Monthly Archives: January 2017

PCK, TPACK and Jigsaw

I am familiar with PCK and TPACK from earlier courses and when I first encountered it, I found it an extremely useful framework to adopt as a teaching philosophy because it allows me to visually explore the areas of my teaching I can reflect and improve on. That is, PCK “identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching” (Shulman, p. 8) where pedagogy and content knowledge is the blend of where effective teaching can be established. Furthermore, the introduction of technology as another body of knowledge is relevant to learning environments today because it has the ability to influence both content and pedagogy in positive ways. Overall, TPACK incorporates all the elements an educator needs to master and understand in order to create an effective technology integrated learning environment for all types of learners.

An example of PCK I have used is jigsaw cooperative learning, where students participate in a collaborative learning environment. Individually, students are each responsible for one part of the content knowledge. Students then come back together to share their learning with one another through discussion and exchanges. Together, they form a more complete picture of the topic of study. Each student also becomes an expert on one aspect of the topic. It is considered PCK because of the intertwining of the strategy of jigsaw cooperative learning with the content knowledge and this type of learning environment depends on the topic of study.Specifically, if individual students are only knowledgeable about one part of a topic, the emphasis of learning should be the collaborative nature of the experience, rather than just the content because each individual student should not then be assessed on the entire topic.

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

Bringing? No… WEAVING technology into the Science & Math Classroom.

Photo by Gerberkun courtesy of Imgur.

In my experience, you can lead an educator to technology however, you can not make them prep.

Technology is most certainly not a “vitamin” that can be consumed with the expectation that benefits will passively and spontaneously appear. I very much align myself with Dede’s view on technology’s purpose within classrooms: “…emerging interactive media are tools in service of richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, more effective organization structures, stronger links between schools and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners.” (Kozma, 2003)

Designers of technology enhanced learning experiences are best served by staying true to their core pedagogical beliefs. As individual learners are unique, so are educators. My strengths as an educator will differ from my colleagues, therefore the technology that I utilize may also look different. In math and science, I believe that the best way to utilize technology is to focus on three questions:

How can I bring science or math into my classroom in ways that I otherwise could not?
How can technology be used to maximize social learning interactions (student-teacher or student-student)?
How can technology be used to increase engagement, curiosity, and overall excitement to learn?

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.

Authentic Learning

The definition I agree with is Trotter’s (1998) definition in Kozma’s (2003) book that describes technology as ”tools in service of richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, more effective organization structures, stronger links between schools and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Kozma, 2003). It aligns with my teaching philosophy around technology integration in classrooms.

Technology has the ability to enrich the learning outcomes of students because it allows students to connect their knowledge with society given the learning opportunities technology provides. For instance, the Internet can show students current innovations in society that can empower them to be a part of the constantly changing world around them. Furthermore, for teachers, technology opens up new ways to introduce learning concepts and offers teachers different perspectives, making them reflect on their teaching philosophies and styles.

An ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for science or math education should address how concepts are applicable to real life situations. For instance, how is algebra used practically in life? Also, how was the scientific method used in the process of creating a computer? As a class, students will work collaboratively in these environments to generate answers to these questions and be able to apply what they have learned to real scenarios in society and the world. Connecting the relevance and applicability to the knowledge will build students’ empowerment because the learning process is authentic.

Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.

A Closer Look at Technology in the Classroom: Video Cases

I really enjoyed the posted video cases. I looked at Case 2 and 3. In Case 2, the physics teacher stressed that using technology in class made classes more teacher centered and less student centered. This is a wonderful thing, because as teachers we are always looking for ways for students to take control of their learning. In this case the teacher can act more as a guide and mentor, and students can have an active part in their learning. I am happy that the teacher brought up transferable skills, here in the UAE, they call the 21^st Century skills and they are necessary when you are teaching students in this day and age. When you incorporate technology in the class these skills are honed. Transferable skills include critical thinking, collaboration among students, creativity, and communication. These are all skills that students are going to need later in life, as well as when they enter the workforce.

This teacher also mentioned that using technology in the class, can cut down on time that is spent on things such as data collection, which can be time consuming when done manually. He mentioned that his school has seen an improvement in grade, along with increased participation by females.

The female student that was interviewed, mentioned that using technology made the class easier to understand.

In Case 3, the teacher said that she had made assumptions about technology use among her students. I can relate to this. The first year that I taught Grade 7 Science, we went to the computer lab to do an assignment and I told the students that they had to email it to me as an attachment. I was shocked to find out how many students did not know how to send an attachment. I think as teachers we sometimes assume that because these students have grown up with technology all their lives that they are digital natives, when this isn’t always the case. This teacher mentions that many students were apprehensive when it came to using the technology at hand.

When ever technology is going to be used in class you must have a plan B. There are times that the technology is not going to work, this was also mentioned by the teacher in this case.

There is no question that doing a simulation on a computer is nothing like performing an experiment in real life. When you are in the lab performing an experiment, you must troubleshoot if there is a problem. In a simulation, there are rarely problems and things always run as planned. Nevertheless, if you do have the space, resources or equipment, a simulation is an excellent substitution.

Simulations may exacerbate conceptual challenges because they do not know what the equipment, materials or set up looks like in real life and this could pose a problem. Yet, it is better to expose a student to a simulation, than to nothing at all.

Because I have mostly taught in single sex schools (all girls), I have never thought about technology to draw girls into a class or a subject, like the Physics teacher in the Case 2 mentioned. I guess we could take to all female science classes and see if using technology in class improved participation and grades.

Effective Design of TELE’s

The ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and science must first and foremost see students as constructors of their knowledge.

While Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model seen below (Fig. 1) outlines for us how we must incorporate technology in order to provide a 21-century education the second diagram perhaps better illustrates how we move toward that (See Fig. 2).

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Figure 2 demonstrates how we can move for PCK to TPACK. Only by recognizing the need for change, accepting technology as an excellent catalyst for change, adapting our programs to be enhanced by the technology, exploring new technological options to improve different areas of the program and finally ADVANCING our teaching with technology.

Allowing students to use technology to effectively assist in the construction of their knowledge could include, but not be limited to: simulations (often with equipment unavailable in science and math classrooms), collaboration (with peers, mentors and outside experts), design (planning their learning and pathways), coding, exploration of various concepts (perhaps outside of the realm of the current curriculum mandate), testing hypotheses (trying their ideas; seeing what works and what doesn’t). Technology is a tool for students to use in the construction of their knowledge, aided by a supportive, knowledgable teacher who can help push the boundaries of the students understanding.

Re-Statement of Design of TELE’s :

The ideal pedagogical design of a technology-enhanced learning experience for math and science must first and foremost see students as constructors of their knowledge. Allowing students to use technology to effectively assist in the construction of their knowledge could include, but not be limited to: simulations (often with equipment unavailable in science and math classrooms), collaboration (with peers, mentors and outside experts), design (planning their learning and pathways), coding, exploration of various concepts (perhaps outside of the realm of the current curriculum mandate), testing hypotheses (trying their ideas; seeing what works and what doesn’t). Technology is a tool for students to use in the construction of their knowledge, aided by a supportive, knowledgeable teacher who can help push the boundaries of the students understanding. Students learn with, not are taught by technology.

References:

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Roblyer, M.D. & Doering, A. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching, (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Images Retrieved from:

TPACK Framework Fig 1: Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

TPACK’s development Fig 2: Niess, M., Ronau, R., Shafer, K., Driskell, S., Harper, S., Johnston, C., Browning, C., Özgün-Koca, S., & Kersaint, G. (2009). Mathematics Teacher TPACK Standards and Development Model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.

Module B Definition of Technology Lesson 1

Which definition of technology or metaphor for technology appeals to you and why?

If had to choose one definition from those provided on technology in the classroom I would have to choose Dede’s (2003) definition as quoted in Kozma (2003) and in agreement with Trotter (1998) that: is not a “vitamin” whose mere presence in schools catalyzes better educational outcomes; nor are new media just another subject in the curriculum, suited primarily for teaching technical literacy….Instead, emerging interactive media are tools in service of richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, more effective organization structures, stronger links between schools and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Kozma, 2003).

What I think this definition is lacking, however, is the piece stated by Jonassen (2000) that: ” [S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.” He believes that technology can support meaning making by students and that this happens when students learn with rather than from technology. For too long education has seen itself as the purveyor of knowledge. Knowledge was something that we just pour into the empty vessels that are our students. This has created generations of students who know how to follow the rules to get a good grade or be successful but unable to think for themselves. Perhaps this type of education was great at schooling thousands of students who would stand on assembly lines or work in service industries. Unfortunately, the world has changed and automation is lessening the numbers of workers needed in these jobs. The work world is a much different place than it was even 20 years ago. We need to graduate students who are problem solvers and critical thinkers.

The most effective definition, in my opinion, would incorporate both of these definitions and be stated something similar to:

Emerging interactive media are tools in service of richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, more effective organization structures, stronger links between schools and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Kozma, 2003). [S]tudents learn from thinking in meaningful ways. Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers.” Technology can support meaning making by students and that this happens when students learn with rather than from technology (Jonassen, 2000).

References:

Unpacking Assumptions

In my class, good use of digital technology must involve visuals and virtual experiments. Since my students are learning science in English, I have to make sure that there are a plethora of visuals to help them to understand the concepts that we are covering in class. We are a desert school and lack laboratory resources to do experiments, for this reason I try to show my students virtual experiments because this is the closest they are going to get to performing experiments in a lab. For various reasons, numerous websites are blocked at school, this is another hurdle that I need to overcome when I want to show my students various information. Technology can address conceptual challenges because it can bring to life the topics and areas in which the students possess the misconceptions in.

Technology in the class faces many roadblocks: money, time, lack of knowledge by the teacher in how to present this technology, or even use it.

Conceptual Challenges: Language Challenges

I have taught Science for 6 years in Canada, but nothing challenged me more than when I came to the United Arab Emirates to teach Science at the Middle School level. In Driver et al.’s book, Children’s Ideas and the Learning of Science, it is stated that people construct their own meanings and personal ideas influence the manner in which information is acquired. This is further made difficult if the language in which the Science information is being taught is not the mother tongue of the student. In my case, I sometimes feel like I am doing my students a disservice because so much gets lost in translation. Earlier this year, I was teaching students about plant and animal cells and students were lost because they had no idea what a cell was. I showed them videos and we looked through textbooks, but I knew at the end of the unit that there were still many students that had no clue what I was talking about. They could not fathom that our blood which looks liquid to the naked eye could have red blood cells as a component.
Like Heather and her classmates, my student’s posses so many misconceptions. These stem from information they have “heard” throughout their lives, events that they have observed and even various forms of media. I read, Exploring the role of a discrepant event in changing the conceptions of evaporation and boiling in elementary school students, this paper stated that many causes and solutions to misconceptions among children in elementary school science problems have been proposed; however, in the study, it is suggested that the traditional examples used to enhance student understanding have instead caused misconceptions because of their limited scope. They suggested that to explain abstract scientific concepts, concrete examples are generally presented, but it is difficult to represent all cases, and thus, only typical cases are selected. However, these traditional solutions can contribute to the students’ difficulties in learning. This may ne an answer to reducing misconceptions in the science classroom.

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire];Philadelphia;: Open University Press.

Paik, S., & Paik, S. (2015). Chemistry education research and practice: Exploring the role of a discrepant event in changing the conceptions of evaporation and boiling in elementary school students Department of Chemistry, University of Ioannina. doi:10.1039/c5rp00068h

Purpose, Process, Access

Keywords: Purpose, Process, Access.

Teacher A is a grade 6 teacher at a middle school in Victoria, BC. The teacher has a Ed.D. in educational technology, and has worked as a primary school teacher, an elementary technology specialist in the United States, and as a middle school teacher. Teacher A’s current teaching assignment is in an upper middle class neighbourhood at an English-track school. The interview took place in Teacher A’s classroom after school on a Monday.

The three points I took from my interviewee were:

Purpose:

Teacher A uses technology in math primarily as way to either enrich or remediate: “in math class, I use technology primarily with my children who are at grade level as reinforcement/enrichment”. She is particularly interested in finding software with automated leveling, so the students are working on appropriate activities based on current achievement levels.

Process:

“[My students] are guinea pigs and I tell them they are guinea pigs all the time.” Although her background as an Ed.D. in educational technology afforded her a deep grounding in research and philosophical frameworks for evaluating technology, Teacher A remains a pragmatist. She relies on her students as the main vetting system for new technology. Guiding her decision making is her belief in Complexity Theory as it relates to schools: “I am a proponent of complexity theory in that schools need to move and evolve with the greater community – we’re not we’re not in isolation. The fact that some people use no tech in their learning and no tech in their classroom – that’s not the way of the world.” Teacher A believes that there is a danger in school learning environments being separate and different from the context that the students live in: “schools need to be more like the real world and less isolated so we don’t become irrelevant.”

Access:

When asked about access, Teacher A interpreted the question through the lens of the relatively privileged context in which she teaches. Rather than thinking in terms of access to devices or reliable internet access (which can still be a major barrier, even in her upper middle class school), she spoke more about more about anytime/anywhere learning: “when I when I look at programs [I ask]: Is it ubiquitous? We have ubiquitous access, for sure, when I’m looking at new software it has to work on every device. If it doesn’t work on every single device then that’s not really one that I want to use. It has to be available – all apps, you know, that are super popular – they have it for every single device.” The reason she feels that this is so important ties in with her views on Complexity Theory and the need for schools to stay relevant: “We don’t have offices so much anymore – so many more people can work from home. I think it’s the same education that some of these guys will do their math first thing in the morning in bed. Other times they’ll do it at the rink when their brother is playing hockey, and that back and we can get on that access everywhere and anywhere because of the tools that we use now I think is huge. Because some of them between nine and three is not when they want to focus.”
Teacher A talked about her role as a university instructor, and access pre-service teachers have to instruction in edtech. At the moment, there is one required course in the elementary education program at her university, and the subject matter taught in that class varies widely by instructor. She also stressed the need to stay connected, “I couldn’t imagine trying to teach this course and not be a classroom teacher because [technology] changes so fast. Even when I taught [the same course] four years ago – I’m not teaching word, I’m not teaching PowerPoint anymore. I’m doing Google Apps for Education and robotics and coding and virtual reality and all the things that are new in our world hear as teachers. I try and get them some hands-on time.”

Transcript:

Reflecting on your math/science classes, in what ways do you predominantly use technology? For example: to transmit information, for student assessment, as a student tool to show learning, for teacher workflow, etc.

In math class I use technology primarily with my children who are at grade level as reinforcement/enrichment. I use a drill and kill program called Xtramath to go through their math skills. It starts with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division because so many kids coming to grade 6 without those skills. So I try and get them through that program before the end of the year so I know that know their multiplication facts. Some kids are through it now and some kids won’t finish it by the end of the year. I use math software for my kids who are low incidence and that’s their entire program. I’m just starting to use a program right now called DreamBox that self-levels. It is out of a university and does Canadian western content. Because there’s so much drill incorporated in the program, I think it’s really good for my kids are working at, like, a grade 2 math level right now because there is that repetition element to it. I tried Prodigy (I have a license that goes until the end of June), but I find it too gamey. It doesn’t do a great job of math and it doesn’t do a great job of being a game…parents look at it and they say , ‘what are you doing? It’s a game!’, so I won’t renew that subscription. For science, I use technology as a collaborative tool, primarily. They do a lot of group projects in science. They use Google classroom to work on something together. Right now, they’re doing Canadian exploration technologies and working together on a slideshow to share with the class. Then, together they’ll come up with a way of assessing the class on their knowledge of the topic they present on. Some of them are doing a Kahoot – some of them are doing a paper-based one. I don’t do a lot of transmitting information. I will scan the textbook and [upload it]. For the kids who can’t read, I use Google Read&Write for science. I’ll use Google classroom second to put up an answer key so they can mark their work that way. This year, because I have such a low class and so diverse, they mark their own when they’re ready and then a lot of parents to the marking as well because the kids are really, really low this year.

What is your process for integrating new technology into your practice? (ie. Do you have a philosophical framework? How much vetting do you do vs. allowing the students to help you choose?)

They are guinea pigs and I tell them they are guinea pigs all the time. I’ll tell them, ‘this is new’, ‘this is one I’ve used before and I really like it and you will use it’, ‘this is one that we’re trying out’. The students absolutely help me choose. I asked them all the time, ‘what do you think about this?’. I’ll tell them if it’s new or not new, ask, ‘do you like it? Do you not like it?’. For reading comprehension we tried to different programs and they told me what they liked and didn’t like about the program. Some kids automatically found their way to the more appropriate program and other kids needed help to go to a lower level to because they can’t read yet, so they need to be a little bit forced into being a level that was right for them.

My philosophy about it is more big picture because I am a proponent of complexity theory in that schools need to move and evolve with the greater community – we’re not we’re not in isolation. The fact that some people use no tech in their learning and no tech in their classroom – that’s not the way of the world. In the world, people can communicate with with each other kind of whenever they want, so I don’t tell my students, ‘no you can’t text your parents’. If the parent texts the child to say I’m there for pick up then then I allow that. So, I think it’s more my rules surrounding technology and technological use in the classroom – trying to be more in line with what they do outside of the classroom because schools need to be more like the real world and less isolated so we don’t become irrelevant. We can’t teach in the old ways anymore. We have to look at the new ways. So, I guess when I when I look at programs [I ask]: Is it ubiquitous? We have ubiquitous access, for sure, when I’m looking at new software it has to work on every device. If it doesn’t work on every single device then that’s not really one that I want to use. It has to be available – all apps, you know, that are super popular – they have it for every single device. So when I’m looking at educational software, if it requires flash then that’s not OK because we can’t do flash on iPhones (unless we go through, you know, a roundabout route to use a different browser. If it doesn’t look right on their phones because they don’t have that set up, then that doesn’t really work for me. So that’s really, I guess, the only tie-in in terms of choosing software.

What role does access play in integrating technology into schools in SD61? For this question, consider ‘access’ as inclusive of student and teacher access to hardware/software, teacher access to pro-d to learn how to use tech, and access for pre-service teachers in the educational research around technology integration.

Access is huge and we kind of heard this was coming forever and ever – that that education has to be ubiquitous because [students] have to be able to get to the same programs, the same software, the same data at home and at school. I talk to the kids about that a lot and parents, for sure, in the first week of school – that the way with Google apps for education the way we use it in our teaching and learning that [students] can do [their work] when they’re at home sick. If I give an assignment on Google docs someone who is at home sick can still do the work. [They] can still watch the movie, they can still write the assignment and I think that ties in really well with complexity theory – that that is the way the world works. We don’t have offices so much anymore – so many more people can work from home. I think it’s the same education that some of these guys will do their math first thing in the morning in bed. Other times they’ll do it at the rink when their brother is playing hockey, and that back and we can get on that access everywhere and anywhere because of the tools that we use now I think is huge. Because some of them between nine and three is not when they want to focus. I’m teaching EDCI 336 (Technology and Innovation in Education) and I believe it’s the only tech course that they take. Every professor teaches it differently and I know that e-portfolios are a big thing, and I’d like to see that happen with our kids. Dr. Tim Hopper is doing a big folio (as he calls and it) an e-portfolio, so what the the idea is that it is web based and they put all the information about themselves to help them get their first job. So he does badges – if they can make a hotlink or insert a video – if they can make a video…there is a reward system. At the same time, the students are building this portfolio that they can show to prospective employer, ‘I can do this and I can do videos’ and all the things that they can do. He really stresses connections between [pre-service teachers] and following people on Twitter, and in turn, following what’s going on the world education. There are other professors that teach differently. they do more…what I feel to be not relevant. I know they’re fighting really hard right now to try and get Google Apps for Education at UVic, and it hasn’t happened yet because of privacy [concerns]. They are much more concerned with privacy laws than we are, and that’s been the major stickler with not getting it in place there. They are worried about where student information will be. I guess for us, as teachers [in SD61], it’s done for us. I don’t worry about privacy or what my kids can and cannot put Google Classroom because I figure the district takes care that for me. Certainly [UVic] is far more aware of that. When I teach [at UVic]…I go through every tool…it’s very, very, very hands on. We do coding, we do Google Apps we do Slides, we do Docs, photo editing. Everything that I know is new. We do virtual reality stuff. Every class we talk about the different types of reporting that are available. I couldn’t imagine trying to teach this course and not be a classroom teacher because [technology] changes so fast. Even when I taught [the same course] four years ago – I’m not teaching word, I’m not teaching PowerPoint anymore. I’m doing Google Apps for Education and robotics and coding and virtual reality and all the things that are new in our world hear as teachers. I try and get them some hands-on time. They’re making their own teacher webpages so they have that when they go to school, so if they want to use Google Apps, they can they can. If they want to use Wix or whatever – they can. As well, to try and get them ready to integrate as soon as they hit the classroom.