I have read each of your syntheses and thought provoking replies to posts, realizations, and strategies to take forward into your teaching as discussed with your peers. In them, you undertook a comparative analysis of the four different TELEs of Module B, while folding in additional scholarship (c.f. from the International Journal of Science education, Computers and Education, edited books on GIS and AI, Educational Researcher) and making extensions to your personal practice in lessons that you have already tried out or plan to teach.
Bolded themes, color-coded cells and connectors found in integrated mind maps (Gloria), a Venn diagram (Anne, Josh), and collaborative c-Map (Mary) and a flowchart (Tyler). Tables were created with features; for several examples, check out comparisons on removal of scaffolding and identification of misconceptions (Michelle), scientific processes/mode of operation in the classroom (Vibhu), underlying theories of education (Haneefa), depth of tech integration (Lawrence), or specific affordances of the technology (Stephanie) to name a few. Imagistic representations also were constructed, including a key word search and infographic with symbols (Catherine), a wordle of abstracts in papers (see the size of particular words from Allison) and the Sway presentation by Dana (with images and comparative categories based on learning and knowledge). Collective, the depictionslent themselves very well to facilitating visual comparisons and interconnections among instructional approaches and teaching strategies for the class. Thank you for contributing these sound comparisons that could be used as a guide for the future on pedagogy.
A number of posts identified the constructivist nature of the pedagogies put forth in this Module (c.f. Anne, Darren, Josh), and indeed, they all stem from this epistemological standpoint. In this sense, the frameworks are a departure from pedagogies reflecting behaviourism (and content driven drill software) or technocentrism (and the limitations of AI and many CAI models) or pure discovery models (c.f Jerome Bruner by contrast with Ross Driver’s guided discovery). Our discussions came to life when specific math or science topics, learner preconceptions and misconceptions, and possible activities with students were raised.
There are almost few digital technologies that can (and some would argue should) tutor the student independently on math and science concepts or inquiry. At the same time there are few guidelines or approaches to teaching math or science with technology. The four Module B TELEs, as many of your posts suggest, each in their own way provide more specified guidance for teachers and multi-step methods for teaching science and math with (or without) technology than the common terms such as facilitate and guide on the side would suggest.
It was excellent to hear how several posts reflected on this by raising the role of the teacher as being integral to the design of the entire learning experience. Some of you extended this by highlighting the importance of the level of guidance enacted by the teacher. Others pointed to a teacher role in designing and enhancing collaborative experiences as a means to supporting the goals of the lesson. Jessica provided us with a series of circular representations and interconnections from the lens of a teacher’s TPCK that could be developed through the use of these TELEs.
Untethered from the software itself, the customizability of the TELE stretched beyond interfaces for many of you in your previous entries, to think about other digital technologies (or selecting no digital technology in some phases), school resources, and a spectrum of roles for students. Our pedagogical frameworks in this Module offer comparatively rare evidence-based models to integrate a variety of digital technologies with teaching methods and strategies applicable to STEM. It was enlightening to read the multiple ways such pedagogical frameworks could inform the k-16 landscape of teaching and learning contexts herein, Samia