Introduction

Initially, I liked how Roblyer (2004) simply describes technology as “us -our tools, our methods, and our own creative attempts to solve problems.” I still agree with Roblyer’s definition but also know there are many factors that determine our technology development and its use. In math and science education, we strive to use the tools at our disposal to solve problems and these tools evolve in physical form as we evolve in our thinking. Educators that I work with vary with their use of technology for numerous different reasons. Students are also much different from when I was growing up, and sometimes difficult for teachers to relate to due to their constant use of technology. According to Bonamici, et al. (2005) by the time the average “Net Gener” has reached the age of 21 they will have spent 10,000 hours playing video games, 200,000 hours on email, 20,000 hours watching TV, 10,000 hours on cell phones and less than 5,000 hours reading books. In my opinion, school curricula have not changed to meet the needs of this new digital generation, even though some ICT (Information and Communication Technology) outcomes may be included. As teachers, we can have a great impact on how technology is used in our classrooms as we prepare students for their future careers and lives in a technology-enhanced world.

Many issues regarding the use of educational technology were discussed throughout this course. Some of the topics of particular interest to me include the following:

• getting the proper technology into the hands of students
• planning for T-GEM (Technology – Generate, Evaluate and Modify) learning
• providing professional development to support teachers in their technology use
• using technology to engage students in learning

Most of these topics came up in an interview with a colleague where we discussed the need for training and professional development, equality of technological resources for students and a unified sense of direction when using technology in the classroom. Our course discussions added to my depth of understanding on all of these issues. Blogging my thoughts and impressions caused me to reflect on my technology use, strengthening some of the ideas I hold and replacing others with better ones. I will discuss some of the key points that are currently affecting my teaching with technology as well as how my views have evolved throughout this course.

Access to Technology and Mobile Devices

Through my interview with a colleague, the importance of having accessible technology was brought to light. When asked how she would like her physical class set up to aid in her use of technology she responded that she would like to have the technology on-hand all the time to us when the need arose, instead of having to book it out through the library all the time or share within her department. She said, “If I had ready access to all of these there would be so much that I could do in a science class. You know what? We do have most of this stuff. I guess it would be nice to have it here in my room all the time. To have it right here and pull it out when it makes sense to do so.” Discussion in the course module across a number of threads pointed to the general lack of funding for technology and the possible movement toward having students bring their own devices (BYOD) to use for research and internet access. The BYOD model would solve some problems of district-funded technology like initial cost and setup, damage, updating software and program familiarity. Some colleagues thought it would not work, as the cost is too great for each student to BYOD and the payment too costly for educational applications or programs. I see the BYOD model as the way of the future where students may use a laptop, netbook, tablet, or smartphone to record data, browse the internet, communicate with peers and present findings to the class. If they have their own devices, they take ownership for their learning and have access to information continuously.

As Jaki pointed out in the Embodied Learning Forum, mobile technologies allow “students to form more comprehensive data sets” (Roschelle, 2003). Proper use of mobile devices can lead to authentic learning, which in turn, increases student engagement and increased learning. As Zang, et al. said, “To take advantage of this merging pervasive technology, science educators need to develop curricula that specifically consider the affordances of these mobile technologies.” Educators need to have an understanding of technology use as well as how they can incorporate it into their teaching. Sugar and Bonk  (1998) suggest we move towards “situations wherein inexperienced students actively construct new knowledge in authentic settings under some expert guidance.” This means that teachers need either to have the subject expertise or know how to bring it to the students through technological means.

Planning for T-GEM (Technology – Generate, Evaluate and Modify) Learning

Learning about and using the four technology enhanced learning environments (TELE’s) discussed in this course caused me to reflect on how I use technology in my classroom. I was in high school during the rise of the personal computer and the introduction of the internet to schools. I grew up using similar technologies discussed in this course. I recall watching videos like the Jasper Series where a video was played to set up a problem and then the solution was left for us to solve. The novelty and visuals kept my interest through the activity, however, I also recall that the video lessons were not used often and only with one teacher. My interest in science was spurred by the numerous experiments we were able to complete through my secondary education where the standard apparatus were used to follow a procedure from problem to conclusion.

In post-secondary, I saw increased possibilities when our experiments were recorded by computers and then graphed on-screen, right in front of our eyes. I see this as my introduction to model-based inquiry (see Kahn, 2007) and the basis of the WISE learning platform. Linn, Clark and Slotta (2003) concluded, “When students and teachers participate in a series of WISE projects, they have the opportunity to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of inquiry because they encounter inquiry patterns in different contexts, under different circumstances, and in different sequences.”  Now, these experiments can be modeled repeatedly through technology, with a choice of data sets. I still use some model-based lessons in some of the classes I teach as they can show the possibilities without the cost or physical manipulation of experiments.

Kahn (2010) observed that “by affording the teacher and students the opportunity to constrain variables, produce data quickly, generate graphical trends, push to extreme values, proceed in increments and visualize multiple, color coded representations. I see the benefits of using T-GEM (Technology to Generate-Evaluate-Modify) exercises in my teaching. I did not see much of the T in my learning path as it was not readily available but through professional development and collaboration, I am now able to add it to the GEM model, when I have access to it.

Professional Development in Educational Technology

Professional development is the main way to teach teachers in the education system. Just as the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt (CTGV) (1992) suggest that students should be engaged in generative, rather than passive learning activities I believe teachers need and want to learn in a similar way. Embedded learning linked to curricular objectives is more effective than lecturing or reading up on it. CTGV’s anchored instruction is one way to create professional development that solve “real life” problems in the classroom and move learning forward. Their implementation of the Jasper Series included a two-week training program for teachers as well as regular follow-up and available support when needed. This professional development model spurred some discussion in this course about what good PD should look like. It was woven throughout many of the discussion threads. In our discussions, it was noted that effective PD should be timely, pertinent, properly funded, and given the necessary support from administration. It was also suggested that new teachers pair up with a mentor teacher for guidance from someone who teacher a similar subject and is close in physical proximity. Shracter and Fagnano (1999) support this apprentice relationship when they agreed with Piaget who “argued that learning is best when it takes place with more capable learners”.

The proper allocation of time seemed to come up repeatedly as teachers feel overwhelmed with all their regular daily duties that professional development often gets pushed aside. It was also suggested in the discussions that we should look into Google’s work model where they have prescribed work four days of the week and then have one day to play. This “educational play” brings out the creativity in workers as it would in teachers. I cannot see funding issues allowing this model in public education so we will continue to find ways within the system to improve professional development.

For me, the question remains. How do we motivate and support colleagues to use technology in their classrooms more effectively than they are now?

Using Technology to Engage Students

Technology plays a major role in engaging students in their learning. It sees that students are always looking for easier and faster ways to complete tasks, as are workers and businesses. Beeland (2002) states that, “Student engagement is critical to student motivation during the learning process. The more students are motivated to learn, the more likely it is that they will be successful in their efforts.” Technology has and will continue to make learning easier and faster. I decided to write my Framing Issues paper on the effects of technology on student engagement. Baya and Daher (2009) support my opinion of how technology positively affects learning in that technology use motivates, engages, builds knowledge, is authentic, and collaborative in educational settings. Students look forward to opportunities to use technology in its many forms, especially in math and science.

Conclusion

This course has opened my eyes to the many possible uses for technology as I teach science and maybe math in the future. I plan to use virtual field trips and technology to bring the experts into my classroom, providing my students with the best information that they need to be successful. I will strive to use T-GEM to teach science concepts and mobile devices to record data, generate analysis, and present results. I will be more engaged as a teacher and believe my students will enjoy learning even that much more.

I am left with the challenge to build on my teaching with the technology and tools I have at my disposal. I do not teach in a one-to-one laptop environment, and struggle sharing the technology that our school has to offer students. I feel fortunate to have wireless internet throughout the school, some access to computer labs and laptop carts but still feel limited to their availability. I will continue to push administration and colleagues to allow students to bring their own devices (BYOD) to use as often as necessary, in a controlled and safe environment. I feel this BYOD shift is not too far away and will have a great positive impact on learning.

I look forward to the future with technological tools at my side. Each step to increased learning benefits my children, our society and me. Knowledge is power and technology can help us get that power into our hands.

References:

Bayaa, N. & Daher, W. (2009). Learning mathematics in an authentically mobile environment: The perceptions of students. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 3, 6-14.

Beeland, W.D. ( 2002 ). Student Engagement, Visual Learning and Technology: Can Interactive Whiteboards Help?

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 194-212.

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.

Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Roblyer, M.D. (2004). Integrating educational technology into teaching, 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Merrill/ Prentice Hall.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260-272.

Sugar, W. A., & Bonk, C.J. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse, 131-155.

Zhang, B. et al. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education. 55, 1504-1523.

After introducing myself through sharing experiences about how the internet has changed my life the Unpacking Assumptions post set the stage for this course. Some of the topics discussed have remained pertinent throughout the rest of the course as some were addressed and some require more attention. Increased access to information has changes the way we teach and learn. Inquiry-based problem solving goes hand-in-hand with the T-GEM model of learning where planning for technology plays an important role in learning. Funding the ideal TELE has and will continue to be an issue but steps have been taken in some schools to allow for student owned devices to be used in class, or use computers supplied by the school. I still see a future where every student is connected to the internet and has the technological tools for success at their disposal both in class and at home.

Through interviewing a colleague similar issues came to light as she reflected on her use of technology in her classroom and how she would like her class setup to look like. Challenges to using technology include possible distractions and equitable access to technology for students and teachers. Proper professional development was discussed and an increase in collaboration and sharing was suggested. Districts seem to plan for technology but their direction does not always get passed down to the teachers in the classroom so it would be nice to move in a unified direction across boards and provinces in terms of technology use.

By studying four TELE’s that have been used over the last 30 years we were able to dissect each environment and discuss the pro’s and con’s of each one. The Jasper Series introduced problems with video and set the stage for real world problem solving. Limited feed back was available and the opportunities for collaboration were limited to the group or class. WISE models build on the Jasper visuals as they provide increased access to information. Videos, graphs and activities enhance the learner’s experience. Activities can be added as they become available, which is a great asset for WISE. I found that I like using WISE learning as it was sequential and I would eventually find the answer through trial and error if necessary (even though it may not always be constructivism). The Learning-for-Use (LfU) model uses technology to make math and science tasks quicker and easier to learn through scaffolding and providing experiences for students. T-GEM (technology-generate-evaluate-modify) learning engages students in real-life math and science. It helps make mathematicians and scientists out of students where they contribute, reflect, adapt and report on their work. The real challenge is to plan for T-GEM learning regularly and cover the curriculum, but is worth the effort.

Tom and I chose to look at virtual field trips as an option to “real” field trips and found that they can play an important role in the math and science class. Technology allows students to be in their class (or home, or library, or McDonald’s) and go on a field trip that is either very close or far away. It was suggested that VFT’s be used as an introduction to real field trips or as a review. They can also be used when there is a shortage of time or funding. Students can go from home toFrancetoJapanand back in a few short clicks of a mouse.

Mobile devices have increased in popularity and decreased in price significantly over the last few years. Wireless internet access is available in many schools and public places. This new technology allows our learning to become mobile. We don’t have to be sitting in a desk in a classroom to have information delivered to us. Smartphones can replace numerous devices like watches, calculators, remote controls and computers. As we study the use of mobile technology it is apparent that it will be an even larger part of our lives as we come to depend on it. We use mobile devices to communicate, do research, explore, bank, and play. I see mobile devices as technology that will be useful in all areas of business and education. It might take some convincing but the sooner we implement the technology at hand (literally) the better off we will be.