When this section of Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom (ETEC 533) began in January 2012, I considered myself fairly proficient with integrating technology in my classroom; however, I knew that l had more success with this in some subjects over others. I soon realized I was in for an eye-opening experience that forced me to reassess the pedagogy behind my decisions to use technology and how I chose to implement it.

While examining my learning experiences in this course, I kept returning to the idea that my ability to analyze my practice has become more focused on the pedagogy behind my decisions involving technology and inquiry-based learning has, which has and will continue to result in improved learning conditions in my class. From this stance, a pair of eyeglasses materialized as a relevant metaphor for my learning process.

I can remember the moment that I found out I needed eyeglasses. I was in Grade 6, which was coincidentally the same age that I decided I would be a teacher one day. I knew my eyesight was impaired at this point, but until I put my new glasses on I didn’t fully realize what I had been missing or to what extent my vision could be improved. I still remember the day that everything came back into focus for me. Most noticeably, it was the leaves on the trees that were more pronounced than I had ever seen them before and they included more detail than I remembered them having. My journey in this course has evoked similar responses whereby I knew there was more to learn, but hadn’t really grasped the transformative nature attached to a clearer understanding of pedagogy that supported inquiry and the details of inquiry-based learning that I hadn’t fully realized I was missing.

The Eye Exam – Assessing assumptions & experiencing the need for knew knowledge

Building on the premise that the fundamental challenge facing educators today is how to address the untapped potential of technology in math and science classrooms as a means of developing reasoning skills, the follow questions prompted further inquiry:

• How can technology be intertwined with critical thinking and problem solving to create meaningful learning experiences that help students connect their learning with others and the world?
• How can it be used to reshape or deepen their understanding from both a concrete and metacognitive perspective?

My assumptions around “good uses” of technology in the mathematics and science classrooms were founded on the premise that sound pedagogical theory is a vital component of design, reinforcing my conviction that technology’s limitations are primarily attached to our perceptions of it.

Technology can be easy enough to initiate its use in one of these settings, but substantially more difficult to execute well. Ultimately, the effectiveness of educational technology, be it in whatever form, is determined by whose hands it’s in and whether they can unlock its potential (2012, January 13).

Moreover, owing to the decades of deep-rooted emphasis on procedural knowledge in these learning environments, successful technology integration is contingent on rising above this obstacle. The prevailing view that success is still measured “in terms of speed, accuracy, and automaticity of performance” has inadvertently promoted the acquisition of strategies that “lack flexibility and adaptability to new problems” (Hatano, 1984, p. 31), which is problematic if the ultimate goals of technology-enhanced inquiry-based learning are abstraction and transfer.

Diagnosis – Myopic translations of issues affecting technology integration in math and science classrooms 

Teachers retain a lot of autonomy in their classrooms, but teaching within four walls every day can also be isolating. After analyzing video footage showcasing various perspectives and examples of technology integration in schools, this limiting factor surfaced more prominently than it had before. My efforts to define “good uses of technology” suddenly stretched beyond my personal perception; the issue quickly became who determines what a good use of technology is? I found myself critical of the impact technology had on learning and the overall philosophy of technology that was being shared in the different scenarios. Based on these interviews, it was clear that I could not assume that my definition of “good” was a distributed one. It was a logical conclusion, but one I hadn’t been prompted to critically consider before and it stretched well beyond math and science classrooms. This was about technology use in education as a whole. When traditional instructional approaches to math and science were brought back into the equation, I soon realized that the root of the issues I had with technology use in these learning environments was more expansive than I imagined.

Of particular concern within the video clips was one pre-service instructor’s view of technology as he was in a position to set the tone for future teachers’ perceptions of technology integration. His decision to expose student teachers to slowmation as a means of exploring technology integration was inspiring. Pre-service programs can have an immense impact on an imminent teacher’s pedagogical approach and view of technology, so how activities are structured and scaffolded within post-secondary programs is extremely important. The magnitude of my disappointment then was understandable when he articulated his educational opinion that technology should be reserved for situations where its benefits can extend well beyond what books can do. I feel strongly that this mentality potentially limits the scope of technology use in education and gambles with prospective teachers’ perspectives on using it. Books are essentially another form of technology that provide access to information, and even comparing digital technology and books across the board demonstrates a narrow view of what technology affords. Hearing these words only strengthened my conviction to promote a more comprehensive view of effective technology integration.

It does not need to replace the book or be discarded because the book already provides students with what teachers feel they need. Both options can enhance the learning experience even if students ultimately learn the same concepts/skills from them. Technology offers another way to diversify instruction and meet a wider range of student needs. I think it’s dangerous to compartmentalize it so concretely (2012, January 19)

My criticism of this instructor’s statement resonated with my colleague Diana Wilkes in her comment affirming that our peer discussions caused her to step back and appreciate the importance of quality teaching.

When teachers are pedagogical ‘experts’ with a range of teaching strategies that work they can employ ‘the right tool for the job’ to meet the diverse learning needs of a typical classroom. I agree that there lies an inherent danger with compartmentalizing it ‘so concretely’ because we know that you can teach effectively with a stick in the sand if need be (Wilkes, 2012, January 22).

Reform in the mathematics classroom was my initial issue I sought to investigate, but as lessons and activities in ETEC 533 triggered further analysis of my own assumptions, my practice, traditional instruction in math and science classrooms as well as teacher perceptions of technology that surfaced during the peer interview process, pedagogical approaches emerged as the underlying issue linked to successful technology integration. It became the basis for my Framing Issues Assignment. More than ever I found myself concurring with Ivan Illich’s cautionary advice that “technologies like computers could either advance or distort pedagogy, depending on how they were fit into a well-balanced ecology of learning” (Kahn & Kellner, 2007).While the matter of determining what constitutes “good” use of technology had been magnified, my attention zeroed in on investigating pedagogical practices by examining: How can technology be used to create powerful authentic learning environments in the mathematics classroom?

I strongly believe in the link between authenticity, learning and engagement, but also realize that finding ways to move beyond the basic tech that’s often and easily incorporated into math lessons can be a challenging concept. Besides word processing for writing, I think calculators and math games probably rank among the most ubiquitous uses of technology in elementary classrooms. (2012, February 6)

The empirical articles reviewed for my Framing Issue paper corroborated the prevailing belief within the ETEC discussion forums that authentic learning environments are best served by a constructivist perspective. While wildly touted as powerful pedagogy, true constructivist classrooms remain a minority in educational settings. Designing activities that foster knowledge construction and inquiry will require many educators to shift their current view and understandings of both teaching and learning. This is easier said than done, and until recently I underestimated the enormity of this task as it pertains to my district alone, let alone provincially, nationally or globally. Embracing a constructivist perspective is multifaceted and similar to my experiences in trying to understand “good” as it applies to technology use in education, there are multiple interpretations of constructivist approaches and what authenticity looks like in a classroom.

Routine Vision Checks – Experiencing clarity & new insight

Teachers and students must have a distributed understanding of authentic learning if the goal is to create the most meaningful experiences, with or without technology. Teacher intention may differ from student perception and transitioning students from a passive transmission model into methods of inquiry, independent learning, and critical thought is a process that needs to be explicitly facilitated. Without improved pedagogy, other elements of successful technology integration cannot be realized. Pedagogy is key.

The introduction to various technology-enhanced learning experiences (TELE) and the learning theory behind them in Module B opened new doors for me as I began to understand inquiry on a new level. Anchored instruction within the Jasper challenges integrated experiential learning, guided learning and active learning promoting increased opportunity for developing “adaptive expertise” rather than limiting students to “routine expertise” which does not require depth of understanding to complete tasks quickly and accurately (Corte, 2007). This was the beginning of successive moments of clarity as I began to understand frameworks for Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI), Learning for Use (LfU) and T-GEM. The principles of How People Learn (HPL) presented in The Jasper Series articles provided a basis for analyzing the degree to which instructional design incorporates the dimensions of knowledge, learner, assessment and community-centeredness in subsequent frameworks. Consequently, this has become a significant and valuable measure of how powerful and effective learning environments can be in my pursuit of authenticity. Jasper opened my eyes to new possibilities connected to the social construction of knowledge and inquiry-based learning anchored in authentic problems. Although it was designed over two decades ago, the Cognitive and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV) pioneered the integration of “theory, instructional design, research on learning and assessment, technology, teacher knowledge and professional development ,and the realities of diverse learners in diverse instructional settings” (Pellegrino & Brophy, 2008) into a pedagogical approach that persists on the edge of educational reform yet to be adopted en masse. It put students in charge of their own learning and moved teachers into the role of facilitators who scaffolded instruction around meaningful problems that connected students to the real world emphasizing realistic problem-solving and variable options for plausible solutions.

I am leaving ETEC 533 with a much stronger understanding of authentic inquiry – what it can look like and methods for implementing it – that will help me move into invaluable unchartered territory that is more advantageous for learning. The greatest connections to my practice emerged during my exploration of the Learning For Use and T-GEM frameworks. Understanding these TELEs requires a broader comprehension of constructivism, situated cognition, abductive reasoning and inquiry-based learning to enable a holistic governing process that does not rely on scripted delivery that erodes the process of learning through inquiry. Instructional design based on these models affords greater opportunities for skill transfer and improves teacher heuristics to best support TELEs. Learning for Use and T-GEM mirror the cyclic nature of inquiry in the scientific community and strengthens students’ conceptualizations by reinforcing and consolidating mental models.

While I think I have been incorporating aspects of T-GEM already, it has given me a better foundation to reflect on my efforts to help my students develop key processes of inquiry, not just in science and math either … everywhere. I realize I need to put more effort into using “modeling and inquiry [to] facilitate the development and revision of abstract concepts” (Kahn, 899) in my classroom (2012, February, 25).

Together, LfU and T-GEM cycles strengthen the inquiry process providing a theoretical framework (LfU) and instructional approach (T-GEM), increasing the potential for “growth in conceptual understanding, increased understanding of the nature of science, and development of research skills” (Khan, 2007, p.877). Although they were designed and originally applied within specific scientific contexts, these models encourage an emergent process-based structure tailored to students’ acquisition of inquiry skills. Synthesizing these two approaches was a defining moment in my own learning process. I envision using LfU and T-GEM as a potential platform for inquiry within my school as we try to develop a collective understanding of what inquiry-based learning can look like across K-7 classrooms. Developing common language and a vision for inquiry could offer a robust shift in pedagogy as a school providing rich opportunities to “ground abstract understanding in concrete experience” (Edelson, 2001, p. 378) and distance ourselves from an entrenched “transmission approach [that] does not acknowledge the importance of the motivation and refinement stages of learning and relies too strongly on communication to support knowledge construction” (Edelson, 2001, p. 377).

The more recent integration of wireless Internet learning devices (WILDs), virtual environments (VE) and networked communities further supports the generation of collective knowledge while adding unique opportunities for interaction that extend beyond the tangible space of the classroom. Students are engaged in a “network that is overlaid in the same physical space in which students and teachers participate socially in teaching and learning” (Roschelle, 2003). This diversifies participation options increasing the connectivity of the class and establishing new social patterns for interaction through the coupling of “normal social participation in classroom discussion and the new informatics participation among connected devices” (Roschelle, 2003).

When instructional design affords students opportunities to learn from each other and contemplate their ideas in relation to other perspectives, knowledge integration and respectful discourse is both supported and encouraged. WILDs and VEs foster the development of collective knowledge even further by diversifying the manner in which students make their thinking visible (2012, March 31).

The iterative thread that connects all aspects of the educational technology investigated this semester into sound pedagogical practice is the critical role of the instructor. In the grand scheme of education, technology options are exhaustive. Options will always be available. What remains constant is the understanding that technology is not capable of independently and meaningfully guiding students through the inquiry process on its own. As Paulo Freire once asserted, “computers were not technologically determined to compel students to use them in a critically conscious manner” (Papert in Kahn & Kellner, 2007) signifying that connectivity and digital resources are only a small piece of designing successful learning environments. Importance must be placed on pedagogy that maximizes the cognitive and social affordances linked to technology use in the classroom.

Networked communities by nature exude diversified expertise which if supported successfully will strengthen the emerging community of practice that builds on the concept that “learning does not belong to individual persons, but to the various conversations” students are a part of (McDermott in Murphy, 1999)…. Instructors must also realize that their presence is essential as students develop their collaboration and communication skills through their interactions with each other, the teacher, and the educational material … [because] “changing students’ conceptions cannot work without instructional support” (Winn et al., 2005).

Successful integration of technology in math and science classrooms is about more than knowing how to operate the technology – it involves a shift in mind set about the expected roles of both technology and the teacher and how they each can impact learning experiences for students. My cumulative experiences in ETEC 533 have clarified and strengthened my original assumption that sound pedagogy is a critical component of designing inquiry-based learning environments. Authenticity is directly linked to pedagogical approach and the more authentic an experience is, the more present and available students are for learning, leading to enhanced learning opportunities. Ultimately, this course has enabled me to develop a more cohesive pedagogical foundation behind authentic technology integration in math and science classrooms. Analyzing how technology can be used to foster powerful and effective learning environments in elementary education involves pedagogical approaches that focus on constructivist principles that consequently lead to synchronized reforms in instructional design as well. This insight has, without a doubt, changed how I will approach instructional design and technology integration in my own future practice.

images:

• Focus by phr3qu3ncy released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – No Derivative Works license
• sunny leaves by .pst released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – Share Alike license
• Vision Of Eyechart With Glasses by kenteegardin released under a CC Attribution – Share Alike license
• myopia by haglundc released under a CC Attribuition – Noncommercial license
• image: The Day It Changed by ailatan released under a CC Attribution – Noncommercial – No Derivative Works license

---

References

Braidwood, J. (2012, January 13). Measuring “good”. Pedagogical Flux [blog post]. See also MA-L1: Unpacking assumptions (2012, April 5).

Braidwood, J. (2012, February 6). Am I really looking to reform the math classroom? [discussion forum]. Posted in MA-L3: Optional Framing Issues Discussion.

Braidwood, J. (2012, January 19). Analyzing learning environments 4 & 7 [discussion forum]. Posted in MA-L2: Video cases

Braidwood, J., (2012, January 31). In pursuit of powerful authentic learning environments in the mathematics classroom and the technology to instigate it. Framing Issues Paper.

Braidwood, J. (2012, February 25). T-GEM and states of matter [discussion forum]. Posted in MB-L4: Chemland forum.

Braidwood, J. (2012, February 11). Using technology to create powerful & effective learning environments [discussion forum]. Posted in MB:L1 Perspectives on Anchored Instruction Symposium.

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., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V. & Sherin, B. (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.

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 02, 2006, from: http://phet.colorado.edu/web-pages/research.html

Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 6, 27-36. Retrieved from http://eprints2008.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/25206/1/6_P27-36.pdfbe

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. Clark, D. & Slotta, J. (2003). WISE design for Knowledge Integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.

Murphy, P. (ed.) (1999) Learners, Learning and Assessment, London: Paul Chapman. See, also, Leach, J. and Moon, B. (eds.) (1999) Learners and Pedagogy, London: Paul

Roschelle, J; Penuel, W.; Yarnall, L; Shechtman, N; Tatar, D. (2005). Handheld tools that ‘Informate’ assessment of student learning in science: A requirements analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), pp. 190-203. Full text available online at UBC Library.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), pp. 260-272.Retrieved November 4, 2008, from: http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=296

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.

Srinivasan, S., Perez, L., Palmer, R., Brooks, D., Wilson, K. & Fowler, D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 1-5

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge – Seven Principles for Cultivating Communities of Practice http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2855.html

Wilkes, D. (2012, January 22). Re: Analyzing Learning Environments 4 & 7 [discussion]. Posted in MA-L2: Video Case

Winn, W., Windschitl, M., Fruland, R., & Lee, Y. (2002). When does immersion in a virtual environment help students construct understanding? Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.