Integrating Technology

Final E-Folio Analysis

Standard

My learning in ETEC 533 has certainly taken me on a journey.  As a 10 year math and science teacher, I had started to get the impression that I was figuring this whole thing out.  This course has been a good reminder that, like in all things, we always have much more to learn.  Reflecting on the course and rereading my e-folio entries, two main themes emerged for me.  First, the power of misconceptions and the role of context/culture in their creation and correction.  Second, the ways that a teacher’s knowledge of content, technology, and pedagogy can serve to create cultural change in classroom and school as a whole.

Beginning with A Private Universe (1987), my own preconceptions about misconceptions were challenged.  Coming into the course, I was held a naive assumption that student misconceptions were easily eliminated by sound instruction – that, once confronted with fact, a student would accommodate their existing schema to incorporate the new information (Piaget, 1936).  Despite my many experiences to the contrary as a middle school teacher, I held my own misconception about misconceptions in the same sticky, deeply rooted way my students do.  Even in my first post, I can see myself holding on to my naive assumption, trying to assimilate the evidence in A Private Universe and thinking of technology as some ‘magic bullet’, rather than make an accommodation in my original schema:

“…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” (Elsdon, 2017).

While I still agree with this on some levels, it echoes the assumption that misconceptions are easy to dislodge through sound instruction.  It does not address the important questions of how and why the misconception became entrenched.  The schema was need-fulfilling for the student at some key moment – indeed, there is a context to the student and their misconceptions that play an important role in both creation and correction of misconceptions.  Without understanding that, the task of addressing incorrect schemas now seems like groping in the dark.

I see my current beliefs on the role of technology in addressing misconceptions start to take shape after the Roblyer (2012) and Muffoletto (1994) readings, mainly because of the way they situate technology within the larger idea of culture.   In my blog, I identify a, “common thread they [Roblyer and Muffoletto] share about technology being less a collection of ‘things’ and more about the integrated practices and behaviours of our culture” (Elsdon, 2017).  Taking this wider view, my ideas about hands-on or digital models fully addressing Heather’s ideas about the seasons in A Private Universe only go part way.  Her ideas about proximity (perihelion/aphelion) are a part of the puzzle, and need to be met head-on.  In a later blog entry on the T-GEM framework, I see my thinking on this take shape by incorporating the process of generating/evaluating/modelling.  In my T-GEM design, I incorporate the examination of specific common misconceptions of diffusion into the evaluation section of the process – a sign that I am starting to see that quality instruction (the presentation of fact alone, without addressing previously held misconception) is not enough.

Finally, Winn (2003) connected the end of the loop for me with embodied learning and the idea that individual and environment are a single, co-evolving organism.  My post on TELE’s (“If I Were a Carpenter…”) seemed to predict my eventual connection with Winn’s (2003) work.  Seeing the commonality of TELE’s, specifically, “…that learning is constructed through experience – by moving through cycles of dissonance, integration, and resonance” (Elsdon, 2017), I see that it is the moments of dissonance that bring the most growth.  The constantly evolving individual/environment can stagnate in certain schemas, providing space for misconceptions to take root.  Pedagogy that leads students into uncomfortable places in a safe, empowered way allows them to examine their beliefs and gives them permission to create new schemas, or assimilate the old ones.  Further, my observation that, “…content is not as meaningful without a context.  Each one of these TELE’s, to varying degrees, aims to make learning relevant and meaningful, contextualizing it and attempting to create (or have students create) problems they are motivated to solve” (Elsdon 2017), echoes my synthesis of Roblyer and Muffoletto’s ideas about technology as needing to be situated within a multifaceted culture.  

In addition to the thinking I have done on misconceptions, I have also been stretched in my understanding of how the confluence of content, technological, and pedagogical knowledge shape the decision making of teachers, and their role in creating a successful learning environment.  The work of Mishra & Koehler (2016) on Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) was research that I had already read and cited several times in my other MET classes – the first time I read their work, it resonated with me as an effective model for the interlocking pieces necessary to integrate technology int learning in an authentic way.  In my first blog post, I reference TPACK, suggesting that, “[t]eachers, 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” (Elsdon, 2017).  I was very focused at the time on the ideal – the center of the T/P/C/K venn diagram, where all the knowledges converge in ideally approached instruction. Whenever I look back on work and see ‘shoulds’ and ‘musts’ peppered in my writing, I tend to feel a little sheepish.  It is hard to remember, when we read something powerful by a brilliant thinker, that all things are in process and continually growing and evolving – that incorporating new ideas is not an ‘all or nothing’ affair.  To use such imperative language only serves to marginalize the process and create barriers to those who are resistant to opening themselves to new ideas.  Since then, I have moved away from looking just at the ideal and have become more interested in the interstices between 2 or 3 of the knowledges.  Schulman (1986) explored how pedagogical and content knowledge interact, but how does technological knowledge interact with content knowledge in the absence of pedagogical considerations? How does pedagogical knowledge inform technological knowledge, and vice-versa?  I posted several videos throughout the course that I had created to share with my personal learning network (PLN) because they connected with some of our coursework.  When I look at them now, I can clearly see the development of either T/C knowledge (finding ways to bend technology to show mathematical notation – see the post entitled “Creating Powerful Google Forms for Math”) or T/P knowledge (finding ways to use technology to support formative student self-assessment practices – see the post entitled “If I Were a Carpenter…”).  Nicol’s (2007) work on repurposing a old toll – the multiple choice question (MCQ) – was fascinating to me through the lense of T/P knowledge.  It was a great example of how deep pedagogical.  Nicol (2007) not only understood how and why the old use of MCQ’s was flawed, but also how it could be used as a tool for a different job, transforming it into something pedagogically sound and aligned with a Constructivist and formative approach to learning.

The importance of the themes I have found is clear to me.  The examination of misconceptions and the role of TPACK in creating powerful learning environments are both foundational elements of this course and integral parts of my developing teaching practice.  This course has done much to change the trajectory of my professional development.  I am now much more aware of the power and perniciousness of student misconceptions.  Anchored Instruction, SKI/WISE, T-GEM, LfU equipped me with not only a wealth of tools that we have explored, but also frameworks from which to examine emergent tools, or even create new tools of my own.  Like all good learning, I am left with many more questions and a desire to go deeper in many areas.  From an academic/research perspective, I am fascinated with future of embodied learning given the emergence of virtual reality and augmented reality.  In the classroom, I am excited to use my expanding understanding of TPACK as a lens through which I design my future courses.  I am also keen to pursue the T-GEM method of identifying and addressing specific student misconceptions – of gathering information on how and why students assimilate incorrect information into their personal schemas.  

I am thankful for all I have gained through this experience, and I look forward to putting it into practice in both my future academic pursuits and professional practice.

References

Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012;2011;). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247-40. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.611446

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

Coimbra, M. T., Cardoso, T., & Mateus, A. (2015). Augmented reality: An enhancer for higher education students in math’s learning? Procedia Computer Science, 67, 332-339. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.277

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.

Elsdon, J. (2017) Have TPACK, Will Travel.  Retrieved from: https://blogs.ubc.ca/elsdon/

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Producer).  (1987).  A Private Universe [online video].  Retrieved from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.

Hattie, H. & Timperly, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

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

Mazur, E (2012) Why You Can Pass Tests and Still Fail in the Real World (9:32) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyikmLxntrk

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: Constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34(2), 24-28.

Nicol, D. (2007) E‐assessment by design: using multiple‐choice tests to good effect, Journal of Further and Higher Education, (31),1, pp. 53-64, http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03098770601167922

Roblyer, M.D. & Doering, A. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching, (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

Embodied Learning x Technology

Standard

What a mind bender!  My preconceptions about where my readings on Embodied Learning would go were blown out of the water.  I expected to hear about VR/AR/haptics: tech-facing and .  Far from this, embodied learning is more like a philosophical treatise on identity and environment.  What a revelation it is to think of environment and individual as a single body, evolving constantly, rather than separate, interacting entities (Winn, 2003)!

I was interested with how Winn (2003) laid out a framework for embodied learning.  The part that resonated most with me was the concept of ‘Umwelt’ – the environment as it is uniquely perceived by each individual.  In particular, the point about the challenges of teaching students with idiosyncratic Umwelten that change in unpredictable ways connected deeply with my experiences as a middle school classroom teacher.  In addition, the idea of finding ways to ‘couple’ students to their environment (artificial or otherwise) was intriguing to me, and meshed with the Coimbra et al (2015) article about using augmented reality in math education.  Seymour Papert once described an ‘artificial environment’ where math learning happens as organically and seamlessly and language learning – he called it ‘Mathland’.  From reading these articles on embodied learning, AR/VR seem like a glimpse into this mythic realm, if not a full gateway.  Coimbra et al (2015) found that higher education students reported AR math problems to be more perceptible than other ways of teaching.

Combine this with the pointing, representational, and metaphoric gestures studied by Alibali & Nathan (2012;2011), and we have the makings of our classrooms turning into remakes of the Steven Spielberg film Minority Report.  With the confluence of these ideas, I imagine AR/VR could both couple student with a ‘Mathland’-like artificial environment, and allow the meaning-making gestures that the student and teacher make could manifest themselves into visual representations in real time.

Questions:

What is the baseline of common ground that must be found between individual Umwelten to make communication and mutual understanding possible?

Much was made of the efforts needed and strategies possible to couple students to artificial environments.  With student life increasingly being spent online or in other artificial environments, what strategies are needed to ensure children (and adults) are coupled with the physical world?

 

References

Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012;2011;). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 247-40. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.611446

Coimbra, M. T., Cardoso, T., & Mateus, A. (2015). Augmented reality: An enhancer for higher education students in math’s learning? Procedia Computer Science, 67, 332-339. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.277

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2013, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf

If I Were a Carpenter…

Standard

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, [you] treat everything as if it were a nail.” – Abraham Maslow (1966)

One of the areas that most fascinates me as a math teacher is assessment.  It is a topic that I have wrestled with since I became a teacher and saw early on how inauthentic it can be.  We looked at assessment in one of my other MET classes, and I wanted to remind myself of some of the key ideas I have come across as ETEC 533 winds down.

The academic test, and especially the multiple choice test, may be one of the best expressions of Malsow’s saying.  For almost 200 years, we have used tests to find out what content information is stored inside a student’s head.  In his video, Eric Mazur (2012) describes in his video how irrelevant this process is now that information is so readily available, saying that any question that can be answered with a google search is a bad question.

Is the test as we knew it dead? It seems the answer is both yes and no.  Mazur (2012) talks about tests changing to be more process oriented – that the modern test should be open book, with all tools available in use, and even collaborative at times.  Conversely, David Nicol (2007) shows a way forward using multiple choice questions (MCQ) as a formative assessment tool.  His 7 principles of good feedback can be applied to MCQ’s to transform the method in which the old tool is used.

Both of these thinkers give ideas that resonate with me in my teaching practice.  It is also connected very closely with work I did previous class when asked to find ways to use a digital tool for self assessment.  Below is a video of how I have used MCQ’s in google forms to transition the academic test from the exclusive domain of teach control, and give much of the power of assessment to my students.  This tool actually became very versatile once I stopped thinking of it as a hammer.

Questions remain for me.  How else could we use the data that we collect?

I think the usefulness of the tool for my students is twofold – formative self-assessment, and bolstering their positive feelings about themselves, math, and themselves as mathematicians. In what other ways can this tool be used for my students?

References

Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science: A reconnaissance ([1st]. ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Mazur, E (2012) Why You Can Pass Tests and Still Fail in the Real World (9:32) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyikmLxntrk

Nicol, D. (2007) E‐assessment by design: using multiple‐choice tests to good effect, Journal of Further and Higher Education, (31),1, pp. 53-64, http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03098770601167922

Comparing Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments

Standard

 

After exploring these 4 TELE’s, it is clear that they all are built on the premise that learning is constructed through experience – by moving through cycles of dissonance, integration, and resonance.  These shared roots in Constructivism serve to guide each tool/framework toward student-centred, reflective, and collaborative learning. In addition, inquiry has some implicit or explicit role in each approach.  Another theme that emerged was that content is not as meaningful without a context.  Each one of these TELE’s, to varying degrees, aims to make learning relevant and meaningful, contextualizing it and attempting to create (or have students create) problems they are motivated to solve.

 

Personally, experiencing these TELE’s has been very inspiring to the science teacher in me, and created longing in the math teacher inside me.  The science based TELE’s provide not only theoretical and philosophical frameworks for enriching learning, but also specific ways to reimagine the lab experiment experiences of our students.  The math teacher in me still pines for authentic, inquiry/project-based experiences for my students.  The benefits of some of the frameworks, especially T-GEM, are clear: using models to identify and modify misconceptions (I think of examples like modelling how subtracting a negative is the same as adding a positive or how area models can help explain visually the concept of multiplying fractions) is a powerful strategy.  However, when I try to create a web-based inquiry environment for math, I continually stall.  This is likely a lack of imagination on my part, and I can’t help but feel that my students are the poorer for it. I am determined to continue searching, creating, tinkering, and collaborating until I can provide the same rich TELE experience for my math students as I now can in science.

 

References

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.

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.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Crush All Misconceptions!

Standard

One of the areas that I noticed my students struggling with when I taught science in the past was diffusion and osmosis.  There were a few ways I could tell this was a topic rife with misconceptions:

  1. They were concepts that most students struggled to define/explain adequately on tests.
  2. Even high performing students had trouble differentiating the two.
  3. Their hypotheses and reflections on labs showed a lack of understanding

I think one of the reasons is that they have difficulty with the scale that is involved and the concept of concentration gradients.  From a scale point of view, I think students have misconceptions about liquids because of their sensory observations.  They see liquids as homogenous substances, and struggle to understand that there are tiny atoms/molecules moving around and colliding.  With concentration gradients, I think they have a difficult time understanding why particles move from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.  Two prominent misconceptions I have noticed arise from some of the most popular ways of describing diffusion.  The first is the personification of particles – teachers often imbue consciousness on particles by describing diffusion in terms of particles ‘seeing’ the high concentration and ‘knowing’ that they must move to another place.  Another way of describing concentration gradients is the idea of a ‘downhill’ force that takes particles from high concentration to low concentration.  My students would often take this explanation and turn it into a misconception that diffusion was driven by gravity.

For the purposes of my T-GEM, I have ‘created’ a new tech tool –  an interactive demo/game in which particles move around the screen in a way consistent with kinetic molecular theory (please forgive my improvised attempt at showing this visually in my video!), and students can control the variables.  I think interacting with a demo/game like this would help dispel misconceptions and help students make meaning of the process.

 

Web-Based Science Inquiry Environments (WISE)

Standard

For my WISE exploration, I chose to tinker with a unit on Plate Tectonics (ID: 19749).  I really liked the way the original author set up her/his unit.  I made a few changes to reflect some elements that are important to me.  First, I replaced a number of static diagrams with GIFs.  It seemed silly to me to show dynamic processes with a static image – if the technology can demonstrate the concept more accurately, then do it!  Second, I did away with the “Extra Credit” section.  These always feel like the domain of mark counters, and I don’t want my students motivated by that.  The irony was that many of the most interesting activities that the original author created were dubbed “Extra Credit”.  I kept the activities, but dropped the moniker.

For my lesson (directed at grade 8 students), I am going to begin by having students generating driving questions with the ultimate goal of using the questions to motivate student inquiry.  Each student will generate questions and do some initial information gathering to see if their inquiry is generating interesting, satisfying information.  The WISE will be a source of information for them and act as a jumping off point for their big questions.  Students will investigate their questions with the goal of creating a record of their inquiry in the form of an experiment, a presentation, a video, a podcast, etc..  Each student will participate win a roundtable where they will ask questions about the work, methods, and research of their peers with an aim to improve their inquiry skills through collaborative discussion.  Finally, my students will reflect on their process – assessing their learning, highlighting areas they are proud of, and identifying difficulties they had and how they can address then in their next inquiry.

One of the key goals of WISE’s and Scaffolded Knowledge Integration is to make science accessible (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003).  One of the ways that access is improved with the WISE, is that it is available to the student whenever it is needed.  Unlike a teacher, who is accessible during class time, or a text that, for many students, requires interpretation or guidance for understanding, the WISE can meet the student wherever/whenever they want to learn.  Giving students this resource is another way to manage the proliferation and entrenchment of misconceptions.  In the movie A Private Universe, access to visual models seemed to help students break down their incorrect impressions of scientific concepts/processes.

Finally, the WISE format lends itself nicely to providing timely feedback to my students on their understanding. Hattie & Tamperly (2007) describe feedback as a tool to reduce disparities between understanding and performance.  The marked ‘quizzes’ and predictive writing in the WISE would allow me to keep an eye on student understanding and respond promptly with questions, corrections, or prompts to help shrink the gap between student understanding and performance.

 

References

Hattie, H. & Timperly, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

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

Fish Can’t See Water

Standard

The two definitions of technology that resonate most with me were Roblyer (2012) and Muffoletto (1994) because of the common thread they share about technology being less a collection of ‘things’ and more about the integrated practices and behaviours of our culture.  I was reminded of a saying, “fish can’t see water” that comments on human blindness to culture.  I think technology has always been an integral part of our culture.  Some of our technologies are ‘things’: from sticks used by our primate ancestors to take insects from their mounds – to pencils – to networked computing devices.  Other technologies, however, are not ‘things’ in the classical sense.  Language, for example, cannot be defined as a physical object, yet is undeniably a tool we use to enable us in a multitude of ways.  Roblyer and Muffoletto both echo the interwoven nature of technology and human existence in their definitions.

In designing my own TELE, I would want the environment to be suited to my learner’s context – the content would need to be culturally relevant and framed in a way that motivated investigation and inquiry.  The teaching methods would support independent thought, collaboration, and problem solving.

I would want my computer technology doing the jobs that it is best suited to: crunching data, modelling, etc., and the students doing jobs in which they are better than computers: making inferences, extrapolating, problem solving, etc..   The non-computer technology ‘things’ in my TELE would support student manipulation/making in order to cement understanding of their learning.

Finally, I would look for ways to connect computer and non-computer tech.  For example, designing in a 3D modelling space, then using a printer to bring it into real space or writing a program to control a mechanical simulation.

References:

Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: Constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34(2), 24-28.

Roblyer, M.D. & Doering, A. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching, (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Access Denied

Standard

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/

Unpacking Assumptions

Standard

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).