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.

Mobile devices are becoming a valuable part of our students’ everyday lives. Bayaa and Daher’s (2009) research explored the use of mobile phone applications (apps) in order to build mathematical knowledge in algebra and geometry. They focused on mathematics mobile education, students’ perceptions of their learning and authentic learning outcomes. In a small study, they found that students enjoyed learning with mobile technology and were motivated to learn more as they were engaged in real world situations. Students used the apps to take pictures, record video, measure time, transfer information, and communicate with one another. One student reported that the mobile devices made learning math “easier, simpler and collaborative.”

Bayaa and Daher (2009) stated that mobile devices assist in math education through:

• Breaking the everyday routine
• Enabling independent learning
• Creating a humanistic environment
• Encouraging collaborative learning
• Enabling math exploration
• Making math visual and dynamic
• Using various mathematical actions
• Making math easy and saving time in learning concepts

All of these outcomes are positive as math is traditionally done with pencil, paper and occasionally, a calculator. They also reported that the relationship between the teacher and student changed to more of a level playing field through using mobile technology. The researchers did recommend caution be used when teaching with mobile apps as some students were merely interested by the novelty of the lesson and the devices could be a distraction for them with all the other apps on their devices.  Overall, students were excited to use the apps and appreciated the activity as well as achieved the learning outcomes.

I view the use of mobile apps as very useful in math and science classrooms as mobile devices are used increasingly in many aspects of our lives. Some of the advantages of mobile devices are:

• Calculators apps-no need to buy different calculators to computer various function, just change the app (i.e. graphing calculators, unit conversion calculators, etc.)
• Lesson specific- when studying physics a specific app can be used to explore a concept in depth
• Cheap or free to use- generally the apps cost little money, although the schools would not want to pay for them out of budget funds (a whole new debate topic)
• Internet capabilities- can connect to the web for research, accessing shared documents, reporting results and communication
• Multi-functional- not just a calculator or a phone, an all-in-one device
• Interesting for students- new and exciting applications can be a source of motivation for some learners
• Mobility- the technology is not limited to the classroom, or even a power source
• Teachers become facilitators, not dispensers of knowledge (Zhang et al., 2010)

Zhang et al. (2010) note in their study “mobile devices are used as a hub to mediate all the learning inquires and activities.” I don’t know that I would include mobile devices in all my lessons but would want them on-hand as a reference tool when needed. They also suggest, “Educators need to develop curricula that specifically consider the affordances of these mobile technologies.” I do agree that we need to address the issue of using the devices in our classrooms and plan appropriately for them. I also see that there needs to be some consistency among teachers about the use of mobile devices. Some teachers are all for using them in their classrooms but others want them banned from schools. I don’t know that banning their use is the right way to go as they are becoming a part of life and can be a great educational tool if used properly. Under the right circumstances with the lesson planned to include mobile technology and a caution to students to use the technology properly mobile devices can assist learning, as well as fill 21^st century learner goals.

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.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

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

Edelson et al. (2002) explain how the Learning-for-Use model uses a 3-step process of motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement. They specifically note, “An individual constructs new knowledge as the result of experiences that enable him or her to add new concepts to memory, subdivide existing concepts, or make new connections between concepts.” I agree that these experiences are what create lasting knowledge. Edelson et al. also explain that “In the refinement step, knowledge is re-organized, connected to other knowledge, and reinforced in order to support its future retrieval use.” This reinforcement solidifies the learning and allows for possible extensions.

Earth science is delivered from the view of what we know of our own planet, Earth. A challenge is how to transfer this Earth-based knowledge to other planets with their many differing characteristics. Some knowledge needs to be re-taught or deconstructed before being built on sound scientific principles due to misconceptions learned through misinformation (example: the sun is directly overhead at noon each day).
The project begins setting the stage by connecting prior knowledge of Earth to a similar planet X. The task is then set to explore the specific temperature characteristics of this new planet building on their prior knowledge of temperature zones. Teachers can choose to use a Progress Portfolio to record observations and reflections. Students then use the scientific method to investigate specific temperature factors for their planet. Through a hypothesis, procedure, data analysis, and reflection students are able to have experiences with the material being taught. I do not know that just by creating an artificial scenario the students will engage in the assignment. Some might even be put off by it, as they may struggle to grasp all the possible factors that go into deciphering temperature zones.

I like how Martha prepared her students by telling them that she was not going to tell them the answers but that they needed to discover them on their own, just as a scientist would. She even gave them the opportunity to recollect experimental data. I would use physical models as much as possible to show the angle of light and temperature zones. I would also use computers as an additional teaching tool specifically Google Earth views of temperature zones, online videos, and applicable controlled simulations. If possible, I would like to set up a working model with a heat source and varying temperature zones to monitor and show the relationships being tested.

I view WorldWatcher (Geode) as a good resource in teaching in a blended learning environment or TELE. I think this is what our students are looking for in science education. They are curious about the world around them and want to use technology to learn and discover new ideas. They would rather collect data using digital resources and reflect on their ideas through emailing and blogging.

Reference:

Edelson, D. C. et al. (2002). Learning-for-Use in Earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Edelson (2001) decided to research technology-supported inquiry activities in response to teachers’ need for more class time, in teaching science content and processes. Traditionally, these two skill shave been taught using different activities. I have seen this transition take place in my classroom as we slowly add technology to our school. I have also seen a great deal of technology integration throughout my education over the past 30 years, or so. I feel we can do more to add to the user experience and constructing knowledge through technology enhanced learning experiences. We cannot take our students around the world to live the many different scientific discoveries but we can bring the world to them through increased use of technology, specifically the world wide web and all its capabilities.

Edelson suggests using inquiry-based learning to combine both process and content skills. Technology assistance can shorten the time it takes to accomplish inquiry tasks. The author presents a Learning for Use (LfU) model to assist students in making the transition from traditional science learning to meet the current needs of students and teachers. The LfU model’s goal is to “overcome the inert knowledge problem by prescribing how learning activities can foster useful conceptual understanding that will be available to the learner when it is relevant.”
According to Edelson, technology-supported inquiry learning (TSIL) is needed for the following reasons:

1. Technology is used more and more in scientific inquiry worldwide
2. Computer are beneficial in making processes faster and more efficient through their ability to store and provide various types of formatting
3. Computers are being integrated into school and TSIL will support information and communication technology (ICT) outcomes

TSIL is based on the constructivist learning view where knowledge is built through scaffolding and goal-oriented experiences. Edelson explains, “The LfU model characterizes the development of useable understanding as a three-step process consisting of motivation (create a demand and elicit curiosity), knowledge construction (observe and communicate), and knowledge refinement (reflect and apply).” I see the LfU model as a natural fit with the scientific process, where students create knowledge through problem-solving experiences.

Technology “brings the power of scientists; computational tools to learners” (Gordon & Pea, 1995) as well as a forum for creating a portfolio of work and thought. It assists in visualizing problems and situations, interacting with data, investigating problems and presenting observations. I see it as a window to the world where a teacher with an entire class or an individual student can see beyond their classroom walls to the many wonders of the world.

The design strategies create TSIL through the scientific process in conjunction with technology use. Students are presented with a real-world problem to solve, use prior knowledge to construct a hypothesis, develop a plan, carry it out and then reflect on and present their findings. They are also challenged with different scenarios and what if questions which are transferable life skills. The LfU model aligns with what I call natural learning: it happens naturally through life`s experiences. Through the creation and execution of various curriculum directed experience the learning can be deep and focused. I strive to foster this type of learning in my classroom and in my life.

References:

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.

Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002, April). Learning-for-Use in Earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

Gordin, D.N., & Pea, R.D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 249-279.

Welcome to my blog for ETEC 533:Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom. I will be posting my coursework and refelections throughout the Jan-April 2012 term.

Visit my welcome page for more info about me and this course.

Enjoy!

Dennis