Framing Issues – Post Interview
In examining the question of the usefulness of technology for the teaching of math and science, I discovered a number of similarities to others’ interview results. There are several positive aspects, like the motivation of the students (Jean-Francois & Janelle), the sense of teamwork and accountability to each other (when blogging), the simplifying of complicated concepts or processes, and the connection with real life situations (Jean-Francois and Janelle). Technology can speed up tasks (Christina), give immediate, visual feedback (Janet), and gain higher levels of participations (Jillian). It’s noteworthy that the majority of frustrations or negatives in using technology to teach are external factors not related to its pedagogical usefulness, for example, the lack of professional development, budget, board support, and bandwidth (Eilleen, Jean-Francois, Rebecca and Ross). On a practical level, active learning with technology could result in a noisy classroom which could be a problem for some learners (Rebecca and Sabrina). The only pedagogical negative was that technology used at a surface level could promote misconceptions instead of dispelling them (Jhodi).
My home context looks progressive on the surface because there is a fair amount of technology in our school, but it’s use is often in a transmission, teacher-direct lesson as opposed to an active, hands on individual student experience. In my interviewee’s class, Gizmos are used frequently, but it’s the idea that the student can reinforce what they should already have learned in the classroom. I tend to agree with many in our class that teachers need more guidance as to the what and the how of using technology effectively (Jean-Francois and Christina). Technology learning should occur during teacher training (Jillian and Keith), and no new teacher should be skeptical or wary of using technology (Sabrina). Technology is ubiquitous in society and should be embraced for its capabilities (Eileen). I would like to see a shift to teacher as guide in my location, but there is resistance and concern that it’s best for student learning.
I still need to think about when an experiment is better than an online learning object or vice versa. Many interviewees felt that students are just as engaged by teacher-directed lessons and especially hands on activities, like experiments (Timothy). Working with chemicals in a live capacity is problematic, so using an online tool to show reactions would be beneficial and safe (Timothy).
I would like to explore further the effectiveness of online learning environments for teaching math and science. In particular, eLearning is not very engaging or successful for high school math courses, so I would like to study why or what has happened that this is trend.
I also wonder,
Would students be just as engaged without the technology? (Sabrina)
Do animations enhance the learning or just create a more appealing visual? (Sabrina)
Is it the software or the techniques applied that are more significant to the learning? (Jean-Francois)
How does assessment and evaluation change? (Jean-Francois and Sabrina)
How do you ensure it is a science/math experience and not simply and technology experience? (Jillian)
Is there enough time to get through the curriculum and to allow for these rich opportunities for deeper learning and addressing misconceptions? (Janet)
Is the required effort to use technology worth the learning achieved? (Mel)
Media Credit:
KROMKRATHOG. (2013). Chemistry And Science Icon Stock Image. Freedigitalphotos.net. Retrieved January 19, 2014, from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/chemistry-and-science-icon-photo-p209785.
Dear class,
I have read each of your interviews. There were fascinating comments from your colleagues regarding technology use. Despite our having done interviews in different contexts and geographic locations, there were similarities. I could almost hear you nodding in your replies to your peers. The quotations from the transcripts were especially useful for further enhancing our understanding of what was said and helping us to see how the transcript was interpreted as well.
A few broader questions emerged for me and perhaps for others after reading the set of interviews. I invite you to respond and pose your own.
1. Some of the interviewees suggested that they used technology more often in the humanities and math than in the other disciplines. Why might it sometimes seem easier to integrate digital technology in these subject areas rather than science?
2. If digital technology is used in science, how is most often used? Are there patterns apparent within the interviews or in the context you work in?
3. Does anyone know if using digital technology improves learning in STEM? I recall this sentiment posed in several of your interviews. And the follow up question considering gender and all learning groups is does it promote learning for all?
4. One dimension seldomly brought up (but brought up nonetheless, n.b.) in our set of interviews was the role of parents and parental engagement with digital technology. How are young children being influenced by their parents in this regard and what can we anticipate for the future STEM learner in terms of using digital technology?
5. Can virtual experiences replace “hands-on” experiences? I often get asked this question at conferences too, and I bring it up here in response to several interviews I read about regarding experimentation.
6. Several of the interviews raise issues regarding conceptual understanding, a nice follow up to themes we’ve raised in prior fora. How can it be fostered in a technology-enhanced learning experience?
Sincerely,
Samia
1. Some of the interviewees suggested that they used technology more often in the humanities and math than in the other disciplines. Why might it sometimes seem easier to integrate digital technology in these subject areas rather than science?
In my school, there is a fairly even use between the humanities and math / science, but there is a definite perception that it is more useful in math / science. In the humanities, we use word processors, the Internet (for content), and particular applications for the purpose of creating polished products; In math / science, there are specific applications or hardware to demonstrate and others to give a ‘hands on’ experience with a particular concept, but the classes are fairly teacher directed, transmission type teaching — with the technology viewed as extending or reinforcing the teaching. The idea of not transmission teaching does not register as an option. In my location, I do not think the two areas are that different in their adoption and use right now. There is technology adoption but within the previous model of transmission teaching.
Interesting Kimberley to think about how transmission teaching in demonstration mode might be the main model for math/science. Do you think the humanities teachers are using the Internet more for trial and refinement of ideas or are they also using the internet and applications in a transmission mode?
Hi Samia,
In my teaching location, I believe that both the humanities and math/science teachers use transmission teaching with class discussion at the main frame, and then have students engage in group work once or in class practice/experimentation/reinforcement through divergent activities where the teacher is circulating and supporting. My interviewee, Anna, represented a main idea in our school that the technology isn’t for teaching but reinforcement and additional practice. Individual inquiry occurs on their projects/assignments to extend the topic/concept being learned, again after the transmission teaching has occurred. I wouldn’t say that it’s straight transmission teaching–there is class discussion and an openness to discuss diverging topics as a group.