Unit 5

How does the Teaching for Understanding with Technology (TfU) Framework compare / contrast (similarities, differences, strengths, weaknesses, etc.) with other frameworks/perspectives/strategies that we have been looking at in readings (required or optional) and is it compatible with them? You could also expand this analysis to include other frameworks/ perspectives/ strategies with which you are familiar.



Some examples of comparable frameworks/perspectives/strategies may include:

1) Dewey multiple arguments about the child and the curriculum

2) Jonassen’s emphasis on meaningful learning and mindtools,

3) Uden & Beaumont’s problem-based learning,

4) Sharans’ Group Investigation,

5) Grant & Wiggins’ Understanding by Design model with essential questions and backwards design (optional).

In looking at the first two features of the TfU framework, Generative Topics and Understanding Goals, there are similarities and differences to Uden and Beaumont's problem based learning.

PBL is predicated on "carefully selected and designed problems" that students learn to solve. The aim is solving the constructed problem, and, more importantly, learning in the process. The problem to solve may or may not be fascinating and compelling to the teacher.

The TfU framework is based on generative topics that don't necessarily aim to solve a problem but in fact have a "bottomless" quality that generates and rewards continued inquiry, as stated in exhibit 1.1 of our text. This would imply that the topic be broader and less specific than target problems in PBL. There is a limitless quality here.

The TfU framework clearly defines and states goals where this is not overtly articulated in PBL. In contrast, in PBL learning issues are identified in the process of working through the problem.