The path I examined with this e-folio investigates using technology effectively to teach Math and Science. This includes attention to specific technologies, methods of instruction and even tasks with the technology themselves. These specific questions come to mind for any teacher who wants to be effective within their teaching methods. The goal is to provide instructional opportunities where students are engaged in activities while utilizing technologies that provide social and cognitive affordances that foster deep and meaningful knowledge construction which can be recalled. For this inquiry, it is essential to start with my own view of the role that technology plays in the Math and Science classroom.
My view before this course was generated from my lack of experience, the angst of the unknown, and job time constraints that wouldn’t allow research to ensure proper integration of the technology. I was accounting for all possible factors and obstacles (such as resources, accessibility…) to protect my lack of technology use and my uneasiness of using technology. It is pointless to use internet resources for the sake of using technology which ends up losing the students or wasting time. I was apprehensive with using technology out of context or not connecting with the best possible use for the class. It seemed easier to let the teacher use the technology to show the class exactly what needed to be emphasized.
The remainder of this analysis will work through a few themes that presented themselves in moulding my view over the duration of this course. My analysis will explore the influences of PCK and TPACK, knowledge construction, visualization, and real-world connections, and finish with a conclusion.
Once the concepts of PCK and TPACK were introduced, these ideas became a backbone for the remainder of the course and how I analyzed any new information and applications. It wasn’t until this course that I really grasped what PCK is and how it equips a teacher with the best teaching strategies. The Math and Science concentration of 533 let me dig into actual examples and contexts to realize the power of PCK. Shulman (1968) argued for PCK to be considered the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process, versus two mutually exclusive domains. Mishra & Koehler (2006) present the need for teachers to have knowledge of the most effective teaching strategies that can help counter student misconceptions and how this needs to be a part of the definition of PCK. Transforming a subject so it can be taught to others includes much more than just presenting it to the learner. It involves organizing, adapting and incorporating the most powerful teaching strategies to recall prior knowledge, handle misconceptions, and create connections to new knowledge.
TPACK “is an understanding that emerges from interactions among content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge” (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013, p. 16). This brief description steers educators to understand the intricate relationships formed in the intersections of the components and their applications. An educator’s TPACK is continuously under renovation as the rapid changes in technology force rearrangement of the other components. In my consideration of TPACK, I am drawn to the idea that effective teachers utilise TPACK every time they teach, and every scenario coupled with every unique teacher means that there are endless applications of what TPACK looks like in the classroom. While technology has numerous cognitive affordances, I keep in mind an underlying principle of the course; the educator must always be cognisant of TPACK to amplify learning. “The teacher, through the use of appropriate software, must create an environment that provides context-embedded situations, so that students may work successfully within their zones of proximal development to construct meaningful” knowledge (Dixon, 1997, p. 357).
A topic that encouraged change in my view of technology in the Math and Science classroom is knowledge construction. The design of a TELE is imperative to how a learner will construct new knowledge. The readings and experiences in the course shaped my ideal TELE design which should be planned so it supports: 1) inquiry and exploration to acquire new knowledge 2) collaboration to construct and integrate the knowledge and 3) creation to showcase the learners understanding or application of the knowledge. Technologies used in TELEs can be thought of as vehicles whose “functionality relies not only on their attributes but also on their context, the logistical systems and infrastructures that afford their functionality” (Jonassen, Campbell & Davidson, 1994, p. 38).
Once an ideal TELE is in place, an educator must consider the framework(s) that they intend to use. The GEM framework is a framework that I could use within my pedagogy. GEM promotes fundamental processes of inquiry including students finding patterns in information, generating hypothetical relationships involving multiple variables, coordinating theoretical models with information and making predictions (Khan, 2007). The cyclical process that GEM undergoes allows the learner to carry out iterations of the evaluation and modification of their hypothesis. A teacher’s role during this iterative process can help guide the learner to further analyse and question the hypothesis every time. T-GEM TELE’s use model-based inquiry as one foundation and the combination of “modeling and inquiry facilitate the development and revision of abstract concepts and, as such, can be considered as a joint educational endeavor” (Khan, 2007, p. 899).
Module B helped me compile a database of foundational design principles for a TELE in the Math and Science classroom. The TELEs that I will use in my future practice will be rooted in constructivist theory, based on a goal-directed nature of learning, use situated learning in real life scenarios, cast the teacher as a guide in a supportive role, have a student-centered approach to learning, enhance a social and collaborative learning environment, provide limited background information before presenting the problem, and encourage students to inquire, explore, and reflect. I was drawn to SKI and T-GEM design principles because I could anticipate the use of them in my own Math and Science classes. I appreciate the LfU and T-GEM design principles because they are based on a learning approach where knowledge construction is not neat or disconnected. “The construction of understanding is a continuous, iterative, often cyclical process that consists of gradual advances, sudden breakthroughs, and backward slides” (Edelson, 2001, p. 377). Being educated in a system that was orderly and structured I found Edelson’s words assured me that present and future learning in my classroom can be messy but effective.
Deliberating on AI, I regard this as one of the most effective ways to support my learners with their problem-solving struggles. As students reach middle school, interest and motivation in mathematics drastically decline and working with unmotivated students becomes the largest challenge during these years (Chao, Chen, Star & Dede, 2016). As one study reports AI instruction created a motivating environment to learn in for all abilities of students, problem-solving and thinking skills increased and the group interaction supported generative learning as they worked together to create problem structure (Shyu, 2000).
Module C refined some details concerning important characteristics of learning in the Math and Science classroom. My exploration of embodied learning and information visualization expanded the importance of visualization when teaching and learning Math and Science concepts. Information visualization technologies help students visualize what is unseen by the eye. These representations show the interactions within relationships in the real world. I experienced this first hand while playing with Energy Skate Park PhET simulation. The simulation had many ways to show how energy is transferring as the person skates along the ramp. A common misconception that students have about energy, is that it gets used up instead of transferring because they cannot see it. Interactive simulations allow students to access the concept of all energy being transformed, not created or destroyed, allowing “students to study concepts that are otherwise hidden” (Finkelstein et al., 2005, p. 7). The visual display helps students address their misconceptions.
My view of teaching and learning with technology in the Math and Science class now initiates from the fact that it is beneficial to all learners. Even with time constraints, careful integration tailored to learning outcomes still proves to help students construct knowledge. I have observed the use of online resources and applications which are generally well planned and set up for maximum student engagement. I can express that navigating through using technology and online collaborative environments imparts students with skills that are transferrable to real-life and their futures.
For my personal learning about using technology in the Math and Science classroom, I have been able to connect with a few key ideas that I have broken into manageable pieces for my practice. I envision myself having the knowledge and confidence to integrate technology into my teaching pedagogy (for math or science) as in the following few examples. I think the design principles of T-GEM, SKI, and AI fall in line with how I view teaching and learning and would use them to integrate TELEs. I would specifically use PhET simulations in my lessons either to show during notes or lecture, as a lab, as homework, or as a collaborative class activity. I view the WISE resource to be helpful in alternate learning scenarios with students who may have extenuating circumstances.
In the past, I have used manipulatives to help students visualize abstract concepts but with an intentional structured pedagogical approach to enhance abstract learning. It is common for students and teachers to use gestures while explaining themselves, but I see a TPACK opportunity to use manipulatives and possibly digital objects to encourage abstraction of concepts (such as rotation or symmetry) in junior math. This complies with the constructivist influence on my pedagogical philosophy, particularly “since learning arises form adaptation to the environment” (Winn, 2003, p. 23).
My teaching practice has been impacted in a way that I feel secure in my knowledge about the affordances of technologies integrated appropriately within the classroom to give students the opportunity to construct meaningful knowledge. This overall goal for the best learning experiences that result in effective student knowledge construction is the driving force behind my inquiry in this e-folio. I look forward to the analysis I will conduct with every opportunity to integrate technology into my pedagogy since this will further strengthen my TPACK.
References
Chao, T., Chen, J., Star, J., & Dede, C. (2016). Using Digital Resources for Motivation and Engagement in Learning Mathematics: Reflections from Teachers and Students. Digital Experiences In Mathematics Education, 2(3), 253-277. doi: 10.1007/s40751-016-0024-6
Dixon, J. (1997). Computer Use and Visualization in Students’ Construction of Reflection and Rotation Concepts. School Science And Mathematics, 97(7), 352-358. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17376.x
Edelson, D. (2001). Learning‐for‐use: A framework for the design of technology‐supported inquiry activities. Journal Of Research In Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::aid-tea1010>3.3.co;2-d
Finkelstein, N., Adams, W., Keller, C., Kohl, P., Perkins, K., & Podolefsky, N. et al. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 1(1). doi: 10.1103/physrevstper.1.010103
Jonassen, D., Campbell, J., & Davidson, M. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research And Development, 42(2), 31-39. doi: 10.1007/bf02299089
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905. doi: 10.1002/sce.20226
Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?. Journal Of Education, 193(3), 13-19. doi: 10.1177/002205741319300303
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.
Shyu, H. (2000). Using video‐based anchored instruction to enhance learning: Taiwan’s experience. British Journal Of Educational Technology, 31(1), 57-69. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00135
University of Colorado Boulder. (ND). PhET Interactive Simulations: Energy Skate Park. Retrieved on March 27, 2019 from https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/legacy/energy-skate-park
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.