ETEC 533 – Page 2 – Sheena's MET Blog

Transcribed Interview and Analysis

Reflection:

One of the reasons I entered the MET programme was to learn more about how technology could be effectively used with lower primary and early years students, but I soon dropped that inquiry, there was not a lot of literature available in that area and I no longer teach that age group. My focus shifted to using technology effectively and differentiated learning, trying to meet the needs of a diverse group of learners. As I inquire into this situation, I have a clearer understanding of what it means to bring technology into education. I tend to use the words augment, enhance and transform in my discussions, but I use them without context. Each context is different, for early years it is about creating multi-sensory experiences and for science and math, it is about clearing misconceptions, which often involves helping students visualize concepts.

I don’t think good technology necessarily means it can be used with a vast range of users, but it should be able to generate discussion. Giving students clear-cut definitions and explanations is simple, but does not benefit the students. As seen in some of the earlier discussions, concepts in science and math are built upon as students move through the school system. Students need to be aware of this need to be flexible so they can adjust their understanding as they (and the world) make new discoveries. Misconceptions are connected to the words we use, so for my inquiry, I am shifting to examine how technology can be used to support understanding of science terms, so this is not limited to EAL learners, but to all students.

(Copy) Interview with Ms L Abstract

Keywords: social/soft skills, interactions (people to people and people to technology), basic technology skills

My colleague Ms L is currently teaching Year 4 (Grade 3) after working for a few years in the school’s reception program (pre-school). The two of teach the same year level so we sat down for the interview in her classroom during our shared planning time on during 4th period (11:30-12:00) on Thursday, June 3rd while our students had their Mandarin lesson. She discussed the differences between technology use between these two age groups and the importance of play: “In Reception we value inquiry through play. Yes, playing on iPads is a type of play, but it’s through play that children can learn to interact with their environment and their peers as well as appreciate nature. We want our children to go outside and tend to the garden or make mud pies…I think in Reception we only borrowed the iPads to help record discoveries during nature walks, so they used the iPads to take photos. This happens maybe once a month or two. The only daily technology use I can think of is the SMARTBoard, but even that isn’t used too frequently because they’re so young, you can’t expect them to sit for prolonged periods of time in front of a screen. And the SMARTBoard doesn’t allow for multiple students to interact with the board…I have used the SMARTBoard to play music videos, but instead of singing along, some of the students will get this zombie-like expression on their faces where they stare at the screen instead of sing or do the actions.”

When asked about technology teaching practices that could be moved up from Reception to Year 4, Ms L mentioned social skills.

“…I think our Year 4s are lacking in cooperation skills. The other day M*** forgot to charge the iPads after borrowing them so I didn’t have a full class set. The girls were good about sharing, but a couple of the boys were grabbing the iPad from each other and yelling…L** and E*** are both only children, so they only have to share at school, probably. In Reception the expectation is the students share the iPads otherwise they don’t use them…But even with these expectations, students like L** and E*** don’t know how to share then I have to take the iPad away. When the LO (learning objective) is centered around technology, it’s hard as a teacher to enforce this expectation because the whole purpose of the lesson is to accomplish a task or build a skill around technology use…Sometimes I’d rather not use technology, but how else can we complete learning objectives such as developing research skills and media literacy? I think learning how to share technology is something that needs to happen right from the start. If they haven’t learnt to share by Year 4…there’s only so much a teacher can do at this point. Then there’s also pressure to complete learning objectives. We don’t really have time to take away from the curriculum to develop soft skills.”

The other significant area mentioned during the interview was when to introduce technology more prominently into the curriculum.

“Year 2? At this stage they are at least 6 years old and have better fine motor skills and their reading ability is much better. Most apps require students to be able to read, otherwise the teacher has to spend a lot of time helping children sign in and navigate the app. Year 2 could start borrowing iPads but the screen time should be kept at a minimum. Most of the students have Smart Watches or iPads at home, so they have lots of screen time at home…Even though most of our students have devices, they don’t know basic computer skills like turning on the computer or logging in to their email accounts…This year there’s been more urgency to prepare the children for online learning. Luckily we haven’t had to teach virtually. I know I haven’t done as good of a job teaching my students how to login to their email and teams accounts. We only have the ICT lab booked once a week, they seem to forget how to login between each ICT session. Should we have the students visit the ICT lab more often? If we did, which lesson time will we take it out of? This school has lots of specialist classes that we can’t use to teach the core content. We’re teaching two concurrent units of maths right now because we’re running out of time, how would we fit in another ICT session?…I know the Year 6 teachers have been pushing to have the first two weeks of the school year set aside for setting expectations instead of starting off with the curriculum, maybe if we did that we could include learning to login to email and teams accounts.”

(Copy) Unpacking Assumptions

Lesson 2 Activity 1: Unpacking Assumptions, “What is a good use of technology in math and science classrooms?”, as a possible prompt. The goal is to begin to identify and frame an issue that stands out for you stemming from your observation of the video case materials. Ask yourselves and each other:

- What are the underlying issues and why are they issues?
- What further questions does the video raise for you?
- How would you explore this issue further?

I’m definitely late to this party. It feels like whenever I think I’ve gotten the hang of this course, I miss a deadline and quite obviously I don’t. 🙁

In Case Study 5, I was taken with how art was integrated into science. I feel there needs to be more STEAM than STEM classes, especially with globalization, children from different backgrounds are forming the classrooms and sometimes art is the best way for some of them to express their learning. By adding art, children can learn without even realizing it. Just as the teacher in Case Study 8 mentioned, technology should not be a stand alone subject, and art shouldn’t be either. Art should be functional and appealing, and isn’t that what technology is striving for too? Functional and appealing?

Personally I ran a stop-motion-animation afterschool club at my school this year, so I was keen to look into Case Study 8’s slowmation. I have mixed opinions about that case study. While I appreciate the dedication of the pre-service teachers in making a slowmation to show their classes, I think it would have been more practical to use a powerpoint to present their clipart or to find an existing life cycle video online even if the life cycle is not a complete match for the one in the textbook. Maybe if I try making a slowmation for my classes I would reach the same level of appreciation of slowmations in the classroom, but for my situation I feel it would be creating unnecessary work for myself to ignore the media already available on the topic. Especially since those pre-service teachers working on Science Probe 4 did not mention having their classes create their own slowmation. If classes are going to create a slowmation, then the teacher should create one to show as an example and to have enough working knowledge to assist the students. I thought the most beneficial way for me to use slowmations would be to have my students research and present a life cycle as a slowmation, as the first video showed.

I like the idea of slowmation, but I feel there needs to be more flexibility in the lesson so student involvement remains high no matter the grade-level. Having children research and present a life cycle is probably most suitable for Grades 3 and up. I thought the slowmation of the salmon life cycle was beneficial to the students because it showed them the importance of teamwork, but how to connect the process to science better? If I were to introduce lower primary students to slowmation, I think it would be through a year-long project on seasons. They could take nature walks, be tasked with photographing certain elements such as leaves and insects and at the end of the school year they would go through the photos and organize them on a storyboard so they show the progression of change or life cycle of different elements in nature. Then these photos could be used to create a slowmation. I think this idea could work because it builds on the students’ previous knowledge. Perhaps a rule of thumb could be to introduce new things gradually. So if students use a different mode to present their learning, they’ll present the learning of a concept that is already somewhat familiar to them so they can turn more attention to the new mode.

How could I further investigate this issue of technology use in the lower primary classes? I think I could observe some lower primary students during their ICT time. I could also have my class visit one of the kindergarten or Grade 1 classes to teach them how to use the iPad to do something simple, but there’s not a lot of time left in the school year. If I want to find something before the school year ends, it’d have to be through the experiments and observations of others, so journal articles.

An issue that could be explored in the 5th case study would be how art is regularly integrated into EAL and science classrooms. For example, my own classes use pictures sometimes to take notes, but what else can be done? And does it work with everyone? Not everyone likes to art. I’d like to see what research has been done on art in the EAL learners’ science classroom.

Module A Lesson 2 – What are the characteristics of effective technology in the math and science classrooms?

Transformation through Differentiation

How could or should we use technology in math and science learning environments and how might technology be used to support or enhance learning?

The easiest way we could use technology in math and science is as a replacement for what is already happening in the classrooms. For example, instead of using textbooks, use AR or videos. Instead of live dissections, do it virtually instead.

Financial hurdles could also be overcome through technology. As stated earlier, virtual dissections, and trips to the museum or labs could be done virtually. Guest lecturers/experts could be brought in virtually or through educational video material such as Planet of Earth or National Geographic.

But how should we use technology in math and science learning environments? Lots of support is needed to enhance educators’ teaching and attitude towards technology in the classroom. Everyone needs to be onboard, admin and school boards included. If school boards approve spending on technology but the teachers aren’t on board, technology use will be ineffective and/or sporadic. I think effective technology use has to happen from the bottom up. Technology can replace traditional learning methods, augment them, or transform them. Effective technology use in learning environments happens when there is a transformation in learning. When I think of transformation, I imagine students reflecting on their learning and applying to contexts outside of the classroom and differentiation. Differentiation could be a way to transform the learning experiences of students. How often have I heard people say they “can’t do math” or “don’t get chem”? Perhaps differentiation could happen best in a flipped learning environment. Content could be completed at the individual’s own pace and teachers could monitor their progress and create different groups to work with each week. If students could learn to be comfortable with their own learning journey and be comfortable asking for help, they could also ask their classmates for help when the teacher is busy working with another group.

ETEC 533 Inquiry E-folio

This post will contain my inquiry e-folio entries for ETEC 533. I am a generalist teaching Year 4 (Grade 3) students at an international school. George Bernard Shaw, the great English writer once said, “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches” (cited in Shulman, 1986, p. 4). I see this as a strength because it means that a teacher understands the misconceptions their students have because they themselves have had to overcome these misconceptions so they have a deeper understanding of the concepts and they can use their own learning experiences to predict where their students may struggle.

Chunk 1

But can a solid science and maths curriculum be built solely on a teacher’s own learning experiences? Shulman (1986) addresses this with the following proposal:

“How might we think about the knowledge that grows in the minds of teachers, with special emphasis on content? I suggest we distinguish among three categories of content knowledge: (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) curricular knowledge” (p. 9).

This is my first time distinguishing between the different types of knowledge I have. When I apply for teaching positions, my curricular knowledge is often prioritized first, it is what lets me into the door for a job interview. Displaying my pedagogical content knowledge happens within the interview, but the focus is usually on the presentation of content knowledge rather “than reorganizing the understanding of learners” (Shulman, 1986, p. 10). How am I arranging and developing my own knowledge to strengthen and adjust my students’ science and mathematics foundations?

Chunk 2

How can I make my students’ learning visible for planning and assessment purposes? Mishra (2019) states that contextual knowledge is necessary for a teacher to successfully integrate technology into the classroom. What is contextual knowledge?

Mishra (2019) explains that contextual knowledge “highlights the organizational and situational constraints that teachers work within. The success of their efforts depends not as much on their knowledge of T, P, C and its overlaps, but rather on their knowledge of the context. This allows us to go beyond seeing teachers as designers of curriculum within their classrooms but rather as intrapreneurs—knowing how their organization functions, and how levers of power and influence can effect sustainable change. This is XK—Contextual Knowledge (p. 2)”.

From Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78.

Reading Mishra’s definition reminds me of the phrase, “keep it real” which was often stated by my co-hort during my time as a BEd student. But everyone’s context is different, and my own context will vary from school year to school year since I do not usually stay at a school for more than three years. I agree with Mishra that the teachers who understand contextual knowledge are best able to swim with the current to reach knowledge goals, but this is insider knowledge that can only be accessed if my TPACK is solid. Schools won’t hire me if I don’t have TPACK, so my e-folio will look for the areas TPACK overlap. If I can find how they work together, I can learn to make TPACK function within whatever context I am in.

Click on the links to access different e-folio posts:

(Copy) Module A, lesson 2

(Copy) Viewing the Cases

Transcription and Analysis

(Copy) Definition of Technology

(Copy) Anchored Instruction

(Copy) WISE

Learning for Use

(Copy) T-GEM

(Copy) Summary of Approaches

(Copy) Embodied Learning Discussion Post

(Copy) Too real for the classroom? – Role playing in mathematics and science

(Copy) The Steroids of the Classroom: VFTs and AR

(Copy) Colouring in the Spaces of Diffusion: Modified T-GEM Cycle

E-Folio Analysis

References

Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78.

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