Monthly Archives: January 2017

Middle School Science Technology

What are the underlying issues and why are they issues?

There seem to be several different categories of issues related to the use of technology in middle school science classrooms in Cases 5 and 6. These could be broadly categorized as equipment, training, and implementation.

With regards to equipment, both of the teachers in these cases noted at least some use of their own personal equipment in the classroom. This would seem to present a barrier to less tech-savvy teachers as they may not already have access to devices with which to learn. In case 5 we could see that students were working in groups. It appears to be fairly common that most technology implementations are not 1-1. This causes me some concerns as it undermines some of the most powerful affordances of technology such as individualizing instruction/assessment and giving students an individual voice.

Teachers in both cases noted that, while professional development was available, currently training offerings were insufficient. They identified technology learning as an ongoing practice requiring time, experimentation, knowledgeable mentor colleagues, and ongoing support. Without these supports, teachers expressed frustration in integrating technology. As with any type of student, youth or adult, early success can be crucial to developing a feeling of efficacy. Without out this feeling of self efficacy, it seems unlikely that novice technology users will persist and develop competence.

Implementation requires both pedagogical and technological foundations. I found it distressing that some of the case teachers considered technology to be an ad hoc item to be used “on the fly”. Technology can eat up incredible amounts of time with limited gains to show for it if its use is not properly planned and scaffolded. Pedagogically, the case 6 teacher echoed my own thoughts. There is a degree of accountability needed with technology. If it is not working we need to reconsider how/why we are using it.

What further questions does the video raise for you?

A major question these cases raised for me was how can we best aide teachers in acquiring technological self efficacy and the ability to learn and grow independently in their technology skills.

How would you explore a response to this issue?

The qualitative interviews we have observed in this lesson seem to be a great starting point. Analysis for key themes already suggests that PD sessions must be coupled with practice/exploration time, planning time, and the assistance of a knowledgeable mentor to be most effective.

How might the issue that is raised exacerbate or ameliorate a conceptual challenge held by students?

When a teacher is not comfortable with technology they may misrepresent concepts as a result. For instance, if a teacher is only able to use a limited set of animation functions, this will necessarily reduce the techniques that they can use to express concepts.

One size fits all?

When thinking about what constitutes ‘good’ use of technology in the math/science classroom, I tend to think of it in two categories: teacher facing and student facing.

Good teacher facing tech is anything that helps free the teacher from time consuming tasks that pull them away from the student: organizing paper, photocopying, marking, managing resources. When burdened with these types of tasks, teachers spend less time one on one with their students.

Good student facing tech provides opportunities for learning to be more accessible, more equitable, easier to share/collaborate, and more meaningful to students. This could be through adding breadth, depth (or both) or by providing opportunities for multimodal learning or student expression.

If we were to walk into class where tech is effectively integrating into the learning environment, here are some things we would notice:

The tech would be enhancing what the students are doing. It wouldn’t just be a replacement for a paper activity or a ‘pictures under glass‘ version of an experiment. Rather, the tech would allow for some new dimension to student inquiry that was previously not possible.
The tech would be contextualized within the culture of the classroom and community, as well as provide opportunities to take the learning beyond a singular content area (math, science, etc.).
The tech would put student learning and participation at the center of the experience. There would be opportunity for customization, appropriation, and collaboration.

Reflecting on Heather’s misconceptions from the first lesson, I can see good student facing tech being very effective at helping her (and her classmates) understanding concepts like seasonal variance and phases of the moon. The teacher employed the tech they had access to at the time (the mechanical solar system model), but I imagine that an interactive digital model could be significantly more powerful. For example, the sun would actually be emitting light, so the models would be illuminated allowing for students to see the phases of the moon clearly. They would also be able to test their own (mis)conceptions, like the irregular orbits Heather drew, the clouds causing the phases of the moon, etc. – the act of which might help jostle those long-held views from their entrenched positions.

The idea of ‘good’ tech use is so subjective and dependant on many variables. Is it possible in real classrooms? Absolutely. What makes it a challenge to implement? Teachers and school admin bear such a important responsibility to understand the cultural context of their learners, to select tech that supports their learning and promotes their growth. Teachers, themselves, must be experts not only in their content areas and pedagogy, but also in the technology and how it relates to the learning of their students. To achieve truly effective tech integration into science and math classrooms, design thinking must be de rigueur from the top down (government to districts, districts to admin) and bottom up (student/parent to teacher, teacher to admin).

Best Practices in Technology Selection

In my experience, technology is a high cost endeavour in most classrooms. It requires significant investments of time and/or money in order to realize promised gains. In seeking to implement technology in the class room it seems to me like it should meet at least one of the following tests:

It does something we cannot do any other way
It is significantly safer than the alternative
It is significantly more efficient than the alternative
It yields better understanding of a topic
It is a discipline specific technology/technique to which students require exposure.

An example of a good use of technology would be the use of to-scale, zoomable, digital models of the solar system used in Schneps (2014). These models pass the above tests for something we cannot effectively show another way (the immensity of solar scale), greater efficiency than non-scale/traditional models and analogies, and better understandings for students. Schneps (2014) did show significant improvements via the use of such models in correcting misconceptions related to the relative scale and distance of objects within the solar system.

Given the growing prevalence of digital devices within class and the fact that there seems to be nothing proprietary about this technology, it appears that it could be readily implemented in many school environments.

Schneps, M. H. (2014). Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions. Computers and education, 70: 269-280. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.001

Analysis: Case 5 (Elementary Space Science) and 6 (Middle School Life Science)

I chose these two video cases to analyze due to my current teaching context of middle school students. Both cases show experienced teachers implementing a plethora of technology with students grades six to eight. As well, the classrooms appear lively and noisy where different groups of students are engaged in different projects incorporating technology. In both cases, there is great diversity in terms of how students demonstrate their learning in the sciences. Also, the teachers in both cases expressed the effective use of technology in the sciences as helping students understand knowledge accurately and increasing engagement in the content. Finally, in both classrooms, there seemed to be adequate resources of technology equipment for students.

At the same time, there was a significant difference between the two cases. That is, there were some contrasts in the openness of technology between the preservice and new teachers. In Case 6, the student teacher interview discussed her incorporation of technology in her practicum class. She had positive notions of it and expressed benefits such as collaboration, hands-on approach, and exposure to media literacy. In Case 6, the new teacher interview expressed she was frustrated with using technology and how it was a work in progress.
An interesting issue I am wondering about is with regards to assessment. That is, how will educators adequately assess students when they use different ways to showcase their learning? For instance, in both classrooms, the teachers mentioned the use of raps, podcasts, videos, experiments, and interactive websites where different groups of students are engaged in. Though this can increase participation, how will educators be able to monitor students’ process of learning? It seems like educators will be required to circulate and keep track of the diversity of projects going on. As well, how would students’ depth of learning be assessed? Will educators be using a standard rubric to assess students? Assessment is definitely a relevant question in terms of integrating technology in the math and sciences.

Video Cases-My Reflections

The collection of videos reflected current successes and concerns around the use of technology in math and science classrooms. . Although they highlighted the underlying issues with the integration of technology into the math and science classrooms they also showed the light at the end of this tunnel.

The issues seemed to correlate with my thoughts as I unpacked some of my own assumptions. Access to computer labs as well as time came up several times within the videos. In addition, the lack of training or perceived lack of competence using technology to teach was revealed when the new teacher said she felt that she wanted to incorporate technology in her teaching, but that she felt pressured due to time constraints and the fact that she felt that she didn’t have enough prior knowledge of the technology to teach it properly. She also felt unprepared to troubleshoot in the moment, which seemed to make her fearful of trying to incorporate the technology. Considering student issues with technology, interestingly one of the students videoed reflected on the graphing calculator and although she used it because she said it saved time and she was “lazy”, she also relayed the fact that she felt that it disguised her mathematical problem solving and that she preferred pencil and paper to work out her math problem, at least initially.

I also noticed that technology was viewed as a “time” saver in some ways, and in another way was used for project based work, which tended to take more time and be more in depth. I think this was based on how the technology was used, whether for solving a specific problem or creating a presentation. This was just a reflection.

Another theme I noticed was that the technology used seemed to be limited to a few “tried and true” uses. This is not an underlying issue, just a reflection I made as I watched the videos. I think with technology often educators become familiar with a specific set of technology uses or presentation tools and stick with them. They also share these with other educators and so these get used more and more. One example of this would be the overuse (in my view) of PowerPoint when there are many more varied options available to present information in the same way. Again, this is probably due to time and training.

On the positive side technology was being used in many of the classrooms. From Powerpoint to podcasting, internet researching, animated GIFs, Flash presentations, graphic calculators to problem solve, videotaping creative dramatic science representations, soundscapes, etc. Both educators and students found it engaging and it helped to promote teamwork and partnered problem solving. In addition, pencil and paper was not thrown out the window but was seamlessly incorporated as part of the learning process, technology working alongside this. Different student learning needs were met with the variety of ways they could both access learning and present their understandings.

In considering a response to some of the underlying issues I chose to focus on using the resources available to the best of their capabilities. New teachers should be mentored and supported through being teamed up with more seasoned educators and then allowed to use technology in their teaching with guidance and supports. In addition, educators should be given time to share technology tools at staff meetings or division meetings. Students should also be utilized as an important resource when integrating technology in your teaching. Often the students are able to figure out how to use the technology, or already know how to use it and can show the teacher. Teachers need to bring the technology in, even if they are feeling a bit unsure. Even if the educator can wrap there head around one new technology tool, it may promote them to use it and to slowly integrate technology into their classroom.

In summation, I think it is important that technology is providing for differentiation. Students are not only bound to textbooks and written work, but are able to act, produce, reflect, create, problem solve, hypothesize, cooperate and present using technology as a tool. This is important and is providing for a deeper and more engaging learning experience for many. I look forward to reading your reflections.

Conceptual Challenges

In the video, “A Private Universe”, some of the challenges or scientific misconceptions that Heather holds are as follows:

She believes the earth travels in a curly orbit around the sun;
She cannot identify direct and indirect rays;
She misunderstands the shadow of the earth.

Heather’s theories were a result of what she had learned on her own in the past. Her misconception about the orbit, for example, was based on an illustration she had seen in a textbook. In an effort to explain her theories, Heather uses illustrations and objects. Direct instruction helps alter some of her personal theories. Probing questions from the classroom teacher, along with a model of the earth, the moon and the sun, help students overcome some of their misconceptions.

One of the challenging concepts that I had in math when I was in school was comprehending word problems. I lacked confidence in math, and I used to feel stressed out when I tried to tackle word problems. I would need to read the word problem multiple times, and would have difficulty comprehending what I was being asked to calculate. I could not seem to be able to figure out how to convert the problem to numbers or a mathematical equation. In an effort to try and figure out what I was trying to solve, I would draw pictures and charts. I had great difficulty connecting what I was reading to concrete mathematical concepts.

Driver et al (1994) and Cobb (1994) draw connections between constructivism and learning science and math. According to Driver et al (1994), individuals construct their own scientific theories as a result of the interactions they have in their personal lives. Students should be able to participate in classroom activities that challenge these prior misconceptions, so that students are able to modify their knowledge. Cobb (1994) describes the process of actively drawing upon your personal experiences in an effort to construct an understanding of mathematical principles. This personal knowledge can conflict with what is being taught by the classroom teacher. Cobb (1994) also presents the sociocultural perspective whereby an individual is influenced by the “participation in encompassing cultural practices” (Cobb, 1994, p. 13).

I think it is important to present concepts in math and science using a variety of mediums in an effort to better meet the needs of different learners, and help reinforce what is being presented in the classroom. It is important for students to be engaged and have the opportunity for reflection and practice. Some of the faculty members I worked with in the post-secondary system utilized the flipped classroom model, so that lectures were recorded, and viewed by students in advance of the lesson, and classroom time was spent working on interactive, engaging activities that reinforced the concepts presented in the lecture. Khan Academy is also utilized by many teachers as an opportunity to reinforce what is being taught in the classroom. Another approach I have seen in an online learning environment is to have students create instructional videos that highlight specific mathematical or scientific concepts. These videos are added to an online resource database within the learning management system for current and future students.

Resources

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23 (7), 13-20.

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. & Scott, P. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23 (5), 5-11.

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Producer). (1987). A Private Universe [online video]. Retrieved 6 January, 2017, from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

Classcraft

Classcraft is a good use of digital technology in a math or science classroom for the following reasons:

it increases motivation for individual students
it increases the value of working together in groups
it turns the classroom into an adventure, something different than a regular classroom

It is important for students to be motivated and learn to work and socialize with peers in academic contexts. This helps students become more open to working with others as professionals since in the real world, successful collaboration is vital to success. Classcraft bring such value to the classroom.

The classroom experience would be that of engagement, of dire importance to do the best in class activities in order to grow individual avatars as well as the prosperity of groups created in the adventure world of Classcraft.

The one instance where I see Classcraft may fall short is with challenging concepts. As it is designed to work along side regular class activities, it may not necessarily lend itself to provide authentic and different ways of teaching phases of the moon for example in order to rid of students’ misconceptions.

Classcraft is a good use of technology primarily because it supports good values and helps students with motivation and collaboration. It has been used in classrooms in the United States already so I see it being viable with a positive vision. Challenges to implement could be with budgets regarding hardware in the classroom like computers, projectors, smartboards etc.

Thanks,
Vibhu

Kindergarten and Grade One Models of the Earth

Dear class,

Please find attached several pictures of primary children’s models of the Earth. I have been teaching a kindergarten/grade one class astronomy this year. The children have wonderful ideas. The activities I have undertaken this year are based on Stella Vosniadou’s research reviewed by a couple of you in this forum on conceptual challenges and Bill Thornburgh et al. (2015) studies on young children’s sense of perspective in space. In it, our first activity queried can you draw a picture of the earth and to follow up, is this what the earth would look like if you were in space? As promised, here are several of the models that emerged from this activity.

Thoughts and questions on conceptual challenges welcome! Samia

Unpacking Assumptions

To me, good use of digital technology in a math and science classroom should involve technology use that does not merely provide a convenience, but to actually enhance the learning experience and provide opportunities that were not possible without the technology. Technology can be used on a more superficial level as a presentation tool, as animations and video and sound are much easier to integrate into lessons through a projector and speakers, but can also be used as a deeper level to become a part of the lesson itself.

As an example, there are many apps out there that can now help a teacher assess their students formatively. Traditional question/answer, think/pair/share, or exit slips have given way to methods such as Plickrs, Kahoot, or Socrative quizzes. However, for my classes my students make a set of multiple choice answer cards that they keep in their binder. For formative assessments, I can provide questions that students hold up their cards and by quickly scanning the class, I can check for understanding. This very nearly replicates what Plickrs can do without the added cost of technology, and my preference leans towards Kahoot as it does something similar but is more student centric by removing the “scanning” component. Finally, Socrative provides automated score logging which is not possible with traditional pen and paper formative assessment.

By contrast, a learning experience and environment enhanced by technology should provides students the autonomy to work at their own pace, correct small misconceptions by providing a robust fundamental digital simulation of the topic, and reduce the amount set up or logistical difficulties so that the students can focus on the concepts.

For example, I now use the Geogebra app for my circle geometry unit on my math course (an example can be seen here). By providing students a set of challenges that involve drawing circles, tangents, chords, and inscribed angles, the students both define each of the terms as well as discover the relationships between them. These challenges are laid out so that students can progress through them at their own pace. The program itself, being rooted in accurate geometry, allows students the freedom to explore and create any shape or angle, and the fundamental geometric rules will still apply. There is no concern of an inaccurate circle or angle creating confusion and students are free to test their theories to see if there are exceptions. Lastly, the app greatly reduces the time required to accomplish these tasks as shapes, lengths, and angles are accurately drawn and measured.

The difficulty with technology integration however is that the majority of the advantages come from the software, rather than the hardware. Providing schools and classrooms with laptops merely facilitates learning with technology, but is not learning in itself. The learning comes from the simulations or tasks that the students accomplish with the technology. Thus a class that fully integrates technology would see things like an active class calendar with notifications, an online depository of all class files the teacher wants to make available, the ability to view student marks online, and lessons and activities that not only integrate technology inside the classroom but also outside in the form of flipped classrooms or (in the future) augmented reality. Achieving this would require software developed based on teachers’ needs and feedback as well as training and time for teachers to transition into the technology.

Intersecting Theories and Technology

When considering student misconceptions and conceptual challenges in science and mathematics, the use of digital technology can offer educators a tool through which to challenge previously acquired misconceptions. Initially, educators may choose to take an approach based on Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development by developing an online multiple choice test consisting of specific questions designed to reveal the common misconceptions that students bring to the learning environment. Once misconceptions are determined, technology may be used to reshape students’ conceptual ideas through varied presentation and inquiry tools. Keeping in mind Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, varied digital technology approaches to exploring a concept can be chosen that focus on oral, auditory, visual, interactive and constructive ways of learning.

WISE is an online science space that was explored from a constructivist perspective in ETEC 510: Design of Technology Supported Learning Environments. This digital technology tool is a space where students are required to be critical thinkers, problem solvers and role players. As students work through their relevant inquiry, they are encouraged to collaborate through problem solving and anonymous critiquing. Frequent feedback is available from the teacher as the students move through interactive activities to construct their final solution. Although I have not used this site as an educator, I continue to hold it in the back of my mind as an “ideal” in design for effective use of digital technology due to its collaborative, critical thinking and constructivist focus.