Monthly Archives: April 2017

My TELE – Vision

As my final project I have created a TELE for middle school teachers to use as part of the Heat Energy Unit required in the Ontario curriculum. It is a website that is scaffolded so students can work through it at their own pace with each lesson building upon the last. Embedded are simulations and physical labs for students to have both hands on and online experiences to help consolidate their learning of the concepts.

The rationale and introduction to the TELE is a website that can be found here:

And the student website with the lessons can be found here:

Part of my motivation for creating this TELE is to use it with my students in my class this year. I am excited to see how they react to the simulations and the WISE projects as part of their learning.

If you choose to check it out, I would love to have your feedback.


Desmos TELE – Graphs Galore

I have designed a series of activities for students exploring parameters of linear, quadratic, and cubic relations.  The student version can be accessed at and the teacher version (which can be cloned and edited) can be accessed at

My accompanying guide is attached to this post at the following hyperlink Ives 533 Final TELE Project

I would love to hear from anyone who has an opportunity to check it out or even try it.

Creating Inquiry and Exploration Throughout Our Lives

Piaget once said, “Our real problem is – what is the goal of education? Are we forming children who are only capable of learning what is already known? Or should we try to develop creative and innovative minds, capable of discovery from the preschool age on, throughout life?” (Davidson Films, time stamp: 0:41).

While I am nearing the end of the MET program, I must admit that at the beginning of the ETEC 533 course, I continued to carry a hindering bias toward the use of technology in the classroom. In addition to this, as a teacher originally trained for secondary English, I have found science and math to be the two courses that I struggle most with myself which, of course, has the potential to carry over into my teaching as well. ETEC 533 has been an incredibly valuable and meaningful course, allowing me to shift my perspective from digital technology as a distraction to digital technology as a supportive learning tool or environment, in relation to its ability to promote engagement, motivation, and inquiry-based learning, allow for embodied learning, and make learning visual for learners. Daniel Edelson (2001) addresses the fact that “educators have traditionally seen content and process as competing priorities” (p. 355) as opposed to being perceived as intersecting domains, along with knowledge, as introduced by Mishra and Koehler (2006). The more I reflect on my teaching experiences up to the start of this course, the more I realize that I have not put sincere consideration into whether or how I am integrating content and process as they relate to science and math, and I recognize that my use of digital technology has generally been a “competing priority” rather than being effectively incorporated into existing curriculum content to support student understanding and learning. My initial post in ETEC 533 clearly demonstrated the bias and uncertainty that guided my thinking and approach toward digital technology-based learning, “Based on the upbringing I had, I think I tend to shy away from using much digital technology in the classroom because of the amount of screen time I automatically assume students have at home” (Module A, Lesson 1.1, Auto E-ography) and in the video interviews lesson as I again admitted I “…have tended to shy away from using technology much in the past because I felt that students were receiving enough “screen time” (yes, I generalized and assumed screen time was screen time), and for many of the reasons that were given in the videos (i.e., time constraints, feeling ill-equipped, and so on)” (Module A, Lesson 2.2: Video Analysis – Case 5, Case 6 and Case 8). As I began ETEC 533, my initial questions revolved around effectively implementing technology into the classroom and how that implementation may impact other areas of student development, showing an uncertainty, hesitation, and lack of confidence in my own use of technology and understanding of how to integrate it effectively into my own practice.

As Xiang and Passmore (2015) discuss, the focus of science education has shifted “…from typical classroom practice that emphasizes the acquisition of content to a classroom in which students are active participants in making sense of the science they are learning” (p. 311). In the process of reflecting back on my learning experiences in ETEC 533, three concepts stood out above the rest: the concept of misconceptions that students both carry and develop, the concept that inquiry-based and embodied learning allow students to construct their own knowledge based on their personal observations and experiences, and the concept of virtual laboratories or simulated learning environments and their impact on learning in today’s classrooms. To support these concepts, I now appreciate that digital technology must be incorporated in order to allow students to develop the skills needed to truly be 21st century learners. William Winn (2003) points out, “successful students are anything but passive” (p. 13) and in order to design a curriculum for my current and future students that is engaging and motivating, I have realized through this course that I must focus on how to design inquiry-based, student-centred, and collaborative learning environments, supported through the use of digital technology.

In his Conceptual Challenges post, Lawrence Liang (2017) wrote, “Misconceptions are rife in student minds because misconceptions are common in educator minds. Misconceptions are, as Confrey wrote, ideas and meanings about their world that they formulate to explain how or why things occur (Confrey, 1990)…What results may be a blend of the ideas, both accurate and inaccurate, as students attempt to come to terms with a topic.” For me, the two most significant points learned, in terms of misconceptions, are that educators often assume that students have learned and understood certain concepts and, even more importantly, that “misconceptions are common in educator minds.” The concept of misconceptions is one that I realize I have unintentionally addressed in my classroom through some of the activities I do with my students; however, I have not specifically targeted misconceptions in the past, and it would be more accurate to say that I have perhaps “stumbled” upon them up to this point, especially in the science classroom. The topic of student misconceptions has had a significant impact on my own learning and perceptions from the very beginning of ETEC 533 when it was originally introduced and I began to identify personal learning gaps, recognizing that if my students do not share their misconceptions with me, I may never realize they have misconceptions or preconceived notions about concepts we are learning. In “A Private Universe”, teacher, Marlene LaBossiere, draws attention to the fact that, “You just assume that they know certain things…I just assumed that they had the basic ideas, and they don’t” (“A Private Universe,” 1987, time stamp: 8:55).” As I continued to learn more about misconceptions, I began to understand “that children approach science with ideas and interpretations despite not having received instruction,” depending on their prior knowledge and experiences (with reference to Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien, 1985) and “…students enter the classroom with their own understandings of the world…often at odds with the scientifically accepted view of the world” (Henriques, 2000, p. 1) (Module A, Lesson 1.2: Children, Science, and Conceptual Challenges). As ETEC 533 progressed, I realized the potential that digital technology provided for significantly more interactive, engaging, and motivating learning environments for students in today’s classrooms, which could, in turn, help students understand and challenge their misconceptions, especially through the interactive approach afforded by simulated and virtual learning environments.

It was during Module B and Module C that my interest in and understanding of the importance of inquiry-based learning really began to develop, expanding to incorporate students’ construction of knowledge and embodied learning, as opposed to a transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. In his post, “TELE Synthesis”, Darren Low (2017) commented, “First and foremost, all of the theories are rooted in the theory of constructivism – the notion that learning occurs through an active process, not a passive one. Students construct their own learning through specific, active and repeated experience and activity, not by simply being told the information (Fosnot, 2013). It is upon reflection of these novel concepts that prior understandings and ideas are consolidated into a single, new understanding. The role of the educator is primarily as a guide, assisting students along their path through the exploration of these exercise and activities and not as a conveyer of information, dispelling information through lecture and notes. Through these process, students are able to acquire a deeper understanding, typically, through inquiry.” To encourage an inquiry-based, constructivist approach to learning, students must be given the opportunity to explore concepts more independently and through their own observations and experiences, rather than having knowledge simply transferred to them through lectures and textbooks. Information and data must be delivered in a variety of ways, allowing students to engage with materials and concepts using multiple senses and a range of learning experiences. As Hasselbring et al. (2006) highlight, students “need to acquire the knowledge and skills that will enable them to figure out math-related problems that they encounter daily at home and in future work situations” (no page number available). Project-based learning, in turn, “allows for increased emphasis to be put on student-centred learning, rather than on the teacher simply imparting knowledge through memorization and recitation that the learner is then often unable to access when needed (Edelson, 2001)” (Lesson 3 (LfU): Including and Motivating Students of Today). Adding to this, the incorporation of processes like GEM (or T-GEM) allow for skill development in a cyclical pattern around the learning process of generating, evaluating, and modifying ideas (Khan, 2007 & 2010). It was during the exploration of the GEM/T-GEM model that I recognized a significant weakness within my own teaching practice that could be improved through the integration of GEM into the design of my own classroom lessons and projects. I realized that I often struggle with what I perceive as time constraints and because of this, I often do not allow students adequate time to complete an exploratory process like GEM. By incorporating GEM into my own lessons, students will be given the opportunity to generate ideas, both independently and collaboratively with their peers, form their own hypotheses, evaluate both new and existing data, then re-evaluate hypotheses and ideas generated based on what they have learned. T-GEM, along with the TELEs explored throughout ETEC 533, will allow me to design an inquiry-based and collaborative learning environment for current and future students.

In the diverse classrooms of today, one significant concern for me has been how to create an inclusive and accessible environment for all learners. In exploring technology-enhanced and virtual or simulated learning environments, the extent to which digital technology promotes the inclusion of all students in diverse classrooms, collaboration between peers, an engaged exploration and evaluation of data, and the individual and shared generation of ideas, has become increasingly clear. Bodzin et al. (2014) emphasize the importance of including “design features in instructional materials so that low-level readers and low-ability students can understand scientific concepts and processes in addition to learners whose cognitive abilities are at or above the intended grade level” (pp. 13-14). Similarly, Radinsky et al. (2006) address differentiated assessment, allowing educators to assess students’ knowledge and comprehension from a variety of perspectives, and for students to show their learning in a variety of ways. In addition to this, processes like Anchored Instruction, WISE, LfU, and using virtual or simulated learning environments, provide students with an opportunity to engage in interactive learning activities that connect their learning to reality outside the classroom, bringing classroom learning to life and making it authentic and applicable for learners. In her post, “Learning in Artificial Environments,” Anne Winch acknowledges, “Winn notes that cognition is embodied in physical activity, that is embedded in the learning environment, and that learning is the result of the adaptation of the learner to the environment and the environment to the learner (Winn, 2002)… A student’s engagement and identity as a learner is shaped by his or her collaborative participation in communities and groups, as well as the practices and beliefs of these communities (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell)” (Wincherella, 2017). As I came to understand in Module B, “Students learn through a process of constructing new knowledge through personal experience and communication, rather than having knowledge transferred to them; through goal-directed learning initiated by the learner; through the creation, elaboration and accessibility (storage) of knowledge; and through the understanding of and ability to use factual knowledge and then transform that knowledge into procedural knowledge (Edelson, 2001; Radinsky et al., 2006)” (Lesson 3 (LfU): Including and Motivating Students of Today).

With my Framing Issues paper, I began to examine “The Effect of Virtual Laboratories on Student Achievement and Success in Chemistry.” From here, I was able to extend my questioning to achievement and success in science and math more generally. When I began ETEC 533, I felt that a traditional hands-on laboratory experience was most successful and educationally sound in terms of student understanding, interaction with materials, and learning; however, it became clear relatively quickly that this assumption was incorrect. While traditional laboratories provide students with important and interactive learning opportunities, the knowledge I have gained through ETEC 533 has demonstrated that virtual laboratories and other simulated learning environments promote student engagement and motivation, are often more economically feasible, allow for the repetition of experiments to build comprehension and confidence, allow for experiments that may be considered too dangerous to be attempted otherwise, and decrease the time taken to prepare for and clean up after traditional laboratory work (Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Tüysüz, 2010; Martínez-Jiménez, Pontes-Pedrajas, Polo, & Climent-Bellido, 2003; Robinson, n.d.). As Tyler Kolpin (2017) commented in response to an energy forms and transfer lesson I created using a PhET interactive simulation (titled “Energy Forms and Changes”), “This kind of visualization is so valuable due to the high cost of actually going through the motions of creating this experiment.” Kolpin’s point prompted me to reflect on the fact that this experiment, among many others offered through PhET and other simulation platforms, allows students at even a relatively young age, to engage in interactive laboratories and simulation work that they would not otherwise have been exposed to due to the cost of materials, time and equipment/space constraints, and so on. By providing students with the opportunity to engage in simulated or virtual laboratory environments, students are again engaged and motivated as they interact within an authentic and accessible learning environment that allows students to transfer and apply their knowledge to the “real” world. As I discovered in Module C, Lesson 3, “Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky (2005) found that when the right learning environment was created, simulations could be equally effective, if not more effective, learning tools than traditional laboratory equipment “both in developing student facility with real equipment and at fostering student conceptual understanding” (p. 1-2)” (Module C, Lesson 3 [Information Visualization]: Energy Forms and Transfer in Science 4).

As I complete my ETEC 533 journey, I am no longer left with a lingering question of whether digital technology could help support learners in my classroom, but am instead optimistic about the integration of many TELEs, simulations, and virtual learning environments into my curriculum content and process. Rather than treating technology as a separate entity, I understand the need to actually incorporate it into everyday learning for students, and my lingering questions revolve now around how to integrate students’ own devices to support a digital-technology enhanced environment in the classroom. Finally, I have a solid understanding of, and research to support, the incredible importance of project-based learning within today’s classrooms. To allow for inquiry, collaboration, and construction of knowledge, students must be allowed to explore and generate their own ideas, which means stepping away from the board and the textbook, and presenting students with time and freedom to discover learning for themselves.


Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning earth and environmental science. In MaKinster, Trautmann, & Barnett (Eds.) Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from

Davidson Films, Inc. (uploaded 2010). Piaget’s developmental theory: an overview [online video]. Retrieved from:

Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. Children’s Ideas in Science (pp. 1-9). Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]; Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

Energy forms and changes. (n.d.). Phet Interactive Simulations, University of Colorado. Retrieved from

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research, 1(1), 1-8.

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Producer). (1987). A Private Universe [online video]. Retrieved 6 January, 2017, from:

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2006). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Washington, DC: CITEd, Center for Implementing Technology in Education ( Retrieved from:

Henriques, L. (2000, April). Children’s misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved 7 January, 2017, from:

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-890

Kolpin, T. (2017, April 5). Comment to “Energy forms and transfer in science 4” (Sikkes). Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from

Liang, L. (2017, Jan. 11). Is it worth constructing incorrect knowledge? [STEM: Conceptual Challenges]. Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from

Low, D. (2017, Mar. 8). Tele Synthesis [STEM: Synthesis Forum]. Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from

Martínez-Jiménez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Polo, J. and Climent-Bellido, M.S. (2003). Learning in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346-352.

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

Radinsky, J., Sacay, R., Singer, M., Oliva, S., Allende-Pellot, F., & Liceaga, I. (2006, April). Emerging conceptual understandings in GIS investigations. Paper about forms of assessment presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from

Robinson, J. (n.d.). Virtual laboratories as a teaching environment: A tangible solution or a passing novelty? Southampton University. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from:;jsessionid=528C202CA72A6A6252236F58981824B1?doi=

Tatli, Z. and Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students’ achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170.

Tüysüz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37-53.

Wincherella. (2017, Mar. 16). Learning in artificial environments [STEM: Embodied Learning]. Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 1-28. Retrieved from:

Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 311-329.

Prodigy Math Game

Prodigy is a free math game available online at

Teachers can sign up their class using individual logins. Students will enter the Prodigy world, select a character and complete battles throughout the game while encountering math problems. Teachers can set specific topics or grade levels and will receive feedback on how each individual student is doing with a topic as well as the entire class. This engaging game provides a great support to your math curriculum.

Geography TELE

A few years ago I was searching for a new way to deliver the grade 7 geography curriculum. We had just received a class set of chrome books for the school and I thought I would combine geography and technology by creating a website the students could work through at their own pace. I included some mini lessons and specific tasks for them to complete. It was sort of a first attempt at the TELE if you will. I thought I would share it with you here. Feel free to check it out, use it or adapt it.


Thanks Everyone

Thanks to everyone for an engaging course. I appreciated the suggestions and questions in response to my posts that definitely helped me extend my thinking. I have so much more to learn in the area of using technology in math and science and I look forward to exploring it all in the near future. I wonder when it will actually hit me that I have completed the MET program? Although I will no longer be working with deadlines and grades I think I have about a years worth of references that I have amalgamated over the past two years to check out.

I have to admit I am a bit sad that my MET journey is over. There were other courses I wanted to take and people that I loved working with. Little did I know two years ago that an online masters would be so interactive and help not only build professional networks but really great friendships too. (Funny how friendships can develop with people you have never met in person).

Congratulations to all who have accomplished their goal and are finished MET.

Good luck to those who are still completing the program.

I would love to keep in touch with all of you, to try new programs, bounce ideas off each other etc.

If anyone needs help getting the gray matter working for projects I am happy to help.

My email is

Thanks Samia for an excellent engaging course as well as your helpful responses to emails.


A Big Thank you

Dear class,

This week marks our official last week of class.

I’m honored to have been a small part of a lifelong journey of discovery and experimentation in the arena of digital technologies in math and science education. For me, it has been intellectually engaging and insightful to learn about you and your thoughts on teaching and learning challenging concepts in the math and science classroom. The growth in scholarship and pedagogical design has been laudatory as it has involved the merging of practice, experience, design, and theorizing.

We began this journey with our personal experiences of using technology.  These experiences often produced a shared nod and a chuckle at times as we recognized a common experience with technology. In analyzing our experiences, we were also able to unpack our assumptions of what good teaching with digital technology looks like and how we might teach with technology. We viewed video cases of others using digital technology in a variety of contexts, and from our examination of them, crystallized a salient issue of personal interest.  We also saw Heather in the Private Universe and learned about her powerful alternative conceptions about the solar system, prompting us to think about how we arrive at our personal conceptions and how enduring these early conceptions can be. This reflection launched seminal readings of the scholarship of Paul Cobb, Ross Driver, and Posner et al. who have articulated the fields of math and science education and conceptual understanding significantly. We read their work as we grappled with alternative conceptions we have witnessed with our students. This and other issues involving technology were explored further in in-depth interviews with our colleagues. Sharing excerpts from these interviews allowed us also to see that our educational settings shared some commonalities with each other as patterns began to emerge across contexts. Using research, we were able to frame these issues, in the form a cogent annotated bibliography. Many of these bibliographies were exceptionally concise at framing the issue relevant to STEM and using empirical research to deftly analyze it. For some, unexpected answers to long-standing questions were found. For others, the issue was personally salient but had never been explored using research before. A number of students who have previously graduated from this course have used their annotated bibliographies to inform papers, grants, district technology proposals, and future theses.  The next module focused on instructional frameworks that allowed an examination of multiple ways that such conceptions might be addressed. With a TPACK and PCK lens, four established frameworks were examined: AI, SKI, LfU, and T-GEM. We went into depth into this research. The breadth of these well-established projects also allowed us to examine affordances and STEM topics such as: pedagogical content knowledge (or how we teach particular topics in science and math), math for children with learning disabilities, various ways to scaffold inquiry and provide good feedback, and multiple levels of external representations and abstraction (symbolic, macro and micro) that are prescient in simulations.  We also looked at “pedagogical design” with multi-step coordinated approaches, sometimes using the technology (eg. WISE, GIS) or integrating other activities without it, depending on the goal of the teacher. Our foray into pedagogical design prompted a (re)consideration of the roles of the teacher and the students as being key to learning. With these vital roles in mind, we were able to design guided lessons and activities based on these frameworks in lesson 3. Syntheses of the frameworks were insightful as they each have something to offer. Looking back at earlier posts on technology, there was visible growth in our understanding of how technologies can be thoughtfully integrated with purposeful decisions about interaction with students; I very much enjoyed reading the activities you created in this module. Our final module embarked upon an exploration of embodied learning, mobilization knowledge, and the visualization of information with digital technologies for STEM. We discussed embodied learning research and explored how the body can move to learn math concepts involving shapes, rate of change, or concepts such as molecular motion. Our discussions on embodied learning allowed us to imagine how we might use mobile technologies with probes, graphing calculators, augmented reality, VR headsets and motion-aware technologies, and current mobile apps to name a few. Then, we explored the social construction of knowledge as it diffuses and is mobilized over virtual networks. Through this exploration, we had fun visiting online exhibits about bugs and mathematical conundrums at museums, traveling to ponds in Africa and across Canada in expeditions, viewing weather data from thousands of children in schools near our backyard and close to Antarctica with Globe, and diving to immersive games.  Benny’s conceptions, math in the streets, when the problem is not the question, and constructing scientific knowledge using guidance provoked us to think deeply about how we engage children in a dialogue with us, their peers, and their world about mathematical and scientific concepts. Finally, we explored how concepts can be visualized in math and science education with simulation and modeling programs, like NetLogo, GS, Illuminations, and PhET. You were able to share initial ideas for possible activities that integrated simulations and other forms of information visualization. Well-thought out multi-step and multi-cyclical approaches were generated for us to address challenging concepts in math or science. These designs of technology-enhanced learning experiences were further enriched by roles for teachers and students as they interacted with each other and the technology in a cognitive process to co-construct mental models. By the time this module will be over, we would have examined over 25 free on-line digital resources for science and math education. We also created a forum for sharing resources and it grew to include a number of technologies for our community of learners to try now and in the future. Your posts have been incredible for me to read as a number of you tried your TELEs out in the classroom, and many of us will be trying out the wonderful ideas for TELEs in the year to come.

As the course culminates this week, in many ways, your journey of education on teaching and learning with technology continues beyond it. Thank you so much for your participation, engagement in the material, and willingness to learn. You are an immensely talented and insightful group of educators. You do important work and have much to offer children and young adults with each interaction. Your journey doesn’t end here as your explorations for teaching math and science have also impacted each of us in positive ways and, in turn, our own students. On a personal note, I must let you know this was the most gratifying class I have taught (and I have never told a class that before). I told someone today that if I could continue teaching this group all year, I would. You were an amazing group of learners came together in the best way as a supportive community. Every week I looked forward to the gems in your understanding and trials and thoughts on technology. I have truly enjoyed this class as one of my best teaching experiences, and I must thank you so much. I would like to invite you to visit if you are ever in Vancouver. My email is Please feel free to share your contact info here if you wish to stay in contact. With great thanks for sharing this journey with me; I wish you all the very best now and in the future in education.

With a great many thanks, Samia

Planning multi-layered lessons with visualization

Planning multi-layered lessons with info-vis


There have been many well informed technology-enhanced lessons emerging in this forum, a number of which postulated the affordances of visualizing with the programs. Additionally, there were excellent examples of possible teacher questions and student responses in your posts in this forum. Some of your posts employed LfU, Anchored instruction, WISE, and others T-GEM, while also drawing upon the research on visualization in math and science learning to enrich your ideas. Challenging concepts, use of labs, demonstrations, physical manipulatives, affordances of digital and non-digital technologies,  and opportunities for dialogue and reflective tasks created a multi-layered enhanced set of activities. It is noteworthy that none of the lessons lectured the entire content of the math or science topic with an “add on” of technology at the end —arguably a more traditional approach to using technology in the math and science classroom. Rather, these emergent lessons illustrated, in effect, a substantiated pedagogy behind the use of the technology. The frameworks and tasks were varied, as well as the choices of digital technologies, underscoring an incredible growth of ideas that has occurred this semester and your facility with addressing challenging concepts in STEM in a well-integrated technology enhanced fashion.  Bravo!


Redefining Mathematics and Science – One Educator’s e-folio

Working through the e-folio process has been quite insightful. I actually ended up laughing, with a bit of head scratching, at some of my earlier writings from the beginning of the course. 🙂

Here is the link for anyone interested, as well as an alternate way for Samia to access the blog.

Cheers, everyone! It’s been a pleasure!



Lesson: T-Gem and Simple Circuits

Objective: Students will be able to construct simple circuits, as well as identify the equipment needed to do so.

Materials: Computer lab, wires, light bulbs, batteries, switches.

Class Activity:

  • Students prior knowledge will be assessed informally through a class discussion. What di students know about circuits; can they give any examples.  How do circuits behave.
  • Have students create circuits using phet.
  • Have students do the same process using the actual materials given to them.
  • What happens when the switch is open? Closed?
  • Try creating circuits with multiple switches and light bulbs.
  • Have students create various circuits given varying numbers of switches and light bulbs.
  • Extension: Explain to students the difference between a series circuit and a parallel circuit, have students create both and explain the difference to each other.