So this week’s task was to view some videos and analyze them in the context of technology use in the classroom.
The first video I watched was case 1. This involved a STEM curriculum teacher demonstrating the use of technology in his classroom. The students learned about making crystals, the properties that were required for this task, as well as thermodynamics. Then they moved on to the project, which was to create a chamber that would facilitate crystal growth. Students were required to learn how to use the arduino platform to regulate temperature, incorporating some computer science and engineering into their project. In one project, they learned a vast number of skills and gained knowledge, both foundational and application. I was extremely impressed with the capability of these students, and realized my own biases towards students of this age group. Perhaps I have been so far removed from secondary students, I underestimated their development and potential.
The next video I watched was case 7. It was the only video that demonstrated use of technology in the post secondary environment. As a faculty member at a university, I thought this would be most applicable to myself. The video was about the use of clicker technology during class, and how it could be used to make the lecture more engaging and interactive. Personally I have used clickers in my lectures as well. One issue that came up while viewing this video was that the quality of the interaction and discussion is dependent on the question that is posed by the lecturer. This dictates whether or not misconceptions would be uncovered or how much discussion will be generated. Therefore, it can be variable based on what the lecturer believes to be important questions to ask. This, as we have seen from our own assumptions and biases, can be problematic as misconceptions that we may not have anticipated or perceived by continue to go unnoticed or addressed. Another issue that I have experienced personally was the level of participation. Once the novelty of the technology wore off, I noted that the level of participation dropped off. Many students “forgot” to bring their iclicker to class, and despite having over 100 students, only 24 were participating at my last iclicker lecture. This may not be representative of the class and thus certain misconceptions may again go uncovered.
Finally, I watched case 6 as this was in the area of life sciences, which is also applicable to me and my area of practice. In this video, the teacher got students to create animations, powerpoint presentations and podcasts/videos about certain topics that they were learning about. What stood out to me about this video was that the technology used had nothing to do with the topic being studied. So my question was does the use of technology in this manner actually lead to a deeper understanding of the material? The teacher in this video stated that the students were more engaged in the activity, but does this actually equate to deeper meaning and ability to apply this learned material? Are they only engaged in the technology component of the activity? Certainly it promotes collaboration and can uncover some misconceptions but because these projects can be time consuming, it is important to be able to answer this question.