My Auto e-ography
While reading the posts I was struck by the diversity of our backgrounds. I think this is partly due to the different age groups and cultural backgrounds represented in our group, and partly due to our personalities and areas of interest. A number of us referred back to early experiences (Commodore 64, having to enter the “code” to play games, learning BASIC on Apple IIe’s) that revolved around programming – some were positive, some negative.
I loved programming as a high school and university student – the logic was so beautiful and absolute – but as I got away from it and technology developed rapidly, I got left behind. Technology became overwhelming – I wanted to use it in my classroom but did not have time to find it and lacked the confidence and skill to try things on my own. My e-ography example of the Physics technology that was purchased and never used was a reflection of this. However, the experiences and learning that I have encountered in the MET program has radically changed my attitude and, more importantly, my confidence.
Last week while I was working on my ETEC 533 e-folio, I got to thinking about having a site for my students. I have wanted to do this for a number of years but lacked the knowledge and time to do so – not knowing how to create/maintain a website, or even how to find a place to create a free one online, meant there would be a huge outlay in time before even reaching the stage of actually being able to use the site in class. Although I wanted to put in the time, I didn’t know where to start, was overwhelmed and my life circumstances at the time meant I didn’t have a great deal of time to commit to it. However, last week it dawned on me that I now have the knowledge and skill to quickly create the site – which I will eventually connect to a Moodle site for private class discussion forums and activities – and a stock pile of sites and information that I have developed for a number of activities/assignments in my courses. What would have taken hours or days two years ago took about two hours now. My classroom site is set up (still a work in progress, but that’s ok), a link from our school district site is being made and I have shared it with some colleagues and students. We will see how it goes, but it is fun to see where I have come from and to plan where I would like to go.
Unpacking Assumptions
When I started the MET program I firmly believed that technology could be used to improve learning but that it was how we used it, rather than its presence or absence, that made the difference in student learning. I still believe that quite strongly, however, not quite so absolutely. More and more I am realizing that whether we like it or not, technology is a part of the next generation’s culture in a way that is transforming many of our basic social structures. I am starting to think that while our goal is to use technology purposefully to improve learning, we have to start by just using it and having it available.
How can we figure out how it can transform student learning if we don’t use it and become familiar with how and what it does? If it isn’t available, it won’t be used. Wanting to use it may give us the drive to make it available, but having it available gives us the chance to use it and start to understand the relationship between technology and learning. It is a circular relationship. I think of it kind of like a round-about road access – sometimes you just need to get on it somewhere and go around a few times to figure out where the right exit is to keep going. Let’s want the technology and push for it or let’s get the technology and start using it and figuring it out. Let’s join the circle somewhere or we will forever be waiting for someone to figure it out for us.
Video Cases
I was struck in both of the videos that I analyzed how both of the teachers were using technology to allow the students to create their own knowledge. With the graphing calculators, the assignment probably forced the students to do a thousand times more practice than any textbook page would have covered, and more purposefully. The assignment was at the heart of the change in learning style, but the technology allowed the students to do the assignment – pedagogy/methodology and technology in a symbiotic relationship to improve learning. It reminded me of the Clark (1994) vs Kozma (1994) argument from ETEC 511.
Clark (1994) stated that “Technology Will Never Influence Learning” and Kozma (1994) basically stated that we needed to change our paradigm of how technology can interact with learning. Clark (1994) attributed improved learning when using technology to a change in methodology – and I agree, except that I think society has changed so much and the affordances of technology have changed so much since he wrote the article, that it is technology that allows us to make those changes in our teaching methodology. When something becomes so ingrained in our society that it is integral to it, it changes how we learn and what we need to learn. Technology has done that (see my paper from ETEC 511 for more depth). I am just beginning to think how this also relates to some of the social learning theories – as our social networks move online, the medium begins to affect the interaction, which then affects the medium, and so on … another circle. No beginning, no end, just interaction and effect. I think at some point I want to tie in my thoughts about Clark’s ideas, constructivism, technology and Vygotsky (development cannot be separated from its social context). I am not there yet, but it something I want to think about more. I think I need to go back and look at some of the social learning theories and how technology relates to them.
I am enjoying how what we learn in one course is revisited from a different perspective or through a different lens in another course. I am starting to see the thread of ideas weave together and how my perspective is changing.
References:
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
Interview
For me, the discussions that arose around this assignment were by far the most interesting. The other three have led to some insight, but this one helped it coalesce. I am finding it somewhat ironic that the biggest change in pedagogical thinking that I have undergone during the MET program is not directly about technology. The biggest change for me is that I am finding myself more and more buying in to the whole idea of constructivism. I still think that there needs to be a balance in methodologies – some transmission, some constructivism, some independent activities, some group work, etc. – but my skepticism of constructivism, specifically in mathematics, is definitely being replaced by a grudging acceptance and recognition of its power and technology’s ability to facilitate constructivist approaches.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I am finding that the aspect of technology that I am finding MOST important is how it can allow us to change the way we teach – to teach students how to learn for themselves instead of just trying to transmit knowledge to them. There were other themes that came up throughout this discussion – the need for professional development, the need for availability of technology (a huge issue!), how time plays a factor in whether or not technology will be implemented and more – but how teachers use technology to CHANGE their teaching style was the one that resonated the most with me (availability was a close second).
For example, in one post DS stated that, “The teacher repeated a few times that it takes the students a while to be comfortable with sharing their dialogue, but that it allows him to take a more constructivist approach in the classroom.” On his blog that related to the forum, DS went on to say that,
“The use of the phrase “completely change how I used to teach,” is very powerful. It tells of a pedagogical shift resulting from adding an online component. This is not a radical implementation of technology, but is a considered, specific and calculated change. It emphasizes what can happen when a plan is made, and followed upon.”
That comment really struck home for me and inspired me to begin implementation for a blended learning environment in my classroom (the creation of my class website as a start). I do not envision moving from where things are now to full blended implementation in one leap, rather I am thinking it will happen in a number of much smaller steps along the way. Trial and error, research, student response and time will all factor in to how the changes occur.
I think my motivation to move to a blended environment began during my research for my final paper for ETEC 500, which looked at the use of web-enhancements in mathematics classrooms. Research for my wiki page on numeracy in ETEC 510 reinforced some of my earlier findings. I almost want to take a break from my MET program so that I have the time to implement some of what I have learned – but I am motivated to “get’r done”, so the implementation plan is moving forward only slowly with plans to step it up once course work is done. I am sure that I will learn much more on my journey through the program which will give me a chance to establish even more sound pedagogical reasons for implementation the changes.
Final thoughts from Module A
As I move through this program, my focus is continually re-directed towards integrating technology purposefully. Which aspects or affordances of technology actually improve student learning, which are gimmicks, which improve engagement, which only seem to improve engagement – or hold attention but don’t actually result in deeper learning. Part of the reason I started this program was that I was overwhelmed with what to use – I am not a “natural technophile” and trying to sift through what is available and how to use it left me overwhelmed and discouraged. I am pleased that I am starting (just starting – nowhere near finished!) to be able to discern what is useful and what isn’t, and, more importantly, that it is all about how technology is used. The same program in the hands of two different teachers can result in completely different results.
Two things have stood out for me in the last couple of weeks of this particular course.
First, a few comments from the interview discussion forum have rekindled my desire to create a blended learning environment in my classroom. My own interview reminded me of some of the used of the technology and some of the problems implementing it in my setting (issues with availability). Contributions to the discussion forum from DS’s interview outlined the potential for blended learning to change how I teach. From this I started my own class website. It isn’t really blended learning, more of a resource page at this point, but it is a start.
On my website, I have embedded a YouTube clip called Doodling in Math Class. Our first unit in Pre-Calc 11 is sequences and series and the YouTube clip is all about Fibonacci’s spiral in nature. It is funny, entertaining and shows the beauty and fun in math – it isn’t really full of content, just connections. Ideally, it would have been better to have the students construct that kind of knowledge and connections themselves, but the cost and difficulty involved in getting enough “nature bits” (pineapples, pine cones – well, I could have gotten them in the spring but not under 3 feet of snow – flowers, etc.) is prohibitive. Plus the time constraints on our still very content based math structure make it difficult for in-depth, time consuming exploration. I showed the video to my class for the following reasons:
- It related to our topic
- It was presented in a teenager style and I hoped this would show them that you don’t have to be old and stodgy to enjoy math
- It went beyond the topic to the beauty of math and connections to nature (relevance)
- It was entertaining – I want students to see that math can be fun. Improved attitude can go a long way.
The video was still transmission, but at least it used some of the affordances of technology to meet the reasons above. Plus it was in a milieu that the students are used to (YouTube) and can relate to. The students were absolutely silent during the clip (it was just over 5 minutes long) and the comments at the end ranged from “wow” to “what the heck was that?” Their body language during the clip portrayed interest (eyes on the screen, silent, leaning forward, no doodling/fidgeting). I am hoping that when I do a survey at the end of the unit about what they liked/didn’t like, that the video will be a hit. I guess we’ll see!
I included this in my course blog because I think it shows how I am relating what I am learning to what I am doing in class.
The second thing that came up in the last couple of weeks came up through the research I am doing for my Framing Issues Assignment. One article outlined the differences between traditional styles and constructivism in the math classroom and how technology fits into each of them (Cadiero-Kaplan, 1999). Although the article was form 1999 and was dated, I found it paralleled many of my questions and thoughts and clarified some of what I was hashing out in my mind. I wasn’t sure if it was amusing or sad that many of the questions it posed are still being struggled with today. One comment stood out. Cadiero-Kaplan stated, “In order to create a constructivist technological environment, computer technology should be equally accessible to all students in the classroom.” (p. 16) That is still an issue today.
The second article that really affected me was called Capitalizing on Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Classroom Blogging (MacBride & Luehmann, 2008). Wow. The article is a case study of one teacher’s journey through using a blog to promote higher order thinking in his classroom. What he achieved (as outlined in the study) is exactly what I would like my class to be like. I was jealous. His students were discussing math online, helping each other and building a community of learners. His comments that the blog created faster and deeper relationships between him and the students and between the students themselves echo the results of another study on blended learning environments at the university level (Wingard, 2004). I am curious to know if the results that were reported in the case study were similar in his other classes and if the blog is an effective long term tool. I am going to check out his site (it is a public blog) in the near future. One of the conclusions that the authors of the study came to was that the effectiveness of the blog relied to a large degree on pre-planning and intentional use by the teacher (MacBride & Luehmann, 2008). I am going to investigate this further to see if what he has done is something that I can adapt and use in my setting. I am very excited, somewhat nervous and a little overwhelmed by it, but I want to try it eventually. I say eventually because I know that it will be time consuming, especially at the beginning, and my time commitments to my courses at the moment preclude taking on a project that big during the duration of my MET program.
All of this research on blogging/asynchronous communication/blended learning environments in math class has also given me some ideas that I would like to follow through on. I am going to check out what ETEC 580 (I think it is an independent studies kind of class) is all about … maybe I can actually do this research for credit!
References:
Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (1999). Integrating Technology: Issues for Traditional and Constructivist Pedagogies. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 15(2), 14-18.
Luehmann, A. & MacBride, R., (2008). Capitalizing on Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Classroom Blogging. School Science And Mathematics, 108(5), 173-183.
Wingard, R. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: A multi-institutional study. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27(1), 26 – 35. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0414.pdf