Final Reflection: ETEC 533 Technology in the Maths & Science Classroom

My initial action in this analysis was to revisit all the parts of my e-folio.  In doing so I was able to gain a greater perspective (see reflection below),  make connections to my practice (see my TOD Workshop website) and ultimately identify trends or themes in my thinking :

• importance of Professional Development,
• differentiation,
• integration of technology,
• application/alignment with learning theories and,
• assessing with Bates and Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model

—————————————————————————————————————-

Following this review of my learning artefacts I find myself comparing my learning in ETEC 533 to the organisms in the trophic levels of a food chain where the internet is like the sun– providing the life source for integrating technology into maths and science.  I feel that this is an appropriate metaphor for the learning I have gained through interacting with the instructors, peers, artefacts and guests as well as parti­­­cipating in the interactivities.  I believe that as I write this analysis I am at the top consumer level because I have benefited from consuming others’ artefacts, digesting new knowledge and collaborating with other organisms in symbiotic relationships:  first as a primary consumer in Module A, then as a  secondary consumer in Module B and then as a tertiary consumer in Module C.  The organisms in each trophic level are metaphorically feeding on the knowledge and skills provided and generated by the lower level organisms.  I was like a producer when I was creating my auto e-ography, participating in initial discussion forums and forming our community of practice since I was producing fodder for the higher trophic levels.  The habitats (VLEs), biotic components (people) and abiotic components (software and hardware) are also important parts of this food chain metaphor.  I initially explored the relationships between these components while framing my issue which has subsequently developed into an interconnected and dynamic understanding of how to effectively integrate technology into maths and science lessons. I will always be a decomposer in this metaphor- as I scavenge bits of knowledge and skills from available resources and break down large amounts of information into more digestible, absorbable chunks and I generate ‘nutrients” whenever I apply this learning to my practice or whenever I teach others how to integrate technology into their practice.  I am therefore essential to the health of the “Integrating IT into Maths and Science Food Chain”.

•  Producer:  writing my Auto-e-ography, remembering my experiences with technology and generating questions

In writing my auto-e-ography the most interesting part was travelling down memory lane using a www.timetoast.com timeline.  I was able to pinpoint what my technological catalyst was.  The teaching job I took in an e-class in New Zealand was where I feel in love with technology integration.  The professional development I received was empowering:  “I worked after school many days to work alongside my colleagues to learn more ways to integrate the technology- sometimes as the learner and towards the end, as a coach.  I learned that it was okay to make mistakes that my students were my teachers and that technology was a friend not a foe.  We were … technological pioneers trialling new ideas in our classrooms”.  Some key questions I identified were:

• How do I use technology to work smarter not harder?

• How do I maximize and build the capacity of the learners? Differentiate?

• Why should I use ICT to create constructivist learning activities?

• How do I learn the appropriate skills to monitor student progress and keep them in their ICT ZPD?

• Can ICT assist me with assessment practices?  How?

• Are students who don’t have a computer or the internet at home disadvantaged in an eClass?

• How can we ensure new teachers embrace the integration of technology? “ (Wilkes, 2012).

I have found some answers to some of these questions during this course but for the most part for every answer I have found multiple new questions arise.  Creating a cognitive disturbance forces us to seek solutions.  I have learned that technology often provides those solutions.  Technology is about building bridges and it is such an amazing tool to engage learners, expand horizons, promote innovation and meet the needs of all students. 

•  Primary Consumer: unpacking assumptions, watching Video Case Studies and interviewing colleagues

When we were all asked “What does a good use of technology in the math and science classroom look like and is this possible in today’s classroom?”  I identified the following 5 key characteristics in response:

1.  Visible Learning–  where teachers: provide clear learning intentions, challenging success criteria, a range of learning strategies (incl. ET), provide feedback and scaffold learning, identify gaps, learn themselves and students: frequently make use of visualizations, can articulate the learning intentions, are extended by the success criteria, develop a range of learning strategies (incl. ETs), seek feedback, can identify when they don’t get it, teach others and make independent choices about their next steps- all of which can be done using ETs
2. Connectivism at work: students access networked knowledge freely (animations, websites, webquests, forums, videos, flat classroom projects, wikis, blogs, Moodles, GLOBE, WISE, MyWorld, some VLEs) and work collaboratively with other learners from around the world to build on it
3. PBL in the house!– by using games, simulations, virtual reality, discussion forums and online resources (Jasper Series, WISE) for problem inspiration and problem solving students are encouraged to learn in a constructivist manner where they build knowledge, make meaning and co-construct potential solutions using technology and effective frameworks TGEM, LfU and SKI
4. Personalized Learning– individual learning plans created online, feedback provided online, students creating their own games/simulations/websites/mashups/media productions, independently using online resources (interactivities, simulations, games), ETs (IWBs, laptops, desktops) or classroom technology (Beebots, tablets, mobile phones, graphic calculators etc.) as part of a personalized (differentiated) learning program
5. Blended Approach: good teaching is about balance and pedagogical strategies do not have to involve new ETs.  A blended approach ensures students still get some ‘hands on’ practice and f2f time with their teacher along with opportunities to learn digitally in a connected, online environment ideally employing knowledge representation, information visualization, knowledge diffusion and embodied learning through mobile and virtual technologies

Upon reflection, I can see how I would make small changes to these 5 characteristics based on what I learned (see green above) to enhance the descriptions.

The 5 characteristics yielded some interesting discussion as DP commented: “You have created the utopian classroom. When you lay it all out there as well as you did it seems a little overwhelming.” and SK stated “I like how you paired digital technologies and how these digital technologies can be used with particular theories of learning and teaching. Some of these theories have untested assumptions about learning with technology, but they provide us with a rationale on which technologies to select and how we might best use them for particular purposes. For science and math education, is there a particular theory that resonates with you?” and I had the opportunity to discuss Constructivism and Connectivism as they relate to technology and a learner centred classroom.

While writing these characteristics I also took pause to give examples of how technology could be integrated effectively in any classroom- regardless of the predominant learning theory (I seem to compare and align new ideas with learning theories a lot).  I also applied Bates and Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model (I seem to do that a lot too!).

While I ‘consumed’ the video case studies I began to inadvertently frame my issue. Hearing an experienced classroom teacher emphasize how technology can “equalize the playing field” I asked my classmates ”Does technology have the potential to be the great equalizer in education?”  Some interesting discussion ensued.  I responded to JDRs comments about ICT and differentiation  indicating that  “If all students were given a task to do and all students were required to do so using the same technology it could have a negative effect on some- I think technology and differentiated learning must go hand in hand to maximize learning opportunities.” (Wilkes 2012).  The notion of marrying technology and differentiation in science was lodged in my cranium.

Differentiation came up again during my interviews (it was and is a big focus of the PD we are working on with our teachers) and they had contradicting views on the potential of technology to enable differentiation in science lessons. Ultimately, all of this assisted me in completing the daunting task of framing my issue:  “Delineating the affordances of technology for effective differentiated instruction in science”.   Once I selected my question, researching it became even more difficult and very time consuming.  I was ‘consuming’ a lot of literature and used the CiteULike tool to tag and save a number of articles.  I found this very useful but I repeatedly referred back to Carol Ann Tomlinson’s work on differentiation as I struggled on looking for research studies that were geared towards science and differentiation and, most importantly, technology integration.

• Secondary Consumer:  defining technology and consuming TELEs

In Module B we were initially asked to define technology which I thought was refreshing.  After revisiting an old friend:  McLuhan’s (1967) “The Medium is the Message’ I stated in my e-folio “Ultimately, it is easiest for me to think of technology metaphorically- it is a tool.  It is a tool teachers can use to construct valuable learning experiences.  It is a tool that learners can use to build knowledge and collaborate.  It is a tool that can be manipulated pedagogically to support the diverse learning needs/preferences/styles of students in the 21st century.” (Wilkes, 2012).

In learning and exploring the 4 TELEs I had a blast.  An overarching theory of constructivism in these rich learning environments emphasized that the process is often more important than the product.  Anchored instruction, Problem-Based-Learning and Inquiry were clearly represented when using www.creately.com to compare them in a visual organizer.  I also enjoyed learning about the pedagogical frameworks that align with the different TELEs and used a lot of this knowledge (TGEM and Flu) in my Teacher Only Day Workshops to promote more integration of technology into maths and science (sound familiar?).  I began to draw clear parallels between Khan’s (2010) T-GEM model, Eielson’s (2001) Learning for use model and White and Gunstone’s (1992) POE model.  I was so excited to use WISE and I have been getting all of my science teachers to check it out ever since.

Linn, Clark and Slotta (2002) illustrate how the program is a truly technology-enhanced, flexibly adaptive learning environment that incorporates both modeling tools and hand-held devices and is research-based.  I initially used de Bono’s 6 Thinking Hats to analyse whether WISE should be used in the science classroom.  After that, I was delighted when we had Dr. Gerard and Dr.Matuk as a guests in our forum to learn more about WISE from the ‘WISE’ people themselves. Through questioning I learned of a brand new affordance they were currently releasing enabling application of simple logic to the step sequences (Matuk, 2012).  WISE is continually being adapted and this particular function enables more differentiation possibilities. Using Bates and Poole’s (2003) SECTIONS model the affordances of WISE become very clear:  intuitive, open source, interactive, built in formative assessment, amendable, interesting and provides some opportunities for differentiation.

• Tertiary Consumer:  Info Vis, Knowledge Diffusion and Embodied Learning

My favourite part of the entire course was in Module C: the smorgasbord of resources we collated together as a cohort to demonstrate how many info vis tools are available to illustrate qualitative and/or quantitative data in simulations and models.  I certainly have a few more bookmarks now!  The resource I shared is one I am trying to get our schools to buy- I loved it that much.  The gizmos in www.explorelearning.com are so interactive and empowering: I have got to have access to them for more than thirty days.  A fine example of information visualization, the gizmos align nicely with the TGEM model and even the LfU model if the learning activity was designed to do so.

Exploring Model IT with my partner was a lot more challenging but the experience culminated in a new appreciation for the potential of using more advanced, multi-variable models.  Since Model It is about visualizing and embodying theories of abstract concepts or ideas into models, gathering information and data from simulations and models, and testing those models (Schwarz, Meyer, & Sharma. 2007) it can be a valuable simulation tool.  In addition, Model It is a good digital tool for knowledge representation as it allows students to determine relationships between two objects either qualitatively or quantitatively without having to do complex computations allowing learners to concentrate on analysis and modification of the model. (Zhang, Wu, Fretz, Krajcik & Soloway. 2001) and thus potentially provides differentiation in maths and science while integrating technology.

While I explored the functionality of WhyVille and GLOBE I gained a strong appreciation and comprehension of what knowledge diffusion is. I learned that true knowledge diffusion to take place everyone needs to have a valuable role and be a contributor to the project.  The students, teachers, scientists and even the citizen scientists out there can all work together to add to the global database. Thus, GLOBE is truly a virtual community of practice where those involved do science.  On the other hand, I believe that WhyVille is an interactive VLE where students do science activities.  Big Difference.  I can see many similarities between GLOBE and WISE and I really like them both for their versatility in aiding inquiry learning.  There is massive potential for haptics in inquiry learning as well.  Haptics are happening- the readings here brought me back to my 531 cyborg media production! We are all cyborgs every time we use our mobile phone according to Kunzu (2003).  Since haptics refers to our sense of touch it is a tactile method of communicating.  “Haptics are to touch what computer graphics are to vision.  Thus, there is real potential for haptics to enhance learning and amplify opportunities for certain learning style preferences.” (Wilkes, 2012).   As Williams (2003) explains it, haptic interfaces enable people to create a new sense of touch affording learners the chance to feel scientific concepts.  Haptic technology is often multi-modal reducing cognitive load which means that students with additional education needs can be supported in a new way.

• Top Consumer: when reflecting on my learning

I wrote this synthesis and associated it with this trophic level metaphor as a top consumer. The top consumer, a carnivore, is very strong due to the high protein diet it consumes.  While I am/was writing this I have benefited from consuming others’ artefacts, digesting new knowledge and collaborating with other organisms in symbiotic relationships.  I have already produced many artefacts (auto-e-ography, Framing Issues paper, meritorious posts, forum contributions, e-folio posts and voluntary graphic organizers, animations and charts), consumed many artefacts (literature, websites, simulations, videos, models, other e-folios, posts, emails) and am ready to move on the decomposer level- so glamorous.

• Decomposer:  I am and will forever be a decomposer because I am a lifelong learner and a sharer of best practice.

I will continue to feed off the technologies, knowledge and skills in every trophic level I visit.  I will also continue to generate “nutrients” whenever I deliver a PD to share these technologies, knowledge or skills- the constant introduction, support and modelling of ICT integration strategies in the form of PD is the best way to make it happen.  I am a decomposer because I am lifelong learner; I share best practice with colleagues and continually develop my technology skills.  While haptic handheld devices become a part of our bodies and as technology consumes our social world we must strive to achieve technology integration and effective differentiation through quality and timely professional development.  Teachers should all be decomposers:  dynamic-student centred-constructivist.  Imagine what would education look like if all the maths and science teachers were producers?  Stagnant- teacher centred- behaviourist.  No thanks.

 

References

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: A Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In EffectiveTeaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. (pp. 77-105). SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Brodbeck, Dominique, Mazza, Riccarde, & Lalanne, Denis. (2009). Interaction visualization: A survey. In Denis Lalanne, & Jürg Kohlas (Eds.), Human Machine Interaction (pp. 27–46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

De Bono, Edward.   6 Thinking Hats.  De Bono’s Thinking Systems.  Retrived from: http://www.debonothinkingsystems.com/tools/6hats.htm

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1098-2736%28200103%2938:3%3C355::AID-TEA1010%3E3.0.CO;2-M/abstract

Jonassen, D. (1999).environments. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: Volume II. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20226

Krajcik, Joseph. (2000). Model It, Visualization Tools.  DPD website.  http://www.edu-design-principles.org/dp/viewFeatureDetail.php?feKey=273

Kozma, R.  (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2).  Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.

Kunzu, Hari.  (2003). You Are Cyborg.  Wired Magazine, Wired Digital Inc. Retrieved from  http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway_pr.html

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10086/

McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the message. NEA Journal, 56(7), 24-27.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), pp. 260-272.Retrieved November 4, 2008, from: http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=296

Schwarz, C., Meyer, J. & Sharma, A. (2007). Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: Opportunities and challenges of using computer modelling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 243-269.

Schwarz, C.,Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D.,Shwartz, Y.,Krajicik, J., (2009). Developing a Learning Progression for Scientific Modelling: Making Scientific Modelling Accessible and Meaningful for Learners, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-645

Slotta, J. D. & Linn, M. C. (in press).  WISE Science:  Inquiry and the Internet in the Science Classroom (draft). Teachers College Press.

The University of California, Berkeley. (2012). WISE(v4):web-based inquiry science environment. Retrieved fromhttp://wise4.berkeley.edu/webapp/index.html

White, R.T., & Gunstone, R.F. (1992). Probing understanding.  Great Britain: Frame Press

Williams, M. Linn, M.C. Ammon, P. & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189-206. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16859055&site=ehost-live

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114 Winn, W., Windschitl, M., Fruland, R., & Lee, Y. (2002). When does immersion in a virtual environment help students construct understanding? Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zhang, B., Wu, H., Fretz, E., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2001, March). Exploring middle school students’ modelling process and cognitive strategies when using a computational modelling tool. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching (NARST), St. Louis, Missouri. Full-text document retrieved on November 24, 2011 from http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.24.5954

Zhang,B., Liue,X., & Krajcik, J.S.  (2006).  Expert models and modelling processes associated with a computer-modeling tool.  Science Education, 90, 579-604.  Available UBC online.