Instead the students 'make the data' -> 'run the model'. So, for example, in a unit on climate change, the students will draw a line graph that depicts how much carbon dioxide is in the air over the course of the model's run. They also draw a graph to predict the temperature. When they run the model, it actually evolves according to the carbon dioxide graph they drew. Then they can compare the temperature graph drawn from the model, to their own prediction graph.

This general approach helps them to interpret data and make connections between what they see on the graph and the scientific context.

I hope that helps!