Author Archives: jonathan weber

WISE/SKI Reflection

Leave a reply
  • What was the motivation to create WISE?
    • The motivation to create WISE was based around four main frameworks:
      • Make thinking visible
      • Make science accessible
      • Help students learn from each other
      • Promote lifelong learning
    • Furthermore, the WISE program addresses misconceptions through guided inquiry into authentic scientific problems in an attempt to bring science home to the students.
  • In what ways does SKI promote knowledge integration through its technological and curriculum design? Describe a typical process for developing a WISE project.
    • The process for developing a WISE project follows constructivist ideals in that each project must start with the activation prior knowledge. Then, a problem is posed to the students. In community, they then begin to work with the data sets and modules to experiment, learn, test, and develop working theories. These theories are shared, critiqued, and then finally cemented in place with an application. All of this is done in an online platform that seeks to place technology in the center of the learning process.
  • How does this design process compare with the Jasper Adventures?
    • WISE, as a platform, is much more interactive. Students are manipulating, inputting, and testing things directly on the platform. It feels like an early MOOC in the fact that the lessons are all prebuilt and students move through the materials. While Jasper was more problem-based, WISE is more inquiry-based, asking the students to continually be asking questions and trying new things.
  • How could you use a WISE project in your school or another learning environment?
    • To be perfectly honest, I would not use the WISE platform as it exists, as the technology seems outdated and is simply not very user-friendly. However, the lessons that are there could easily be translated into a format that would be more appealing to students and more accessible through the use of Google Sites or a similar platform. The ideas behind WISE of being open sourced, community learning is seen in many of the IT systems in place in modern classrooms, such as Edmodo. The large difference is that WISE already has the library of lessons built into it.
  • What about WISE would you customize?
    • It does seem like WISE is still not built around standards, which could lead to gaps in the students’ learning. Having the lesson updated and organized around standards would make them easier to match with Common Core curriculum and eliminate some misconceptions. Also, as stated before, the platform feels outdated and needs an update to make it something that students would be happy to use.

But Spaceships Don’t Have Anchors!

Leave a reply
  • Creating digital video is now more available and more efficient than it was when the Jasper series were initially developed. Briefly, if given the opportunity, what kind of mathematical or science adventure might you design? Why? Pay attention to your underlying assumptions about teaching and learning regarding your design and your definition of technology. How would instruction in this adventure help to address misconceptions in math or science for some students?

The Jasper Series included many innovative (for the time) techniques to engage and involve students in active problem-solving. I can strongly appreciate the focus of showing students the usefulness of the science and math while giving them self-confidence (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt). However, many issues have been raised with programs that are purely project-based learning (Park & Park 2012). Park & Park (2012) among others have exposed how PBL alone is not enough to ensure that holes and misconceptions are not present in student learning. Direct instruction must be coupled together with the series in order for maximum effectiveness. Also, Biswas, Schwartz, & Bransford (2001) showed that in order for learning to be fully flexible and able to be transferred to other areas, more scenarios are needed for students to apply the learning in multiple contexts, lets the information be welded into the one specific context in which it was learned.

For these reasons, and because I strongly believe that students need to be using technology in ways that will prepare for them for the future, I would propose a new system that blends advanced problem solving, building concepts, the integration of key, explicit standards in math and science taught as mini-lessons, as well as work with emerging technologies. By coupling all these together, complex, real-world, situations could be created in which students are using key mathematical and scientific concepts that have been taught in class to solve advanced technological problems.

For example, a popular program for teaching physics and math (among other things) is The Kerbal Space Program. In this program, students are engaged with real-world physics, math, and problems that exist in designing, building, launching, and flying a rocket into outer space or to the moon. The complexity of the game is exponential as different challenges could be employed. Furthermore, the Kerbal Space Program could function as a teachable agent (Park & Park 2012), as the student must program the rocket in the way it should go and receive feedback through trial and error. A successful launch and mission could mean a mastery of skills. A failed mission sets them back to problem-solve and check calculations.

Simulations/gameplay like this could be created and enhanced with VR, robotics, or digital design for most situations that come up in the science and math classroom, allowing students to see the immediate applicability and receive instantaneous feedback from their calculations. Paired together with an intelligent course designer that is teaching relevant mini-lessons on math and science standards, students would be well-prepared for success in any STEM field that they desire, with their misconceptions and gaps filled in and real-world experience in solving a wide variety of problems.

-Jonathan-

 

References

Biswas, G., Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. (2001). Technology support for complex problem solving: From SAD environments to AI.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. “The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data.” Educational Psychologist 27.3 (1992): 291-315.

Park, K., & Park, S. (2012). Development of professional engineers’ authentic contexts in blended learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1).

Jasper Series Impressions and Implications

Leave a reply

The Jasper series represents an early form of exploratory problem-solving questions. Students are guided along with (for the time) engaging videos and asked to combine mathematical and scientific thought in order to solve problems. It reminds me strongly of something like The Kerbal Space Program, in that it asks students to solve real-world problems and give them the chance to experiment with the onscreen presence.

The way that questions and processes build on each other, from basic to complex, coupled with the narrative features, also provide a strong chance for students to learn and practice in authentic situations, thereby boosting engagement, buy-in, and applicability. Furthermore, the complexity of problems allows for students of varying interests to tackle different parts of the problem, then collaborate to come up with the optimal answer.

 

Teaching with TPCK

Leave a reply

Since I am not a math or science teacher, but rather focus solely on Language Arts and Creative Writing, I’ll focus on more on the technology side to tie it in with STEM learning.

This is not the first course where I have come across the idea of TPCK, so I have had ample time in which to reflect on the ideas that are presented here. I went back and found my notes from the first time hearing of this idea and it was amazing to see how my understanding and application of these ideas has progressed. When I first read Mishra & Koehler (2006), I had notes down like, “Does technology really require/possess new sets of knowledge and skills?” Yet, now, looking at it, I can more clearly see that there are technology specific skill sets that are necessary to be successful.

In my classroom this week, we are working on creating ePortfolios. In my Creative Writing class, they function more as interactive notebooks, rather than simple collection agencies. For this post, I will be breaking apart teaching my students how to create one using the TPCK framework:

  • Technology
    • Typing: The technology skills that are necessary for the creation of an ePortfolio in my class begin simple with knowing how to type. The faster they are at typing, the more efficient the entire process is.
    • Web-Design: Using Google Sites requires a very basic amount of knowledge of web design. Some of it is related to word processing and is a simple carryover (headers, footers, etc.), yet others require more specific knowledge (formatting, page previews/proofs, publishing to the web)
    • Cloud Computing: Students (and myself) must have an adequate knowledge of how to link documents from Google Drive to the webpage and display them correctly. Collaboration and teamwork are necessary for those projects that were done in pairs.
  • Pedagogy
    • Classroom Management: All good lessons stem from consistent and solid classroom management. From students knowing how to get out Chromebooks to knowing protocols for group work and asking questions, management comes first.
    • Scaffolding: Students cannot take in too much information at one time. To assist in this, I create a visual step by step presentation that shows the various steps of creating a website (Front loading). I then demonstrated it in front of them, then asked them to join in with a part of the creation (Guided practice). Finally, they were set free to build their own sites (independent practice).
    • Reflection: The entire activity of keeping a record of learning and reflecting back on it is built on Constructivist ideals. By compiling all their work in one place and writing about what they learned, students are actively involved in the process of reflection and growing through their dealing with past artifacts.
  • Content
    • Grammar: Creative Writing is built around using the language to play with ideas. In order to do this, I need to have a solid grasp on the rules of grammar, how to apply them, and when they are able to be broken for stylistic choices.
    • Forms: Each piece that the students made was in a different genre (descriptive, narrative, poetry, fiction, non-fiction). To effectively teach the students, I need to be sure of the distinctions between these genres and also be able to show exemplars to the class to guide them through the classification of these pieces.

I’m sure the lists here could go on and on, but for this post, I will leave them here, as there are solid representative categories for each one. Solid TPCK makes for lessons that are well informed and for students who are learning from experience (Shulman 1987), forming comprehensive knowledge (Shulman 1987), and are learning by design (Mishra & Koehler 2006). Authentic problems, active engagement, and tangible artifacts make an equation for success.

 

References

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23. 

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Rocket Fuel for Potential

Leave a reply

Design of TELEs

The idea of technology as a carpenter’s tools meshes very well with my ideas of what technology is. I envision a world where getting a master’s in Educational Technology would sound as silly as getting a master’s in “Writing Implements.” They are both tools that are useful for inspiring ways of thinking of and for recording the thoughts, plans, and dreams of students. The largest difference is that educational technology has the ability to expand a student’s potential and allows them to accomplish things that they before could only think about doing.

For these reasons, if I were to make my own analogy for technology, it would be something along the lines of supercharged fuel. It works in the same types of systems, but it pushes the potential of what is possible and unlocks the true potential that was always there. This definition of technology also is broad enough to include whatever is used to help the students to reach their potential. This distinction of keeping the focus on the students is vital to me, as it continues to keep all instruction and efforts student focuses and centric.

As designers of learning environments, it is our job to continue to expand what students believe they are capable of. I believe that we do our students a disservice when we simply teach the same way we always have been taught. Rather than push the agenda of standards, we would better serve our students if we focused on skills. Skills are the pieces that can be applied to any project and make for success in the future. Technology is one way in which those skills can be utilized, but the emphasis should be on the cultivation of talents and mechanisms that set students up for success. A student who knows how to communicate, collaborate, think critically, and be creative is going to go much further in a rapidly progressing world than one who simply can get correct answers. Learning environments need to adapt more to accommodate and recognize this type of learning if our students are to see the true potential that they each have, and how that intelligence multiplies when they rely on their collective intelligence.

-Jonathan-

Technology Definition

Leave a reply

Design of TELEs

The idea of technology as a carpenter’s tools meshes very well with my ideas of what technology is. I envision a world where getting a master’s in Educational Technology would sound as silly as getting a master’s in “Writing Implements.” They are both tools that are useful for inspiring ways of thinking of and for recording the thoughts, plans, and dreams of students. The largest difference is that educational technology has the ability to expand a student’s potential and allows them to accomplish things that they before could only think about doing.

For these reasons, if I were to make my own analogy for technology, it would be something along the lines of supercharged fuel. It works in the same types of systems, but it pushes the potential of what is possible and unlocks the true potential that was always there. This definition of technology also is broad enough to include whatever is used to help the students to reach their potential. This distinction of keeping the focus on the students is vital to me, as it continues to keep all instruction and efforts student focuses and centric.

 

-Jonathan-

Collaboration, Experience, and Exploration – Interview Reflection

Leave a reply

 

This interview was conducted with a second year, 4th grade classroom teacher. He also is a new coach this year to the school’s LEGO robotics team. As he is someone who is younger, new to teaching, yet excited about tech (and self-reports and tech competent), I thought he would make for a great subject to interview, especially after seeing so many of the new teachers in the case study videos seems very uncomfortable with technology.

The interview was held in my own classroom on a Friday afternoon, right after school. This interview provides a unique look into a teacher’s classroom that is comfortable and confident with technology but is still building up the confidence and TPACK to fully integrate technology use into the classroom. The six questions that were asked are listed in order:

  1. What are the main benefits/skills that students in LEGO robotics gain?
  2. What kinds of growth and changes have you noticed in the students as they work with the technology?
  3. Do you feel it is important or necessary that you as the teacher/coach are an expert with the technology? Why or why not?
  4. What are the most effective ways that you use technology in the math and science classrooms?
  5. What is the biggest misconception you have encountered from parents, staff, and/or students related to STEM and technology?
  6. What were some of the key take always that you have from using technology in the classroom?

Collaboration

Over and over again, the topic of collaboration came up in the interview. When asked what the main benefit or skill that students in LEGO robotics gain, the teacher responded, “The biggest thing they take from LEGO robotics is collaboration and the ability to work with the computers and tools.” Yet, as the conversation continued, the tools aspect of the learning seemed to play a secondary role, with collaboration and teamwork being the main focus. “A lot of the kids that come out for LEGO robotics are your natural born leaders. They want to initiate something. They are the GATE kids, the higher level kids. They don’t really struggle with academics so they need something as a challenge. We went from having 14 leaders to having two solid groups.” Even though these kids are all highly qualified to work as individuals, they see the power of collaboration and organize themselves along those lines.

Experience

As the teacher was a second-year teacher and first year to LEGO robotics, I was very curious to see how he felt when he didn’t have the answers. He was very relaxed and quickly admitted that this happened all the time. “With this program, the instructor is using just as much as the kids.” He also commented on the fact that teachers are given all the tools and resources to be successful, just like the students are. So, the learning can place simultaneously. “[When I don’t have the answers] the kids think it’s funny. We laugh together. I tell them, ‘I’m new to this, too!'” This relaxed, growth mindset is invaluable for students. In the 21st Century, it almost feels old-fashioned to think of the teacher as the reservoir of all possible knowledge. Ever since the presence of the internet, students and teachers have been given equal access to the full power of the humanity’s knowledge. It appears to be that in the modern classroom, students don’t see it as a fault if the teacher doesn’t have the answers, only if the teacher doesn’t have the resources.

 

This same thread of experience extends to the students as well. When parents were doubtful that students could be trusted with technology, this teacher took it upon himself to advocate for them. “When I had the students on Google Classroom the first week of school, I was able to prove to the parents that, yes, they can handle the technology. Let them on the computer.” The results were quick and clear as well. He told a story of a student who always struggled with handwriting. Yet, when they typed and submitted their first story online, he was thrilled that his writing, not his handwriting, was the focus of his grade. “I think that’s what technology is for: giving students more pathways to express and show what they have learned.”

 

Exploration

Thinking about not having all the answers lead directly into the next topic. “Usually we tell the kids to look it up and figure it out. They come back to us and tell us, ‘Hey, let’s try this.’ And that’s all part of the problem-solving skills we are trying to build.” Students in the classroom are free to explore and to experience the wealth of knowledge that is out there. They are practicing how to utilize resources, input data, and revise hypotheses every step of the way. Also, the ability to have technology present makes the classroom an exciting place to learn. “This year in science, we’ve been using Mystery Science. It’s all online, with lots of multimedia. I virtually dissected a cow eyeball in front of the kids.” www.mysteryscience.com is a free resource (notice the drastic change from a concretely written curriculum) that is full of hands-on/minds-on experiences for the kids to engage with, all focused around a question or problem that has been developed around NGSS standards.

 

With that said, this teacher admitted that exploration was much easier to accomplish in the science classroom for him. He could list ways that he was using technology for science, but for math, it seemed that it was mainly being used as reinforcement and practice. He had already self-identified this as an area of improvement and has made it a personal goal to incorporate more technology into the mathematics lessons.

-Jonathan-

(I apologize for the formatting of this table. Once again, WordPress has been my nemesis and simply will not let me modify the width of these columns.)

Question Quote Reflection
    1. What are the main benefits/skills that students in LEGO robotics gain?
    • “Skills in regards to everyday life are teambuilding. In regards to the technology, it’s coding and working with the systems.”
    • “I’m not familiar with the coding as I’m still new to it. “
    • “The biggest thing they take from LEGO robotics is collaboration and the ability to work with the computers and tools.”
 A very interesting part I noticed about this interview was how, even though it was focused around technology, the technology wasn’t actually the focus. Time and time again, the conversation would shift back to life skills, 21st Century Skills, or team/collaboration building. I think this is an important distinction between teachers on the inside using technology and those on the outside who still resist it. When used properly, technology is simply another tool that is used to enhance the learning. It is not the focus. Even in classes or clubs centered on technology, the technology is not the focus. Learning always is.
    1. What kinds of growth and changes have you noticed in the students as they work with the technology?
    • “The kids come in knowing absolutely nothing about technology. They build their robot and then handle it and make it move. Then, they are introduced to the coding software. It takes a few days to get used to it, but it’s simple to use. It’s all drag and drop.”
    • “From the beginning to the end, the growth is from having no idea to being able to do it with their eyes shut.”
    • “A lot of the kids that come out for LEGO robotics are your natural born leaders. They want to initiate something. They are the GATE kids, the higher level kids. They don’t really struggle with academics so they need something as a challenge. We went from having 14 leaders to having two solid groups.”
 As the teacher/coach was talking about the progress the kids made in the program, I was so intrigued by the way that it always started some way tangible and then transferred into the technological side. I wonder if that would be the same in a high school course, if it’s linked to developmental stages, or if it is simply the best way to build foundational skills. Whatever the case, it bridges the gap that may exist in students’ minds about technology being something foreign. Coding simply becomes a new way to express the simple actions that they all know already.

 

Technology as an extension is a great utilization of resources. Personally knowing which of my students participate in the LEGO robotics team, it is clear that these are students who are looking for a challenge. They are intelligent, quick, and not as interested in sports as some of their classmates. Yet, there exists this club that allows them to excel and build the exact same skills that sports can teach. They put in long hours and are invested, not just because they enjoy it, but also because they are part of a team and they each want to do their part. That’s the definition of teamwork and it’s amazing that math and science have allowed them to demonstrate those skills in ways that they are gifted.
    1. Do you feel it is important or necessary that you as the teacher/coach are an expert with the technology? Why or why not?
    • “With this program, the instructor is using just as much as the kids.”
    • “I don’t think it’s crazy important, because you are given all the tools and you learn along with the kids.”
    • “[When I don’t have the answers] the kids think it’s funny. We laugh together. I tell them, ‘I’m new to this, too!'”
    • “Usually we tell the kids to look it up and figure it out. They come back to us and tell us, “Hey, let’s try this.” And that’s all part of the problem solving skills we are trying to build.”
 To be honest, this was the part of the conversation that I could not wait to get to, as I already knew that it was going to go so much differently than the case studies we had already watched for class. While the case studies showed one side of teacher’s attitudes toward technology, I do believe those types of mentalities are dying out. Nowadays, younger teachers are more comfortable learning on the job. We are used to searching for the answers with the students and don’t see that as a weakness, but rather a strength, as we will not always be around the students. But, if we can teach them how to use resources and find answers, in a way, we are always with them, as our lesson is is more lasting.

 

I would suspect that for the new wave of teachers, they are more comfortable with technology and simply want to know that the technology they are using is backed by research and is actually going to benefit students. Because technology changes so much, it is sometimes hard to see solid research and studies on the effects of specific  tools in the classroom.
    1. What are the most effective ways that you use technology in the math and science classrooms?
    • This year in science, we’ve been using Mystery Science. It’s all online, with lots of multimedia. I virtually dissected a cow eyeball in front of the kids.
    • In math, we don’t use as much technology.
    • Interviewer: Would it be accurate to say that in science you use technology more for exploration and in math you use it more for reinforcement?
    • Response: Yes. Exactly.
 During this part of the conversation, I may have broken protocol a bit by offering to paraphrase what the teacher was saying in order to get a succinct soundbite. Yet, I felt that it was an important point and I wanted to be able to share it in a meaningful way.

 

Science lends itself to exploration very well. Even when many subjects were simply using books and memorizations, science has always been the course that has a laboratory. It is, by very nature, hands-on, which lends to engagement. Transferring some of those more expensive, or not possible, experiences to being multimedia and online is a logical transition that is clearly being made good use of.

 

Yet, math is a bit harder. Much of math deals with intangible concepts that express or explain every day events. It has historically been a course that has been heavy in repetition, practice, and memorization. Bringing more technology into the classroom can help to make some of these concepts come to life and be more tangible, just like the science classroom. But, as most teacher were not educated this way, it will take time and exposure to pass these benefits on to the students.
    1. What is the biggest misconception you have encountered from parents, staff, and/or students related to STEM and technology?
    • “That it’s hard. Everyone thinks these fourth graders aren’t going to be able to do it. They don’t even know how to type on the computer!”
    • “When I had the students on Google Classroom the first week of school, I was able to prove to the parents that, yes, they can handle the technology. Let them on the computer.”
 In our school, every single classroom has access to Chromebooks. If there is not a class set of Chromebooks, then a roving iPad cart is available. For a school that has so much technology available, there still is hesitation on staff in using it. I was very pleased to hear this 4th grade teacher say that they were making a point to show that students are capable on the technology, as they need to have access to it to continue developing valuable skills for the future.

 

Using technology to assist students with blossoming skills (like typing) is a great addition to the curriculum as well. Even students in the lower grades who cannot yet type use speech to text programs to transcribe their ideas onto the computer and are gaining experience every day in sharing and collaborating online.
    1. What were some of the key take always that you have from using technology in the classroom?
    • “This sounds like more of an accomplishment rather than a key take away, but there was a student who has terrible handwriting and you always struggle to see what he has written. The first time that he typed up an essay, he was so proud to have the focus be on his writing, and not on his handwriting.”
    • “I think that’s what technology is for: giving students more pathways to express and show what they have learned.”
 Using technology to open doors for students is what it is all about. That will look different for each student. For example, in the story this teacher told, I would have never thought that a fourth grader would be so happy to see his words read legibly, but the accomplishment that he felt is invaluable. While technology is much more than word processing, this example shows the large impact that this can have on students. For another student, it may not be legibility, it may be the ability to make mistakes, take risks, and then simply hit “undo” if it doesn’t work. For another, it may be that things make more sense when they are represented through the methods online or the exploration activities. For another, it could be the connections that are made through collaborating online. Whatever it is, the emphasis is enabling and empowering students to become the best that they can be.

Control and Gender Stereotypes

Leave a reply

As I was watching the videos, I saw so many different stages of myself reflected back to me. From trepidation (Students 9-11, 13-14), to curious (Student 15), to excited (Students 12 and 12’s friend). Even though the videos were a bit older, I still saw some of the same concerns from the teachers about moving over to technological classrooms.

  1. What if the equipment breaks?
  2. What skills will the students lose?
  3. What if the technology gives students the wrong idea?
  4. What if the students know more about the technology than I do?

I think that a lot of these issues come down to control. Many teachers feel that to be in control of the classroom means to eliminate all uncertainty and have unchanging, predetermined plans, goals, expectations, and timelines built into the curriculum. Yet, what was very clear from the interviews is that students don’t like to learn in those ways.  In the classrooms where students were turned free to explore and be more self-directed (Level 3 classrooms, as Teacher D defined them), the students were active, engaged, and took ownership of their learning. Teacher B talked about how the students were so excited to get into the classroom with the technology, even if similar simulations were going to be run.

But, engagement alone isn’t enough. I couldn’t agree more with Teacher A when he was talking about how through technology-enhanced learning, the students are learning transferable skills such as collaboration, time management, resource utilization, etc. When teachers refuse to relinquish control, many times, the curriculum is still taught and learned, but these transferable skills are not given a chance to be practiced and developed.

The issue of control is an interesting one, and can take some teachers time to get comfortable enough to relax and loosen control. To further explore this, I would be curious to see who those teachers who said they would never want to use technology in the classroom would react to the opportunity to teach a lesson using technology with a technology expert in the room. In this way, their “troubleshooting” fears could be relaxed, they could focus on catering to the learning environment, and the students could learn from self-directed learning.  Would teachers after this experience have a different idea about using technology in the classroom? Or would they quickly revert back to not using it? Also, would the students feel more or less empowered to take risks if they knew that there was someone there with “all the answers” rather than a “fellow learner”?

——–

Another issue that was touched on early in the videos was the way the different genders responded to technology in the classroom. Teacher F reported that the technology favored those students who were prepared to play the system. He reported that female students in general usually were more focused on the process, not the tool, while male students tended to explore the tool (technology) instead of putting their focus on the task. Teacher A reported that female students really enjoyed having he chance to explore and experiment using technology, as it is much less public, while male students would quickly go to the extremes and see how they could push the tools. Teacher D served as bridge for these teachers and said that focusing on group by motivation, not gender, made for the best groups.

The idea that men like technology and ladies don’t is so outdated today, yet some of these thoughts still exist in the minds of teachers. Making sure that these kinds of ideas are not present in the minds of our students is important to ensure the equal access the curriculum that each student deserves. While I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the ideas these teachers expressed about genders responding to technology differently (as much of that is pushed onto students by society, not by gender), I do think their words represent the different approaches to technology that students have. It’s the classic debate of means to an end or ends to a means. Each group of students is approaching the problem from a different way. When a student focuses on the Assignment and experiments in private, they are focusing on the task. Yet, when a student experiments on the tool and wants to learn all about the tool, they are also approaching the task by focusing on the means. They want to understand the tools that they are using to complete the assignment.

I would be very curious to further explore this. One way would be to have two separate groups of students. In Group A, give the students the tools and ask them to explore. Then, the next day, give them a task to solve. In Group B, give the students the task and the tools at the same time and ask them to solve the task right away. I would predict that both groups would have unique struggles, Group A with applying the tool to the task, Group B with using the tool effectively. I realize this is a very rough experiment, but I suspect it may expose a pattern over time, especially if the researched tracked the students’ attitude toward the tools.

Unpacking Assumptions – TPACK and Technology Enhanced Learning

Leave a reply

When thinking about digital technology in the math and science classroom, I have to start in the same place that I would start in any classroom:

  • Is the use of the technology demonstrating a solid understanding and application of TPACK?
  • Is the use of technology furthering/contributing to the lesson in an authentic way?
  • Is the technology assisting in the construction of knowledge?
  • Could the same activity be done better without technology?

If the technology use fails any of these questions, it makes the use of that technology instantly a cause for concern. Just because something is novel, cool, or trendy cannot be a solid enough reason to bring it into the classroom. If it can be coupled with solid pedagogy, then it has a place in the classroom to assist students with their learning.

A classroom that is using technology well would look much like a real-world laboratory or office that is using technology. The technology would be supporting and aiding the work that is being done in authentic and sustainable ways. Technology could easily be used in these ways to represent and manipulate data sets and simulations to help combat misconceptions that have crept into a student’s mind. The use of VR/AR could enable traveling to places that are not feasible for the average student, thereby enriching and extending the learning that happens each day in the classroom. Through the use of digital tools, students can make greater detailed representations of their learning to better visualize their mental conceptions of the concepts. These representations could be shared in and interacted with in minds-on, hands-on ways, allowing for deeper discussion and a better chance for evaluation and assessment. What’s more, digital artifacts are easily stored in an online digital portfolio that can travel with the student and serve as a token of what has been learned.

The use of technology and digital tools in the classroom is not an unattainable goal, as many classrooms around the world have already enacted these practices. Students are daily invited to step into a room of authentic practice and learn not only concepts, but also skills and reasoning that they can carry throughout their entire lives and careers. When others see the grand benefits of technology-enhanced learning experiences, the challenges, such as mindsets and budgets, will have no choice but to fall to the wayside as student learning and improvement forges on.

 

In response to the following prompts:

  • What is a good use of digital technology in the math and science classroom? What would such a learning experience and environment look like? What would be some characteristics of what it is and what it isn’t? How might a learning experience with technology address a conceptual challenge, such as the one you researched in the last lesson?
  • What makes this a good use of digital technology? Is this a vision or is it possible in real classrooms? What makes this vision a challenge to implement and what might be needed to actualize it?

Conceptual Challenges – Clay v. Stone: The Material Matters

Leave a reply

Crack Head

I don’t mean to go all metaphorical on you all so early in the course, but throughout the readings, I was struck by the idea of ideas solidifying over time. To me, it sounded a lot like sculpting and making a new creation. Now, I’m no artist, so this analogy may limp at times, but hear me out.

 

You see, it’s as if every student already has a museum of knowledge in their mind. Some of the exhibits are formed and ready, others just have placeholders on display. (Think: “This Exhibit Coming Soon!”) A student, like Heather, already has a fairly well-made museum. People can walk through and see the displays and think that the works have been well made. However, when they get closer, cracks and deformities are visible. From a distance, the exhibits were ready, but up close, they contained major flaws. This would be similar to Heather thinking that the seasons were formed from her curly-Q diagram of the orbit of the earth. From a distance, she can just say, “The seasons are formed because of the orbit of the earth.” It sounds correct, but it masks a deeper problem. A teacher who has a large group of students in the classroom may never even notice (just like a casual museum-goer might not stop to look closer.) However, if someone were to inquire more, the cracks would be visible. Fixing a mistake like this is like repairing a sculpture that has already had time to cure and harden. It’s more tedious and people are not as willing to undertake it, as there is already an “adequate” answer in place. Or, possibly, they like the imperfection and want to try and blend it into the finished product. They believe their “private theories” make just as much sense and are not ready to buff them out. Getting a finished result is going to take individual, detailed attention to make sure every remnant of the old idea is corrected and a new idea is solidly in place.

 

Now, compare this to a teacher who is teaching an idea for the first time. This is like modeling with fresh clay. It has elasticity and play to it, as it doesn’t have a defined shape as of yet. The sculptor can make sure everything is in the correct place before it is left to harden in place. This directly correlates to a student learning something completely new for the first time. There is not already a complete picture in their mind. Perhaps there are tools and resources that they know of, but the finished product is actively being constructed. According to Shapiro (1988), the student needs to be viewed as “an actively involved in the curriculum” and not seen as blank slate. (Obviously, here is a place where the analogy limps as it would require the sculpture to build itself. But, again, thank you for playing along.). Shapiro (1988) states that this form of learning can be enhanced through active problem solving, a focus on a holistic understanding of the process, not simply details, and encourage collaboration.

 

The third article that I read was more focused on remediating these misconceptions. Gooding & Metz (2011) classified these misconceptions into five different categories: preconceived notions, no scientific beliefs, conceptual misunderstandings, vernacular misconceptions, and factual misconceptions. They also pointed out how misconceptions have different origins, such as over-application of pattern-seeking behaviors, insufficient development readiness, and even forcing students to also follow the scientific method. To move toward “conceptual change,” as they phrased it, science re-education must happen through identifying misconceptions, creating forums for confrontation, and then reconstructing/internalizing scientific models. Throughout each of these steps, technology can play a main role. Asking students to represent or construct models is easier than ever with technological tools and can help to illustrate areas of conflict. Interaction on online platforms allow for (and many times require) increased communication, which can help to expose areas of focus and then lead to reconstruction. Finally, creation and work with new ideas through models, interaction, and communication assist with the internalization of new concepts. Furthermore, Gooding & Metz suggested four activities that can all be completed using technology: investigation into discrepant events, independent inquiry-based activities, minds-on activities, and metacognitive activities. Through the use of online spaces, a portfolio of learning and a record of growth is easily kept and interacted with as the students engage in personal, authentic conceptual change. No private theories allowed.

Gooding, J., & Metz, B. (2011). From misconceptions to conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 78(4), 34.

 

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120. Available in the course readings library.