Author Archives: Linda Duong

The good use of technology depends in the framework in which it contributes to. We can examine the technology we select through SECTIONS so that we consider the students, ease of use, cost, teaching function, interaction, organization, networking, and security (Bates, 2016). The technology choice in the classroom (rather than for a wider spread integration), should examine the students, ease, of use, cost, teaching function, and interaction between students, technology, content, and teachers. This shortcut to the SECTIONS framework grounds the use of technology within social and pedagogical goals while being mindful of the on-boarding required to transition and engage users.

Using the SECTIONS framework, technology isn’t always needed. I have to consistently remind myself that if technology is the answer, I might not be asking the right questions (or at all).

If we connect back to the educational goals of the lesson, I think technology’s role could be to:

• Teach digital skills: This could be useful if we are trying to get students to learn specific software and the technical skills that come with it.
• Leverage technology’s affordances: at a very basic level, this could be for research. For science and math, this could be for visualization. Particularly in sciences, technology can be used to test out ideas and conduct virtual labs/simulations.

Classroom technology can be supported through a model. Especially at the high school level, face-to-face learning is important. For this reason, I am interested in a blended model. to support how technology works within a larger learning framework.

It would be really cool to have a flexible workspace for math and science classrooms. This would look a little different based on the class because science classes have/need lab space. In the sketch I’ve provided, a lot of the space has been modelled around what I’ve seen in active learning classrooms at the post secondary level. The orange-yellow ovals in the floor plan represent where projectors would be placed. The walls of the room are white boards. Of course, the implementation of this technology is going to be very very expensive. I believe a small size active learning classroom can cost about 1 million dollars.

Something I realized when I sketched the room is that this space is based on the Flex and Station blended models. I like the idea of students being able to choose the space they work in while the teacher can direct different types of activities through stations. The zoning of spaces brings out an architecture of collaboration which can be further enhanced by technology. What the flexible workspace emphasizes is the potential for collaboration and highlighting that process work should be shown. Whether technology is used in this space or not, the architecture of the room facilitates activity.

In the space I sketched, I imagine that overcoming alternate conceptions in a science class would be linked to:

• Collaboration and discussion with peers: The use of white boards and projections can support annotation, research, and observation. Overall, it’s hoped that the students’ thinking is made visible
• Access to labs = Experimentation: If one of the big ideas of science is to get students to think like scientists, then they’ll also need to try out their ideas. Whether it’s access to a wet lab, dry lab, or a digital lab, students can experiment with their personal theories and examine their shortcomings. The digital component is also helpful in visualization of the microscopic and abstract. As well, students can compare their personal theories, what is physically observed, and what is simulated. This can lead to rich conversations about the limitations of simulations and how they may contribute to misconceptions.Through cycles of dis(equilibrium) and scaffolding/shaping from the teacher and others, students will learn.
• Facilitation and direct instruction from the teacher: I imagine this space being used in cycles of direct instruction and activity where the teacher circulates and facilitates. I don’t think this is necessarily a space where one teacher is present, but many. Different kinds of groupings can be leveraged depending on the activity.

References

Bates, T. (2016). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/

Heather’s misconceptions stemmed from applying colloquial understanding for key terms (direct vs. indirect rays) and the misattributing a textbook figure. I cannot comment on the conceptions about the moon phases because I’ve never learned astronomy before. As I watched the video, I wondered if Heather’s teacher engaged the students in formative or summative assessment. From the video, perhaps the teacher’s method of formative assessment was to ask, “Do you understand?”. What appears to have happened in this case is that the students each formed their own ideas and assumed that that is what the teacher also thought.

As Confrey (1990) explains, students’ conceptions form as per Piaget’s theory of assimilation. When forming schema, students are basing making connections based on their past experiences and prior knowledge. They individually construct these alternate conceptions and come to an equilibrium when they accept these information. However, if students are exposed to experiences that do not match their schema, they experience disequilibrium (Yilmaz, 2011). Students may:

• disregard (accretion) the experience and continue with their conception
• accept the experience as an exception (tuning) and continue with two conceptions
• form a new theory (reconstruction) to explain the contradiction (Yilmaz, 2011)

Without any meaningful assessment, Heather and the other students constructed their own understanding but did not engage in cycles of (dis)equilibrium to shape their understanding to match that of an expert.

In ETEC 524, my unit of learning was based on misconceptions in Chemistry and how teacher candidates could use constructivist methods to overcome them (you should be able to see the course, if not please let me know and I’ll adjust the settings.). One of the activities I made was based on self assessing one’s own alternate conceptions.  It’s interesting to hypothesize the origins of some of these alternate conceptions:

• All liquids contain water (Jarvis et al, 2005).
  • Water is probably the most common liquid students see. Due to its ubiquity, it’s likely the most common example and makes students think that it’s in all liquids.
  • “Liquid” also has a colloquial use. Students miss the complete picture of substances and mixtures (academic language). For instance, some students might realize that milk contains water and think that milk is a pure liquid. However, it is a colloid.
• If you leave a glass of carbonated water out and the bubbles leave it, the mass will stay the same (Jarvis et al, 2005).
  • Students may think of their own experience where the mass feels similar and any difference feels negligible to them. As well, they might think that gasses are very light and think that this means they do not have a mass.
  • Using the previous alternate conception, students might attribute a change in mass to evaporation of water.

To overcome some of these misconceptions, constructivist methods can be used to elicit, identify, and correct them. In the course I made, some suggestions and technology that could be employed included:

• Web tools from the Royal Society of Chemistry: There are specific tools like concept cartoons, models, and animations. For something that already includes guiding questions, ExploreLearning Gizmos are often used. The idea here is help students visualize what is happening at the molecular level (in some cases) and for them to explain their private theories.

Outside of this, it’s important to consider how we engage students in assessment. Something that I’ve used/modified is a multi-tier multiple choice. This can be used to identify a misconception, why students think it, and the strength of the misconception (Caleon & Subramaniam, 2010). If using three tiers like Caleon & Subramaniam (2010):

1. Pick the answer
2. Why did you pick that answer
3. What is your confidence level that that is the correct answer (basically guessed to absolutely confident)

the idea here is that the confidence level gives an insight into whether students have an alternate conception (high confidence) or if they are guessing (low confidence).

References

Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939-961. doi:10.1080/09500690902890130

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of research in education, 16, 3-56.

Jarvis, T., McKeon, F., and Taylor, N., (2005), Promoting conceptual change in pre-service primary teachers through intensive small group problem-solving activities. Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ., 5(1), 21–39.

Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204-212. doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.568989

Prior to this conversation with my first practicum associate teacher, I didn’t know why I loved watching him teach. Outside of a PowerPoint for visual scaffolding and desmos activities for extension tasks, his classes were so engaging even with limited technology. When we talked about the technology recommendations I was getting from teacher’s college, he laughed. If implementing technology was only substituting traditional strategies for what was already easy to teach and with similar efficacy, what’s the point in the effort?

Instead of focussing on choosing technology for the sake of its inclusion, he worked on building relationships and leveraging behaviourist and cognitivist learning theories. Technology was used to support these theories if the learning benefits outweighed the set up and maintenance costs.