Posts by flick:
Apr
9
Technology For, As, and Of Learning
Assessment for, as, and of learning, is a phrase often heard and discussed in and by the educational community. Assessment for, as, and of learning, is a continuous circle of learning (Earl, 2006).
Arising from the learning facilitated by the many MET courses that I have taken to date and synthesized, crafted, and enhanced during the activities, challenges, and e-folio reflections of ETEC 533 (Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom) is a personal model of technology inclusion applicable to both students and educators. Similar to the model of assessment, this technology model too is circular.
ETEC 533 was my final Masters of Educational Technology (MET) course. In one of my first ETEC 533 blogs (Flick, 2012), I introduced myself as a learner. A learner whose path had led to the study of and in a masters of educational technology.
Prior to MET, I completed a Masters of curriculum and instruction. That Masters culminated in a thesis on teacher math anxiety. Professionally speaking, math is my first passion. My current work is to support teacher and student mathematical understanding and improved mathematical practice. I facilitate teacher mathematical understanding which in turn improves student success. MET has kindled a similar passion for me in the area of technology and ETEC 533 has caused me to consider and implement practice that will combine the two.
I turned fifty shortly after beginning MET.
I was a technology user. Email, word processing, the Internet, and power points were part of my personal and professional life. Decades of technology use found me using technology to acquire and distribute information (Flick, 2012). My first MET course found me overwhelmed by the technological requirements and uncertain of my capabilities. I recall suffering from posting anxiety. I was ill equipped to create and to demonstrate learning using digital and social media tools. Since then both have become a tool. Technology and social media are no longer just a means by which to gather and share information. They are now tools with which I can create and demonstrate. They are now tools that I can use with purpose.
During ETEC 533 I have been able to reflect upon my journey as a technology learner. I have been able to share in discussion as others have similarly reflected in their Auto e-ographies. I have had the opportunity to research teachers as technology learners in my Framing Issues Assignment. Reflection and research have led me to the idea of technology for, as, and of learning. Well crafted activities have allowed me to consider my strongest area of practice, mathematics, within the possibilities of technology tools, resources, and pedagogy.
Technology For Learning
Technology for learning is educators using technology to connect with other professionals to improve practice. Technology can enable educators to engage in learning communities locally (the classroom next door) and globally (Alberta, Mexico, Jamaica). As a classroom teacher I often felt isolated from colleagues within my schoolhouse and within my district. During my terms in the MET program that sense of isolation has diminished. It has diminished because learning communities have formed. Some learning communities have lasted for an assignment, many for the duration of a course, a few for the entirety of my MET studies, and a precious few will continue beyond MET graduation.
In Module A, as I began to Unpack Assumptions, I wrote of the collaborative possibilities. “Perhaps the greatest effect of technology in the math and science class might be the collaboration, learning and support that are now offered every teacher. Wikis, Blogs, List Serves, Moodles, make it possible for every teacher to work not in isolation but as part of a learning community.” (Flick, 2012)
Where else will the power of technology for learning lie? “Ultimately, the effectiveness of educational technology, be it in whatever form, is determined by whose hands it’s in and whether they can unlock its potential” (Braidwood, 2012). In the same post, Braidwood continues on to speak of technology being well used for learner engagement, enrichment of learning experiences, differentiation and diversification and to extend learning beyond the four walls of the classroom. The power of technology for learning may be in its capacity to connect learners (students and/or educators) across distances. This cohort experienced this capacity as educators were connected in the Module A Video Cases. Educators were connected and learning environments were analyzed.
Jonassen (2000), does not believe that students learn from computers or teachers but rather from opportunities to think. The educator is necessary to technology for learning. This belief was also supported by Samia Khan in a synthesis of our Module B syntheses “ . . . the role of the teacher as being critical in the design of the entire learning experience.” (Khan, 2012)
Technology As Learning
Technology as learning are the uses of technology that share content, experiences, process. Here the resource/technology must be analyzed through the lens of developmental learning theory and pedagogy, (Kozma, 2003). The theories of learning applied to Technology Enhanced Learning Environments (TELE) are a splendid example of technology as learning. Module B organized the activities and our reflections to have us consider technology as not the tools of our trade but as a way of acting, (Muffoletto, 1994).
In Module B the technologies that we investigated, WISE, Jasper, My World, and Chemland were specific. The purpose of the activities was to develop our pedagogical sense and apply it to potential technologies that might be used in our classrooms. As well, we began to envision technology as a tool much greater than that of engagement or communication. Whyte (2012), shared “I only viewed it as an alternative medium to improve engagement, never as a tool to help students develop higher order thinking skills or to improve their ability to function effectively in the world beyond the classroom” (Means, 1997).
Module B was a grand opportunity to investigate math and science resources past and present that could be employed to provide content, activities, and experiences. All resources shared by the facilitators of this course “blended different pedagogical models with social constructivism” (Virk, 2012). Module C, Info-Vis Forum, was where the cohort shared the expanse of opportunities for teachers and students to employ technology in the math and science classroom. From the simplest of counting skills 
to the use of graphing calculators, lessons to enhance learning while employing technology were shared.
Technology Of Learning
Technology of learning are the demonstrations of learning from student and/or teacher. Technology of learning are the products of process, creation, learning, synthesis. ” I am able to let the students cover the learning outcomes using material that they are interested in, with presentation styles that suit them . . . it has allowed me to expand my portfolio of acceptable demonstrations of student knowledge.” (JB, 2012)
Technology of learning ensures that demonstrations of learning can be differentiated. It ensures that learning disabilities need not interfere with a learner’s ability to demonstrate understanding. It ensures that proof of learning and growth need not be hindered by many challenges (written output, spatial, speech . . .).
For myself, technology of learning has resulted in a Blog, Wiki, Digital Story,and Moodle. It has also resulted in discussion forums and google docs. Products of learning that have been created through collaboration of individuals who are separated by great distance and may likely never meet. Products of learning of which one may have created and later another enhanced. Products of learning that exceed the expectations and capabilities of the individual and result from the strengths of two or more learners coming together.
Conclusion
During the postings and responses and in the Module A Interviews, the conversations and questions occasionally themed around the challenge to technology use in classrooms and teacher reluctance. Among the themes that emerged were lack of time for teachers to learn to operate, investigate, and plan to incorporate technology into their teaching days. “I don’t often have enough time to learn how to use technology in the class, …sometimes, the equipment fails” (Chen, 2012). Also lamented was the lack of technology professional development and/or effectiveness of professional development. Many interviewees shared concern for continued financial and technological support once equipment was installed in their schools and classrooms. Change fatigue and technology as a threat were issues raised by those interviewed in Rapid change – individualized learning – reliability, (Evans, 2012). Comfort in textbooks and technology necessitating the need for educators to examine practice were mentioned.
My Framing Issues Assignment provided the opportunity for me to investigate effective and ineffective methods to promote purposeful technology use in the math and science classroom. I questioned whether I could identify the reasons why some teachers were technologically competent and continued to be learners in this area and why some were not. Surely we all experience the obstacles to technology usage shared above, yet some of us have still worked through, around, over, those barriers and technology is present in our classrooms and employed by both teacher and student.
I considered my colleague, JB, who had been the focus of our interview assignment. JB had “thirty plus years of teaching experience” and was “self-motivated to learn to use technology and to purposefully incorporate technology into her classroom” (Flick, 2012) Why? I wondered what the connection might be between personal and professional use of technology. I wondered what type of professional development opportunities had the most affect on teacher incorporation of technology?
Interestingly, my findings in some ways paralleled my findings when investigating teacher math anxiety. Teaching teachers how to teach math has little affect. Providing opportunities for teachers to develop mathematical understanding does.Teacher mathematical understanding is imperative to effective mathematics instruction. It is challenging to be a teacher of mathematics if one does not embrace mathematics personally.
Is the same true for technology? Will only those for whom technology is a personal tool choose to use technology as an educational tool? What effect does professional development have on technology usuage?
Teachers who employ technology in their classrooms and who provide opportunities for their students to do so:
•are personal users of technology
•are given opportunities to learn with technology
•are given opportunities to demonstrate their learning with technology
•collaborate or are mentored by others who use technology
References
Braidwood, J. (2012, April 12). Measuring good [Online forum comment].
Chen, D. (2012, January 22). Support for teachers [Online forum comment].
Dalgarno, N., & Colgan, L. (2007). Supporting novice elementary mathematics teachers’ induction in professional communities and providing innovative forms of pedagogical content knowledge development through information and communication technology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1051 – 1065. Retrieved from http://teaching.cycu.edu.tw/pdf/
Earl, L. M. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Manitoba Education, Citizenship & Youth, 2006.
Evans, V. (2012, January 17). Rapid change – individualized learning – reliability [Online forum comment].
Flick, D. (2012, January 8). Hello ETEC 533! [Web log message]. Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/deniseflick533/2012/01/08/hello-world/
Flick, D. (2012, January 8 ) A high school infatuation? An auto e-ography. [Web log message]. Retrieved from https://blogs.ubc.ca/deniseflick533/2012/01/08/a-highschool-infatuation/
Flick, D. (2012, January 22). Technology interview transcript and analysis [Web log message]. https://blogs.ubc.ca/deniseflick533/2012/01/22/technology-interview-transcript-and-analysis/
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
Khan, S. (2012, February 28). Pedagogy [Online forum comment].
Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), pp. 1-14.
Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: Constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34(2), 24-28.
Virk, J. (2012, February 26). Ways to weave effective technology into effective technology [Online forum comment].
Whyte, T. (2012, February 27). Jasper, wise, myworld, chemland and myway [Online forum comment].
Mar
29
The vision of digital possibilities in mathematics creates further turbidity in the mathematics waters at this time. During this era of disagreement between teachers, between parents, between teachers and parents, and with the publication of and ensuing conversations from such articles as Maclean’s “Why is it your job to teach your kid math?” (Reynolds, 2012), in British Columbia school districts are occasionally looking at and discussing technology in the elementary math classroom. Realistically, most debate time is spent on the topics of change in curriculum and pedagogy.
Theorizing about the teaching and learning of mathematics continues by researchers, educators, (Drijvers, Kieran, Mariotti, Ainley, Anderson, Chan, Dana-Picard, Guedet, Kidron, Leung, Meagher, 2010) and the public. Calls to my office from parents, teacher meetings, teacher learning sessions etc. are the work that most occupies me. There is little discussion in my world of technology in math.
I began teaching in in 1987 and was increasingly since that time the math instructional leader in my school. For the last decade I have held the district leadership position in numeracy. The late 1980’s through the 1990’s was an active time for theorizing in the teaching and learning of mathematics (Drijvers et al., 2010) Hand held calculators, logo, Plato, digital possibilities in the math class, were limited up to and through the end of the 1980’s. Calculators were part of my senior math years in the early 1970’s and in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s sporadically available in classrooms.
As the 1990’s progressed computers entered our homes and classrooms with greater frequency and students, teachers, and parents were introduced to digital math games.
Lucky was the teacher who had a computer in his or her classroom and a good supply of floppy discs.
Papert in his paper, Teaching children to be mathematicians vs teaching about mathematics, (1972), declares that teaching students about mathematics is not sufficient. Indeed students understanding mathematics is not enough. It is the doing of mathematics that is important. As a teacher of math, a district learning coordinator, and a teacher of EDCP 340 Math Methods course, I can not agree more with Papert. It is the doing of math that enables students to construct understanding and to make sense of mathematical concepts. The 1980’s and 1990’s digital offerings taught students about math (perhaps), assessed to determine whether or not students understood concepts, but mostly had students practicing for speed skills which were previously learned. Yet there were those who envisioned more. Howson and Kahane, (1986), believed that schools would be under increasing pressure to “demonstrate that they were technologically aware” (p. 76). for an indirect glimpse at the kind of theories figuring in the discussions of the Study group participants.
Schools have been under increasing pressure yet the incorporation of technology into elementary math classes in our district has been slow. Document cameras and the occasional smartboard are in use. The myriad of digital numeracy activities that this cohort has been exposed to in ETEC 533 are not currently known to many in my district. When this course ends and the weekly posting, replying, and the assignments are done . . . then I suppose it will be my purpose to introduce and facilitate the use of digital math possibilities in classrooms.
Drijvers, P., Kieran, C., Mariotti, M-A., Ainley, J., Andresen, M., Chan, Y., Dana-Picard, T-D., Gueudet,G., Kidron, I., Leun, A., Meagher, M., & Leung, A. (2010). Integrating technology into mathematics education: Theoretical perspectives. In C. Hoyles & J-B LaGrange (Eds.) Mathematics Education and Technology-Rethinking the Terrain, 89-132.
Howson, A.G., & Kahane, J.-P. (1986). School Mathematics in the 1990’s New York: Cambridge University Press.
Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics, International Journal for Mathematical Education, Science, and Technology, 3, 249–262.
Reynolds, C. (2012, March 13). Why is it your job to teach your kid math?. Macleans, 135, 28-31.
Mar
22
I teach in a rural school district. I also teach teacher candidates who are specializing in rural education. For our students there are limited opportunities to visit museums, aquariums, theatres, and cultural events. We live in an area of British Columbia in which elk, osprey, and sturgeon are common wildlife but polar bear, emu, and ocean salmon are scarce. Our nearest volcano (Red Mountain) has been dormant for centuries. Only the occasional pleasure craft makes its way up or down the Columbia River. I chose to investigate Virtual Field Trips. Among the field trips that I embarked upon were virtual visits to the volcano fields of Costa Rica, the San Diego Zoo, and the Panama Canal.
The above sites held some interest for me. I read content, browsed media, and connected to links. My ten-year old son on the other hand responded to the San Diego Zoo visit with “I didn’t see anything. They (the elephants and polar bears) were either all sleeping somewhere else or maybe they died.” His lack of interest in the visit was because I had not given him purpose or facilitated reason for him to visit, discover, and investigate. The virtual field trips, like any resource, will be effective only if incorporated into learning activities well planned and supported by good practice. Good practice that is enhanced by collaboration and participation in a learning community.
A Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) may or may not have the four characteristics of a learning community as defined by Bielacyzc and Collins (1999). Valued members with expertise (scientists, teachers, enthusiasts, students) dedicated to learning and who support the sharing of knowledge and skills can work together. The VLE’s that I visited were not stand-alone examples of learning communities. The virtual communities, for the most part, that I linked to were places to visit and not yet developed as a places to live and learn deeply. There was one exception. Field Trip Earth provided access to materials for emerging readers and strategies to assist. Field Trip Earth integrated subject areas purposefully. For example – literature circles were incorporated as well as activities for data analysis. Field Trip Earth gave a hint as to what could be.
The Exploratorium also offered more interactive possibilities and was engaging and could be incorporated easily as a learning resource. Here again, to truly fit the definition of a learning community, Exploratorium would have to be well intentioned by the teacher.
The teacher is an essential element of any VLE. They must ensure students are not overwhelmed and travelling only at the surface level of the experience, disengaged, or experiencing a loss of purpose. (Spicer and Stratford, 2001). Any Virtual Learning Environment should provide the opportunity for visual and audio stimulation. The teacher will still have to provide opportunities to provide somatosensory, olfaction, gustatory experience as is appropriate (although digital technology of the future may well affect these senses).
It is only in recent months that I have become aware of the term, virtual field trip. I would presume these resources are in their infancy. But, if looked at as potential learning communities, the possibilities that they might provide for both educator and student learning and engagement are immense. The possibilities that VLE’s can provide to develop global citizenry are both intoxicating and necessary in the 21st century. Spicer and Stratford (2001) shared that “one of the most fruitful ways forward seems to be the use of VFT to prepare for, or to revise, real field trips” (p. 353). Perhaps VFT’s of elk, osprey, sturgeon, Red Mountain, and the Columbia river need be developed not only for learners far afield but for learners close to home.
Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999) Learning communities in classrooms: A Reconceptualization of educational practice. In, Reigeluth CM (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models, A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory,Volume II. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, 269–292.
Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.
Mar
13
Srinivasan, Plamer, Brooks, and Fowler (2006) suggest, “To novices (students) . . . anything other than the real system is perceived as fake” (p. 140). My colleague and I questioned, how this finding might apply to the use of virtual manipulatives in the math and science classroom. Would learner attitude influence the effectiveness of digital manipulatives as tools? Should such tools be used sparingly, only in the absence of the real thing, or in combination with them?
Our fears were relieved as multiple sources provided evidence that increased engagement, motivation, and conceptual understanding can be achieved through the use of virtual math manipulatives (Crawford and Brown, (2003), Reimer and Moyer, (2005)). Research supported the use of digital math manipulatives as a tool to provide an interactive environment with immediate feedback. Suh and Moyer-Packenham (2007), were persuasive in their views of using digital manipulatives to reduce the cognitive load for the learner allowing the learner to focus on the process and on constructing meaning.
It is critical that teachers choose technology based resources that facilitate beyond drill and practice and that can be employed in purposeful pedagogy and in a constructivist learning process and that facilitate and enhance critical thinking and student centered learning. Such affordance to support meaningful learning is not inherent in digital manipulatives. The selection of resources requires the professional judgment of the teacher digital or not.
Our own experiences in the classroom have confirmed for us the advantages listed by Burns (2001a as stated by Crawford and Brown, 2003).
•Manipulatives help make abstract ideas concrete.
•Manipulatives build learner confidence and enable them to easily test and confirm their reasoning.
•Manipulatives are useful tools for solving problems.
•Manipulatives make learning math interesting and enjoyable.
We developed an integrated math and science learning opportunity. A virtual manipulative resource was chosen. Simply titled, Virtual Manipulatve, the resource is intuitive, comprehensive, attractive, and easily adapted to a wide range of grade levels, strands, and concepts. Virtual representations of the commonly found “hands on” classroom manipulatives are included.The learning possibilities with this manipulative are endless. The primary purpose of the manipulative is to offer concrete visualization of mathematical concepts that will lead towards understanding of the mathematical concepts as defined by learning objectives.
A lesson was developed (Grade 3/Shape and Space/2D Shapes and 3D Objects) in which students were asked to sort objects using one or two attributes. Included in this activity are opportunities for students to:
•use Technology in a collaborative learning environment. •Generate a demonstration of their understanding of 3D objects and their attributes.
•Evaluate their understanding in discussion and sharing with other students
•Modify their original mental models. Students were then given the opportunity to locate and digitally record examples of 3D objects used in structures (Grade 3/Physical Science).
It cannot be assumed that all teachers include concrete math manipulatives when facilitating mathematical conceptual understanding. Virtual Manipulatives could be employed in student and teacher learning opportunities. As educational leaders within our districts, we see opportunities to use this resource with teachers to deepen mathematical understanding and enhance pedagogical practice. As teachers in classrooms where digital tools such as document cameras, smart boards, computers, notebooks, and personal devices are increasingly available this resource will be a valuable tool in daily practice.
References:
Crawford, C. & Brown, E. (2003). Integrating Internet-based Mathematical Manipulatives Within a Learning Environment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 22(2), 169-180.
Reimer, K., & Moyer, P.S. (2005). Third-Graders Learn About Fractions Using Virtual Manipulatives: A Classroom Study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 24(1), 5-25.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 1-5.
Suh, J.,& Moyer-Packenham, P. (2007) The application of dual coding theory in multi-representational virtual mathematics enviroments. Retrieved March 9th, 2012 from http://www.emis.de/proceedings/PME31/4/208.pdf
Feb
25
This week’s activity and reading concentrated on T-GEM a learning design in which technology (T) is integrated in a student process of Generate – Evaluate – Modify (GEM). To date there are 240+ posts in our Chemland Forum. Of all the posts that I read (the majority), not one post provided a negative perspective. This week’s contributions were both enjoyable and enlightening. During the previous weeks we explored technology learning designs/environments that were multi aged in design (WISE – MyWorld – Chemland) but were far from having the flexibility offered by T-GEM.
We read about a chemistry teacher applying T-GEM using computer simulations. The cohort explored the computer simulations of Chemland took their experience and learnings and began to create T-GEM lessons differentiated to fit the needs of their students real and imagined. The variety of developed lessons was startling. For myself, it was best for me to peruse the lessons within my own conceptual grasp – a good reminder for any teacher that new learning needs to be in the zone of proximal development for the student young or old.
T-GEM was used to develop learning opportunities ranging from counting to quadratic equations and from states of matter to photosynthesis. GEM can be applied to any learning in a the math and science classroom and can be applied for any developmental/grade/age level. A teacher can take the intent of GEM and create his or her own lessons (as was evidenced in the shared lesson plans). As I read more and more of the posts (choosing those that applied to my area of interest and need), I began to realize that GEM was a design that I had, at times, inadvertently incorporated into lesson design and/or was present in some of the lessons and activities that over the years have been among my most favourite.
Now myself and other cohort members can purposefully employ GEM rather than accidentally stumble upon it. When I work with teacher learning groups, I talk about the importance of having students bump up against new learning and the need to provide students with opportunities for their beliefs and understandings to be conflicted. It’s GEM!
On Tuesday afternoon I lead twelve math teachers through the third of six inquiry sessions. I am excited to take to the next numeracy learning session this week’s 533 learning and the contributions, sharing, and reflections of my 533 colleagues.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Feb
22
I was intrigued when reading Edelson’s work, Learning for Use: A Framework for the Design of Technology -Supported Inquiry Activities. The parallels between the current push for reform in the teaching of mathematics and the apparent push for reform in the teaching of science were startling. Edelson (2005), impressed upon the reader that “integrating content and process together in the design of learning activities offers the opportunity to increase students’ experience with authentic activities while also achieving deeper content understanding”. ( p. 355). I would have preferred the phrase integrating concept and process. Certainly in math, procedural knowledge without conceptual knowledge to enable application puts a student at future risk in numeracy. Edelson indicates the same is true for science. This belief, the marriage of procedure and concept/content, has encouraged the research resulting in Edelson’s paper.
My World was engaging and time consuming. As teachers we are overwhelmed by the plethora of learning outcomes to be covered and the limited amount of instructional time with which to do so. Yet, we must facilitate learning opportunities in which our students may well learn less but learn deeply. Shifter and Fosnot state (1993), (“No matter how clearly and patiently teachers explain, they cannot understand for their students.”
Interestingly, Edelson proposes that perhaps “technology supported inquiry curricula will contribute to reform (p. 381). I have heard this theory/idea promoted before. Will it be technology that will finally be the catalyst to push educators to reform their practice? The Points of Inquiry, Critical Inquiry, . . .our teaching lives are abuzz with these terms. Yet these concepts are deep and hold promise for learning rigour.
For an educator to purposefully include the learning opportunities of My World, they must themselves be learners with the program. Teachers as learners with technology are better able to then incorporate technology into their classrooms? This question returns me to the learning and reflection that I engaged in as I framed an issue in Module A that led to the research and demonstration of my new learning and understandings in the Framing Issues Assignment.
“Likewise, if students do not construct knowledge in a manner that supports subsequent re-use of that knowledge, it remains inert (Whitehead, 1929).” 1929! My gosh. And we are still debating the need for authentic learning.
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.
Schifter, D., and C. T. Fosnot. 1993. Reconstructing mathematics education: Stories of teachers meeting the challenge of reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Whitehead, A. H. (1929). The aims of education Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feb
15
At first glance, WISE (the web-based inquiry science environment), has all the components of a 21st Century learning program. It appears to address many of the learning concerns of the day. WISE is attempting to make good use of the internet, increasing computer availability for students, and the possibilities of professional learning communities working together to share ideas and lesson possibilities. 
Thumbs Up
-teacher as facilitator
-large and small group work/partner work/ individual work
-inquiry based learning
-scaffolded instruction
-questions chosen to illicit higher order thinking
-reflection opportunities to help consolidate learning
-simulated experiences (next best thing to being there)
-suggestions for hands on experiments/experieces
-created by a mix of teachers, scientists, and technology specialists
-concepts taught through everyday life experiences
-participating as a learner in WISE would improve teacher conceptual understanding
Not So Sure
Is WISE really updated to “take advantage of current web resources”?
Will most teachers use WISE in the manner in which it was intended?
Will most teachers be able to customize the units (will this realistically be within their technology capabilities?).
Can teachers adapt this learning for those with learning or physical challenges?
At this time I do not have any thumbs down.
Is WISE everything that it needs to be? Not really. But in reality. I know that my children spend most of their science class reading a textbook and answering work sheets. Disturbing. Science disposition is not positive for many children. Could this help? Perhaps I can entice my children to give it a try.
Feb
14
The Jasper Series certainly provided for lively and varied discussion this past week.
C.A. themed his discussion thread around improving the Jasper Series and D.B. suggested in her thread that the series was in need of modernization. The improvements that are required of the Jasper Series are superficial. The Jasper Series was, is, will be of importance because it provides an example of concept building through authentic problem solving. It has been twenty plus years now that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics have been calling for learning opportunities such as those provided by the Jasper Series. Yet . . . . still the Jasper Series with its 1980’s fashions and hair styles is ahead of its time. Many teachers in today’s classrooms continue to teach using pedagogically outdated methods. They may be using “current” resources but they are using the new resources in old ways.
Without thought to and provision for teacher learning, unlearning, and relearning, resources such as the Jasper Series will only be used with good purpose by a few. Technology used to recreate ineffective and outdated teaching methods is of little use. Math resources used with outdated teaching methods and teaching methods are of little use.
Frequently the conversation this week, because it was as much about math as it was about the Jasper Series, contained the typical relational understanding versus instrumental understanding discussions. Tiring.
Page 16 – Reflections on Research in School Mathematics
Relational Understanding
· Conceptually based
· Knowing both “how” and “why”
· Acquired by sense-making
· Interconnected knowledge
· Easier to remember
· Involves fewer principles of more general application
· Flexible, more adaptable to new tasks
Instrumental Understanding
· Rule-based
· Knowing “how” but not “why”
· Acquired by rote
· Isolated knowledge
· Harder to remember
· Involves a multiplicity of rules
· Inflexible, not readily adaptable to new tasks
I apologize for sounding cranky but this past week or so I must have written ten posts that I deleted due to fear that my terse wording and obvious annoyance would be offensive to some. Our discussions on the Jasper Series should have been less about laser discs, forwarding and rewinding capabilities, numbers of classroom computers but more about how technology might finally be the catalyst that has profound effect on how mathematical concepts are learned and deep understanding demonstrated. In the 21st Century we no longer require individuals who are capable of multitudes of lengthy calculations we need individuals who can problem solve and demonstrate numerical creativity. Wow! The creators of the Jasper Series understood this thirty years ago. Are they as cranky now as I am?
Happy Valentine’s Day. I am just not feeling the love.
Feb
13
I am not trying to earn extra marks here. It’s just that I believe instructors/teachers should be given feedback when learning activities and products designed for demonstration of learning are particularly good or particularly . . . not so good? The recent Framing Issues Assignment was wonderfully crafted. The journey through Module A created a strong foundation from which the paper could be supported. The cohort was led through a process that helped us define our questions by combining personal, colleague, research investigation. The Framing Issues assignment was not a pie in the sky – find some research – write a paper – watch the APA – won’t remember what I wrote about next year assignment . . . . it was an assignment that will have lasting affect. Myself, nor do I believe any of my cohort, found definitive answers to our questions. We began a journey of inquiry, information gathering, and reflection. The inquiry, the research, and the reflection, will cycle again. As it should.
The quality of learning can be judged by the quality of the product created. My paper is okay. The product created from this assignment was not really the paper, it is the learning that I will apply to my work and that will help me better serve the teachers, teacher candidates, and students that I serve.
Thanks. And thank you for having this assignment due mid course. Brilliant!
Feb
9
The instructions for this post included the warning that we try to suspend judgement in regards to the Jasper series. At first glance any hands on, project based, problem solving, math teacher is enthralled and feels his or her pulse quicken. Ah Jasper. Wouldst I have known of you when my daily interactions with eleven and twelve year olds occurred in the math classroom.
The Jasper series is comprised of a number of adventures. Each adventure is anchored in a story and problem. It is hoped that through investigation of a problem, students will work cooperatively and constructively to apply mathematical concepts to create possible solutions to the problems. Appealing to students is the media used to present the problems. Video storytelling sets the scene and the conditions. No text based contrived problems here. Also encouraging to educators is the inclusion of African American, Indigenous Peoples, and people with special needs. Students can see their faces reflected in the characters of whom the scenarios revolve.
As an instructor I wonder:
•Which of these videos can I employ to meet curricular outcomes?
•What key understandings and background knowledge must students have to be successful?
•Do these activities differentiate allow for differentiation so that I can meet the needs of all learners?
•Do these activities have both opportunities for individual and social process?
•Given all the learning outcomes that I must cover in a year, do I have the time to do so using this series?
As a potential TELE designer I wonder:
•Do I have the reliable technology to present the videos?
•What technology might my students employ in their investigations?
•What demonstrations of understanding might I expect and what technologies might that employ?
•How might I be supported in my understanding of the concepts investigated in this series?
•Is there a professional community in which I can collaborate that is using this series?
•Will my students be able to apply their understandings to creating and/or successfully investigating other problems?
•How/can my students take this learning outside of the classroom?
