Jasmeet Virk's ETEC 533 journey

Jasper series prompted a very robust discussion on Vista. We examined the series through the lens of pedagogy, technology, our own beliefs and practices, and the existing trends. It is impressive that despite being three decades old, the series is based on sound pedagogical beliefs of social constructivism and anchored learning, which are the “trends” in education at present.

Cognitive Affordances:
While I may not apply the Jasper series -as it is -in my class, it has provided for me a model to create learning environments in which students can work collaboratively in a multimodal, multidisciplinary environment and problem solve through dialogue and critical thinking. What appeals to me most about the series is its prerequisite of a blended learning environment which is so suitable for learning in elementary education. Such a setup will allow students not only support of their peers and teachers through their zone of proximal development in a F2F setup. Another theoretical base that will be very conducive in elementary education will be the anchored learning approach. This approach is very similar to the situated learning approach but is not as open ended. I see this as a graduating step towards an open ended, ill designed problem based learning.

Technological Affordances:
The technology of the series gets retrained by its time. It mainly provides for multimodality through the videodisc. But as technology is evolving the creators’ of the series have added technology which is very conducive to social constructivism. The use of Teleconference assessment is a great interactive tool for formative assessment the development of SMART extension has also given the series an online community of learners through the Smart Lab, A Kids- online space as a model to help in the ZPD and above all a Toolbox – for tools needed for computation. By freeing the mind from simple computation to focus on higher level thinking, the Jasper series has exploited the affordances of current technology to allow for better by providing a wider community of practice, active learning, scaffolding and assessment for learning, besides multimodality. I think the technology has been interwoven well with the pedagogical needs.

Once I got over the dated look of the videos and got into the content, The Jasper series absolutely captivated me! It is a problem based approach of constructivist learning at its best.

Based on NCTM standards, the series provides authentic tasks from real life to help students explore math concepts which students solve through collaboration and discussion in small groups. Despite being based on math standards, these tasks have many cross curricular implications. Students overtly examine integrated science concepts along with math, while there are many embedded issues like career prep, social interactions and responsibility.

There is no prescribed way suggested to solve the problems which makes the tasks very open ended. The students need to explain the how’s and why’s of their solutions. To verbalize or write their thinking will promote critical thinking and Meta cognition. I am sure, the teachers will probably lay the foundation of the core math concepts needed to solve these tasks before presenting them to the students – or could it be that they could teach these concepts to small groups as the students encounter the issues in the task? Now wouldn’t that provide a better schema for the math concept?

The series is a great model to follow where a teacher could create an anchored learning scenario based on their grade level’s outcomes from different subject areas. The possibilities are tremendous. Such a cross curricular approach will overcome the time constraints we teachers often feel as we try to meet learning outcomes from different subject areas during their allotted time. I think such an approach will be more liberating not only for the students but also for the teachers.

My one big concern is – does such an approach suit all learning styles and abilities?
And on second thought – does such an approach suit all teaching styles?

In my search for tools and guidance for technology use in math and science education, I chanced upon TED talk again 🙂 and encountered Conrad Wolfram’s talk about Teaching kids real math with computers.

The presentation has led to a lot of thinking about how to apply what he is suggesting into my teaching. It has also led me to ask the question – is he right?

Inquiry C

An ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and/or science

My vision of an ideal pedagogical design for a technology-enhanced learning environment for math and/or science is not much different from Kozma’s. Kozma recommends that, “Designers should provide students with environments that restructure the discourse of …classrooms around collaborative knowledge building and the social construction of meaning” (Kozma, 2003, p.9).

I strongly believe that students need to construct their own knowledge through collaborative work and discourse. So an ideal TELE space will provide for all learners to examine and explore knowledge, interact with it and others to understand it, and then apply the new knowledge in real environments – in their own style and at their own pace.

In a perfect design, technology needs to be interwoven with established constructivist instructional models like the one created by Driver and Oldham (1986; in Matthews, 1994). In such a TELE, learners use technology and apply their own learning style to explore concepts through the knowledge building sequence of orientation (activation of prior knowledge), elicitation (interacting with others to figure out their ideas), reconstruction of ideas (seeking information from other and resources provided), application of ideas (applying newly learned ideas to a new scenario), and review (analyzing own ideas and those of others).

Reference:
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching. New York: Routledge, chapter 7

Defining technology

Before reading through the given definitions I jotted down: A tool that improvises our lives –our thoughts-our behaviour -as what I deem technology to be. Then as I read through the definitions, the one that resonated with my thinking was Margaret Roblyer’s.

Roblyer (2004) describes technology as technology is us -our tools, our methods, and our own creative attempts to solve problems in our environment.

As my mind travels through the annals of human history, I am fascinated by how again and again man came up with technology to solve problems. From the Stone Age tools and wheel, to literacy and printing press, from the telegraphs to texting- man has come up with innovative technology again and again for basic survival, for comfort, for enhancement of human life, and often just for fun!

Society has evolved and continues to grow and change through technology that is ubiquitously interwoven in the tapestry of our everyday lives.

Technology has many facets because there are varied human needs it tries to provide for. We pick and choose from this array of technology – the tools that we believe will enhance the quality of our own journey and ignore the other. We enjoy and like the technology we are familiar with and benefit from, and are overwhelmed and afraid of the plethora of the new and the unknown.

Sometimes we will venture into the unknown and find tools that work better for us and sometime we get more lost into the bottomless abyss of our own created technologies. The whole new challenge facing us now is to find, choose, and apply suitable and comprehensive technologies which will enable us to achieve the goals we want to accomplish.

Reference:

Roblyer, M.D. (2004). Integrating educational technology into teaching, 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.

There have been multitude discussions in this course and probably all my previous MET courses about how to get more teachers to adopt technology in their classrooms. Here is a comment I made in response to another comment on Vista, but which led me examine the topic more closely.

Inquiry B

As I look over some of my posts earlier on in the course, I am able to see my pedagogical beliefs reflected…

Jan. 7, 2012 [ on trying  to sort technology…]

Technology is a huge spectrum….we can be on one end and never see or fathom the other end. Like some will only relate to social networking while some will use computers only for word processing. So it is so easy to be involved with technology and still be a stranger to it.  Everyone is touched by technology in their lives – but in different ways.

Jan. 10, 2012  [ on differntiating instructions]

Thinking of “many levels in one classroom” regarding technology – I was thinking that we differentiate instructions according to student need – so can we also differentiate in use of technology? For example some use powerpoint, some prezi, some kidpix to make a slide show? What we would need to have in place is a generic criteria…. Thoughts?

 Jan 8 [ on making math more realistic]

Janet’s question   : Do we always have to make math relevant or practical or tie it in to “when are we ever going to have to use this in real life”? I think technology can allow us to explore and investigate the beauty of math and the FUN of how it works, without it always having to be practical.

OK – Math can be very abstract  [ mental, not concrete] and so many students have a hard time with it. The way out can be to memorize formulas and not totally understand the concept. As a kid I rote learned my times tables but had no understanding of what it meant. No one taught it and I was too afraid to ask. What we need to do is help students crystallize the concept – to see it. And often that comes from showing them the relevant connections to the real world. Kids can see what fractions means when we keep splitting the limited amount to cookies or smarties amongst the ever growing group members; they can visualize litres when we talk about pop bottles and the milk jug, they see adding when they put their crayons in the same box as their neighbours.

I teach kids who are still in the concrete operational age[ Piaget] and so I think it works at this level.The concepts are easy to connect too. I honestly have no idea how some high school teachers  do what I am talking about with their topics – am sure it is a tough feat!

Jan 8 [ on how to teach technology]

……Teaching tech is similar to anything else I teach – gradual release. I keep modeling and my group keeps shrinking as students feel they do not need my help. I also chunk lessons a lot. Like for power point right now they have learned to make new slides, add pictures and text. Now I’ll teach them slide transition and animation.

The word that summed up my understanding of all the interviews and forum discussions around them is TRANSITION.

Transition can be defined as a passage from one form, state, style, or place to another. My purpose during the interviews and discussions had been to examine the application of technology in elementary education and figure out the scope for blended learning. Even as I examined scenarios from other levels of education and considered their issues, the general feeling I got in the end was that the education system is currently transitioning towards the stage of effective technological application. There are discussions about technology being used [Smartboards, calculators, virtual manipulatives] and curiosity about what the others are using [How does Voki work?]. It is a slow process, but nonetheless, heading in the right direction!

 Teachers are starting to understand the pedagogical implications of technology use and are exploring some of its affordances. There is an acceptance that even though most outcomes can be taught without the use of technology, its inclusion allows the learning to become multimodal and engaging. There is speculation and fear about tech dependence and whether it might have negative effect on learning, a fear that we may be denying our students opportunity to become critical thinkers. Teachers are starting to experiment with technology firstly as a teaching tool and secondly as a practice tool. [ My teaching has changed ever since I started using a Smartboard!] There is preference towards use of premade software and interactive websites to help students learn and practice. This is the first step!

While there is the awareness about the ultimate educational goals of helping students become critical and higher-level thinkers, there is confusion and hesitancy about exploring the affordances of the web that provide for such learning [I don’t think there is room for web 2.0 tools in elementary education!].The capabilities of the Web 2.0 tools are being acknowledged but there still needs to be interpretations about their connections to sound pedagogy. Teachers are musing about the coming changes [future of textbooks; mandatory use of technology, role of ipad in education ] This is step 2!

Such uncertainties beg for clarification and this led to the recurring talk and consensus about the need for professional development and guidance for teachers. The divergent nature of technology makes it very hard to explore all affordances. Even teachers quite comfortable with technology are at times hesitant about exploring deeper. There is a realization that there needs to be support put in place to allow teachers making such significant transitions. With teachers at different levels of ability and interest, it is hard to fathom what professional development should look like. Nonetheless, teachers are looking for proper support. This would be step 3!

Lastly, there was also consensus in our discussion that self-initiative is a big part of this professional growth and as professionals we need to take initiatives about our own learning. This would be the final step!

It will get us there!

TED talks have alway been a great source of inspiration. They make you stop and reflect on your beliefs and practices. Sugata Mitra’s talk was one such challenge. I was new to MET and constructivism when I first came across it and it puzzled me and in a way – bothered me. Now, I am inspired by the same message.

Inquiry A