Emergent Theme of Thoughtfulness
As I reflect over my learning in this course, there is one recurring theme that continued to stimulate my undivided attention. One of my headings to a discussion post put it clearly with the title “Pedagogy, Pedagogy, Pedagogy!” Although the different technology tools were interesting and certainly worthy of my focus and time, I found that great learning environments are a result of something much more profound than a piece of technology or software. In my opinion, a great learning environment comes from two main factors: A properly qualified teacher with the right skillset and devoted character; and a pedagogy that produces effective learning by allowing students to become co-contributors of knowledge. The profound importance of pedagogy can be highlighted by Turkle’s (1997) question on the use of technology in schools, “Are we using computer technology not because it teaches best but because we have lost the political will to fund education adequately?” The implications of this question are chilling, especially since a lack of attention to pedagogy explains why many children bog down in schools or drop out entirely. A lack of devotion to pedagogy also explains why new technologies have failed to realize their potential in many classrooms across the land (Mackenzie, 2003).
Something that has been re-emphasized throughout my learning in this course is the tremendous importance of inquiry teaching in math and science. Prior to engaging in the course, I feel I wrongly assumed that an inquiry-based activity meant that it needed to be a ‘hands-on’ type of experience. Inquiry has much more to do with allowing students’ questions and curiosities to drive the topics of interest and encouraging them to challenge misconceptions. Creating a hands-on environment doesn’t guarantee that the students’ curiosity will be piqued. In a hands-on situation, the teacher might be doing all of the investigating, with students following along, as they would with a recipe. In inquiry teaching and learning, students are thinking and questioning. The questions the teacher poses inspire the students to come up with their own questions to investigate. Inquiry teaching and learning naturally follows the students’ learning path, as they design, problem-solve, and collaborate. A pedagogy that was evaluated and developed by our instructor facilitates this type of inquiry teaching and learning and is described as using GEM cycles. The general instructional approach was identified as generating(G), evaluating (E), and modifying (M) (GEM) students’ models in chemistry (Khan, 2007).
Khan, S. (2008). What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In: Clement JJ, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model-based learning and instruction. Springer Publishing, Netherlands, pp 139–150.
Some computer simulations are particularly valuable for science teachers because they help students’ visualize aspects of science that are either too large or too small for to view, afford rapid testing of ideas, reveal trends via graphs or other representations, and provide extreme situations to support thought experiments and what if scenarios (Khan 2008). When teachers effectively apply GEM cycles in a lesson, it can facilitate an inquiry-based learning experience for students in math or science.
Overall Course Experience
Overall, the ETEC 533 course created a positive learning experience for me. It was definitely challenging to keep up with the vast amount of information covered in this course, especially since I had 2 other courses and many other responsibilities I needed to balance. I found the course activities required a generous amount of time but as a result, I felt I was able to generate a substantial amount of relevant knowledge and practical applications of what I was learning. I felt many of the activities resembled the ‘Learning for Use’ (LfU) pedagogy; a pedagogical framework that endeavors to integrate both the content of the subject matter with the processes associated with the subject matter (Edelson, 2001). This made the experiences challenging in a way where we had to not only think about the pedagogy and research implications, but also experience and investigate our way toward learning from the software on our own. One design concept that has resonated with me in my time as an MET student is the idea of “Active Learning” from the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Great learning cannot occur from the sidelines and I felt this course kept me active every step of the way. At times, instructors can make the mistake of feeling it is their duty to expel the information that they have acquired. In my experiences and observations, students take in very little by receiving information from someone else while remaining unable to experience what it takes to attain the information. This type of ‘information expulsion’ can also set students up for failure by not encouraging them to become self-directed and inquisitive learners. This course definitely tested and challenged me as a self-directed learner.
In the first module of ETEC 533, we were required to watch a series of video cases regarding technology use in k-12 classrooms. The attitude and aptitude of some of the teachers regarding technology shocked me. I was surprised to see a newly trained and oriented teacher who wasn’t comfortable using technology in her classroom and didn’t feel that the time invested would be worth the benefit. If technology is put in the hands of a talented teacher it can be the instrument of change that can encourage creativity and help students own their learning. It can allow learning to be differentiated for every student and give real-time data about progress so that teachers can adjust lessons. I have seen first hand throughout my teaching experiences the benefits that technology integration can afford to students. The interview assignment generated emerging issues in the area STEM education and technology. While interviewing a colleague to discuss technology use in the classroom, he and I were synonymous on the relation between technology proficiency and teachers’ ability to prepare students properly for the future. The fact is that teachers and technology professionals can no longer be separate titles. These issues are compounded when you consider that math and science teachers in elementary schools often don’t have any background in science or math and lack the knowledge to teach the proper content to children. Many of these teachers also have a negative attitude toward science and technology and may neglect to spend time teaching the subjects at all. (Sherman & MacDonald, 2007) Framing and understanding these particular issues highlighted the importance of STEM teachers understanding content knowledge (CK):
“Teachers’ knowledge about the subject matter to be learned or taught. The content to be covered in middle school science or history is different from the content to be covered in an undergraduate course on art appreciation or a graduate seminar on astrophysics… As Shulman (1986) noted, this knowledge would include knowledge of concepts, theories, ideas, organizational frameworks, knowledge of evidence and proof, as well as established practices and approaches toward developing such knowledge” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009)
Math and science teachers require a specific level of content knowledge that is vastly different from arts and humanities teachers. In any case, all educators need to be cognizant of a careful balance between content and pedagogy. It certainly shouldn’t be a simple consideration of both content and pedagogy used together but standing in isolation. The balance is rather an amalgamation of content and pedagogy thus enabling transformation of factual content into relevant teachable forms. PCK represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and represented for instruction. Different subject areas put different emphasis on content or pedagogy. For example: STEM fields may put higher emphasis on content where teaching children how to read would require more emphasis on pedagogy. Regardless of the teaching area, pedagogy and content need to join together to create something that students can experience and grow from.
If there was one thing this course left me longing for, it was to have more time to read everyone’s posts in the class and reflect and engage meaningfully. I found with the little time I had I was furiously reading through the volume of readings for the course and taking part in the number of technology resource examples. Afterwards, I required a great deal of time to thoughtfully create my own unique original posts to contribute and furiously read through other students posts so I could learn from my classmates and try to engage in some discussion for a very short window of time. There were a number of times where I felt overwhelmed as a result of my course load and the volume of discussion and e-folio entries required for this course. Paradoxically, the power and potential of e-Learning is also its problem or pitfall; 24/7 access and presence overburden and overwhelm systems of learning and teaching (Petrina, 2010). Something I found helpful when taking a previous MET course was learning about a specific practice of time management called SOUL:
“At unprecedented paces with volumes of messages it is impossible for participants in e-Learning or online education to correspond or be answerable to each other. Discourse is possible but dialogue less so under fast-paced, communication-saturated conditions. SOUL (Slow Online & Ubiquitous Learning) entails commitments and responsibilities that regulate the pace and volume of consumption and production in online spaces, including a learning management system (LMS) such as Vista, Connect, Moodle, and Desire2Learn. One mode of moderating messages is what we call a pause, or the virtual pause button. A pause in action within e-Learning spaces provides time for catching up, reading ahead, moderating the volume of discussion posts, and planning and designing interactivities.” (Petrina, 2010)
I felt I absorbed the most from the activities when I was able to stop worrying about what comes next, take my time, pause, and reflect on current topic of learning.
Moving Forward
This past year has included an overwhelming amount of change for me and my family. I had my first child, left my job to move back home closer to family, and a week after this semester started I found myself meeting the needs of 3 foster children. I will be moving forward and completing the 590 graduating project next semester and thus graduating from the MET program. I have gained insightful knowledge and a multitude of skillsets during this program. I am always eager to immerse myself in learning new technologies and seeing how they can be applied for the benefits of students. My tasks as a learner will never stop as I am continually humbled by the wealth of information I have yet to come across and how much you can learn from others. I am not sure where the next step in my career as an educator will take me as I feel I currently need this time of furlough as I spend time at home with my children and continue to work part time. My wife and I are considering our options and deciding that we are likely going to relocate in the near future once again. Math and science is something that always piqued my interests and my aptitude in the subjects seemed to come intuitively. In my own teachings I have observed that when presenting math or science problems to students the struggle isn’t with visualization but more rooted in the inability to think critically behind the information. Many students and educators have an intuitive critical thinking skill-set but there are a large number of students who need to be encouraged and taught explicitly to use critical thinking skills. Teaching these skills explicitly was something I would often bang my head against the wall trying to figure out. After researching and evaluating many of the resources and more importantly the pedagogical approaches presented in this class, I have been inspired to try some different methods in my own practice. I am certain that I will be more aware of the types of questions I ask in the future when planning lessons for science or math. I will make a concerted effort to address and challenge any common misconceptions in science and math and build inquiry based lessons so as that my students can investigate their own conclusions. Some future ideas I look forward to applying the practice of education technology in include; encouraging aboriginal students, engaging at risk youth in education, or researching the benefits of assistive technology with struggling learners. I certainly don’t want to limit any of my options or close my mind to any opportunities the future may hold. I plan to keep pressing forward and applying what I have learned in whatever future endeavors I encounter.
References:
Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.
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. (2008). What if scenarios for testing student models in chemistry. In: Clement JJ, Rea-Ramirez MA (eds) Model-based learning and instruction. Springer Publishing, Netherlands, pp 139–150.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70
McKenzie, J. (2003). Pedagogy Does Matter. The Educational Technology Journal, 13(1).
Petrina, S. (2010). SOUL (Slow Online & Ubiquitous Learning). Vancouver: Tech-no Printing Press. (e-Book). 4 pp.
Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing Through Computers. The American Prospect, 8(31).