I recently watched some video cases of teachers implementing technology into the classroom.  I was reflecting on my “Unpacking Assumptions” post, and the question of how technology is used in the classroom, and my idea of categorizing tech into either teacher-facing and student-facing.  I realized after watching the cases that there was a key element I was not considering, namely, is the technology being used to transmit information (teaching tool) or is it being used as a medium for students to demonstrate their learning (presentation tool).  The teachers I watched are taking very different approaches.  Teacher A has used technology to engage students in virtual lab experiments as a source of information to students, whereas teacher F asked his students to use podcasting, GIFs, and powerpoint presentations as media for them to show their learning.  I think this is more important distinction to consider than teacher-facing/student facing.  Technology that is used as a teaching tool would likely be purpose-built for educational use.  This has advantages and disadvantages – it fits the need it is built for well, but its application is narrow in scope.  Technology that is used as a presentation tool is usually built for some other purpose, and has been appropriated for educational purposes.  The limitations here are similar, though opposite – students must make their work fit into its parameters, though its application often offers much broader possibilities.

Another issue that emerged while watching the cases was the problem of access.  Each of the teachers described a variety of access issues, from hardware, to pre-service teacher education, to professional development.  Teacher A and B (as well as their students) both describe the lack of hardware available to students – there seemed to be a lot of juggling computer time and putting more than one student on each computer.  Hopefully,  this issue has improved at the school since the video was made.  Judging by some visual cues in the videos, the video was made in the early 2000s, so it is likely that more computers are now available and it is possible that some of the programs they used would now be available on student’s mobile devices.  The case 6 teacher and student teacher, however, bring up another access issue altogether: how do teachers learn about technology they can incorporate into their practice?  This seems to be still be an issue today.  The teacher in case 6 seems to be personally interested in exploring technology on his own, and goes so far as to say that if a teacher wants to keep pace with the changing landscape, that they have to go find and learn it themselves.  The student teacher mentioned the lack of technology education in her university classes.  How will new teachers be prepared to take on the emerging edtech boom?  

I think part of the problem is that k-12 teaching is not a traditionally innovative profession.  It has remained relatively stagnant in form for about 250 years, and the environment during those years has not rewarded people seeking to be on the cutting edge.  As a result, many teachers at both the k-12 level and the university teacher preparation level fall into the “laggards” category of the Innovation Adoption Cycle pictured below.  These people would see the ever-changing tech landscape as both unreliable (hardware/software become obsolete very quickly) and threatening to their traditional pedagogical methods.  This is why the TPACK framework is so important to introduce, since it provides a way of looking at technology’s role within learning in broader strokes and allows teachers to design learning that incorporate technology that plays to their strengths and the strengths of their students (Koehler, M. & Mishra, P. 2009).

Image retrieved from: http://thesocialmediamonthly.com/startup-growth-hacking-critical-mass-begins-with-early-adopters/

When thinking about what constitutes ‘good’ use of technology in the math/science classroom, I tend to think of it in two categories: teacher facing and student facing.

Good teacher facing tech is anything that helps free the teacher from time consuming tasks that pull them away from the student: organizing paper, photocopying, marking, managing resources.  When burdened with these types of tasks, teachers spend less time one on one with their students.

Good student facing tech provides opportunities for learning to be more accessible, more equitable, easier to share/collaborate, and more meaningful to students.  This could be through adding breadth, depth (or both) or by providing opportunities for multimodal learning or student expression.

If we were to walk into class where tech is effectively integrating into the learning environment, here are some things we would notice:

1. The tech would be enhancing what the students are doing.  It wouldn’t just be a replacement for a paper activity or a ‘pictures under glass‘ version of an experiment.  Rather, the tech would allow for some new dimension to student inquiry that was previously not possible.
2. The tech would be contextualized within the culture of the classroom and community, as well as provide opportunities to take the learning beyond a singular content area (math, science, etc.).
3. The tech would put student learning and participation at the center of the experience.  There would be opportunity for customization, appropriation, and collaboration.

Reflecting on Heather’s misconceptions from the first lesson, I can see good student facing tech being very effective at helping her (and her classmates) understanding concepts like seasonal variance and phases of the moon.  The teacher employed the tech they had access to at the time (the mechanical solar system model), but I imagine that an interactive digital model could be significantly more powerful.  For example, the sun would actually be emitting light, so the models would be illuminated allowing for students to see the phases of the moon clearly.  They would also be able to test their own (mis)conceptions, like the irregular orbits Heather drew, the clouds causing the phases of the moon, etc. – the act of which might help jostle those long-held views from their entrenched positions.

The idea of ‘good’ tech use is so subjective and dependant on many variables.  Is it possible in real classrooms?  Absolutely.  What makes it a challenge to implement?  Teachers and school admin bear such a important responsibility to understand the cultural context of their learners, to select tech that supports their learning and promotes their growth.  Teachers, themselves, must be experts not only in their content areas and pedagogy, but also in the technology and how it relates to the learning of their students.  To achieve truly effective tech integration into science and math classrooms, design thinking must be de rigueur from the top down (government to districts, districts to admin) and bottom up (student/parent to teacher, teacher to admin).