Monthly Archives: May 2017

Moving Toward E-Learning 2.0

In reviewing the videos and use of digital technology, I chose the lens of how we can truly change teaching from didactic presentation to facilitating student-centred learning.

The video case 7, Tek Grassroots Project at BCIT, deals with the issue of misconceptions. The use of iClickers is a great way to address misconceptions of a large group in real-time. The quick-and-often formative assessment during the introduction of concepts is a big gain over traditional lecturing because it affords “risk free” participation and removes the time restriction barriers of “one-at-a-time” communication. On the other hand, it is ultimately a didactic activity in which the teacher rolls out what is important and students follow along in a Socratic lesson delivery mode. In other words, development of the lesson requires that the instructor ideally has a priori knowledge of the misconceptions of students. Do clickers address misconceptions that are not anticipated? Do they connect the new concept in any meaningful way to the lifeworld in which the student lives?

In Video case 4, pre-service teachers (circa late 1990-early 2000?) share their views on the potential use of digital technologies in their own practice. My overall impression is that they are cautious but see the potential for value. They almost all identify the need for teacher-specific technology training as a major issue for effective use of the tools. In Thwarted Innovation, What Happened to E-Learning and Why, Zemsky and Massy (2004) claim that early failures in adopting technology rests in part with the assumption that teachers would know how to direct their own required professional development to integrate technologies into their classroom. Are these students receiving pedagogical training in the effective use of technology, or merely being introduced to what is available?

Both of these video cases involve effective digital technology teaching tools, but not necessarily in a way that is often called “E-Learning 2.0” in which the affordances of technology allow students to pursue topics with a much higher degree of differentiation and teachers act as designers and facilitators of curriculum rather than as presenters of knowledge. What are the barriers to differentiation and what can be done to help realize the true potential of learning technology by changing the role of teachers?

Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D. N., Pea, R.D., (1999). Addressing the Challenges of Inquiry-Based Learning Through Technology and Curriculum Design, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8:3-4, 391-450.

Massy, W.F., Zemsky, R. (2004). Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to E-Learning and Why

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and Digital media 7(3).200-222.

Fear of the unknown

I found a common theme running through the videos which linked back to my previous blog post. That is the use of technology in the math and science classroom should be interdisciplinary, interactive and meaningful. I chose to focus on cases 5 and 8 as these videos relate directly to my grade levels, broadened my views on what platforms can be used in the classroom and raised an important question. Both cases provided an insight into what I see as the 3 central functions of technology. Technology allows content and competencies to be woven together in a rich tapestry that blends core subject areas in ways that help students gain meaningful insight into how our world connects. The interactive platforms the teachers use combine text, sound, images and video that is not just consumed by students but created by students, allowing for authentic learning experiences. The students take the skills outside the classroom into their homes and continue with projects on their own time which indicates meaningful learning activities.

Looking at case 5 answered questions as to the effectiveness of technology in the elementary classroom but also raised some questions. As the teacher in this class is doing I am also working towards combining subjects into silo’s or interdisciplinary projects. Her use of music in science was obviously a creative way to engage students in artistic impression using digital tools but also linking into a larger science theme, based on space. I am currently having my students build a colony in Minecraft on Mars using a modification called Galacticcraft which provides realistic gravity, atmosphere and day night cycle environment. We are also coding a song for a video based on our colony using the excellent musical coding tool called SonicPi on our raspberry Pis.

I was excited to see how she promoted understanding by challenging them to use a piece of digital technology to break through subject barriers. We do not have a large ESL base in our school but another great point she made was how the technology levels the playing field for ESL students and allows them to express their ideas using a multimodal medium instead of just text. Her project based learning approach seemed to be applied across her subjects and it was heartening to see that someone is working towards a similar goal as I am.

However the two teachers who felt uncomfortable with technology at the end raised a huge question for me. While we worry about our students concepts and dispositions they bring into the classroom I am more concerned teachers. So many have little to no interest in applying technology into their classroom because of their fear of the unknown. It seems to me at the heart of the problem is the uncomfortable position technology places teacher in. Their role is no longer gatekeeper of all knowledge, as it has been for hundreds of years. Both teachers felt as if they should know “it” before they teach it, they had no time to learn new ideas. This is where a shift in attitude needs to occur about technology. It is ok to make mistakes and learn new tools along with the students. I find their engagement level increases as they realize you are both on a journey of knowledge together. I have been teaching the new ADST coding curriculum for 3 years now. I have had many times when I have asked students for help, or find that with the tools they have been given they create and share their ideas with me. I gain knowledge from their creations and further my problem solving abilities. Teachers do not have to be experts in technology but must be willing to understand that tech savy students need to be given control over how they want to show and grow their knowledge.

This brings me to case 8 where new teachers are learning how to take text and images and create a new engaging way to present the information to the students. It seemed that technology was not a standalone subject in their practicum but a tool to help integrate content into a optimal learning presentation. This is where hope lies for technology integration into our practice in the Science and Math curriculum. It is through education and professional development, so that the fear of the unknown vanishes and is replaced with a certain comfort level with digital literacy. Too many teachers feel as if they don’t have time, or the students are already the experts so why bother. So while some of my questions about technology enhancing learning have been answered I still wonder what is the answer to having all teachers understand the interdisciplinary, interactivity and meaningful learning it can inspire?

Elementary and Middle School – Video Cases 5 & 6

The video cases I watched (case 5 and 6) gave an interesting perspective of the use of technology in elementary and middle school classrooms.

Case 5

Some initial thoughts around this video. The class is LOUD! How fortunate that their neighbours are so understanding! The teacher in case 5 said that they use technology almost everyday though I wonder how the technology is shared throughout other classrooms?

I appreciate the teacher’s (Teacher “S”) thoughts regarding technology leveling the field, especially with students from a variety of backgrounds and English language abilities. She recognizes technology as a tool that allows students to overcome some challenges, as well as allowing them to reach out to their families – often on other sides of the world.

Students appeared actively engaged (and noisy) and were all smiles that they got to use technology everyday. The young girls are able to articulate some of the scientific concepts of hurricanes, and were able to describe challenges they faced using technology in their classroom (the amount of information available is overwhelming, though they are learning from their teacher how to search). These are important life skills that technology allows; information is rapidly changing and access to the Web allows for more current information than, say, researching from a book.

I was a bit confused about the Sound Scape project they were working on and subsequent illustrations of the girl in the hurricane. Was this an artistic representation of a hurricane? How is the addition of technology adding to the experiences? I am always concerned that educators are purposeful of the “why behind the technology.

If technology is being used everyday, are students written output needs in English being addressed? Are students being challenged to think critically about space science?

Finally, the retiring teacher feels the way many teachers (even new teachers) feel; there has not been enough professional development opportunities to learn HOW to use technology, let alone the time to devise ways to incorporate it into our classrooms effectively. Using a model, such as SAMR, SECTIONS or the Seven Principles, has definitely given me more direction as to the how/why, but the T (time) still poses significant challenges for many.

Case 6

This teacher uses a variety of technology in his classroom and for a variety of purposes. I think his use of technology to communicate with parents/guardians is very important as it facilitates the home/school connection. I appreciate that he not only sends “marks” and “homework” (that’s another big topics….) but also interesting links, and reminders.

His stations-based approach to this lesson is also interesting. This is a great way to utilize technology when large of amounts of technology is not available. Listening to podcasts, text-books (or other physical books), PowerPoint, scanners, and hands-on dissections address a variety of student learning styles and gives them different experiences. His acknowledgement of the creativity needed to acquire funding for these supplies, ”know who to ask” is important. PAC, admin, district, grants, etc. are available – you just have to know where to look. I do wonder how often he brings in all of these technologies. What does a typical lesson look like without the video cameras there?

Tapping into the technology interests of students does allow for an opening into the content. Many students are going to be paying attention when the material is presented in an engaging way other than a text or video. Students have the material at their fingertips that address their conceptual challenges.

The effort that these teachers are putting into utilizing technology is their classroom is apparent. We can also see that they feel that the amount of time (whether as a beginner or to stay on “the cutting edge”) is a challenge. Pro-D Days offer some solutions. The teacher in Video 6 mentioned talking with colleagues who are also using tech in their classrooms. I think that this is an excellent way to facilitate the use of technology as well as growth. Using the time teachers are given, such as collaboration afternoons, to discuss and learn about the technology available may be a realistic way to address these needs.

Video Case Issues

One underlying issue arises from multiple functionality: Graphing calculators have capabilities beyond mathematical computation, serving as mobile computers with emerging potential and continual source of distraction. Calculator tricks provide automaticity to iteratively work out kinks, but may also promote laziness. Technology enhances learning helping to visualize concepts quicker and easier than paper concepts. Ideas can be observed during the process, which is more fun than writing all out, allowing students to engage even if they missed certain theory. Along with Clickers, technology enables tactile learning, participating with rapid feedback and peer teaching in risk free environments. Students view experiences as more hands-on than textbooks, acquiring knowledge of what to do without thinking about it. It frames homework less as questions assigned towards working for time period to accomplish goals. It makes me wonder how much background instruction is needed before teachers can leave students towards free inquiry. No doubt teachers use open questions as blueprints to have learners solve problems, playing without necessarily knowing the answer beforehand.

Gender equity was raised as another issue with differing proportions of boys and girls interacting differently with technology. Not only are certain subjects traditionally dominated by one gender, boys for example are stereotypically excited to try stuff, pulling on force sensors to test limits whereas girls maybe feeling less experienced are not as eager to explore, potentially giving up early. Here perhaps students can benefit through collaborative projects between interdisciplinary fields. Learners can focus on final products to inform the planning process, putting greater effort into presentations and developing media literacy related to curriculum. Accessibility issues are less common now as rarely do students lack home internet. What students were graphing on TI-83’s have evolved towards open platforms like Desmos, providing instant results for critical analysis with data interpretation.

Activity-based planning gives control back to students to balance traditional instruction, encountering personal teachable moments. Technology can be implemented at three levels: teacher-directed instruction, lock-step student and self-paced inquiry. No doubt students can teach each other, but again how much content do learners need before technology can be effectively used, and how is the role of teacher changing in response? 21st century learning is more interactive than transmissive, reflecting upon how to learn and developing transferable life skills. Technology can help bypass measurements and focus on key concepts over static components. Teachers can use problem-based learning for students to design labs, solving problems like friction coefficient with force sensors. Data Studio still requires critical thinking when computers show incredible detail, doing additional runs to average minor fluctuations. Everyone has a part to play in groups, with opportunities to correct in low risk environments.

Technology provides real-world relevance, giving students images that professionals work with to come up with similar conclusions. Computer simulations replace physical needs, though learners might feel disconnect lacking manual application, feeling like computers are merely programmed to do that, not actually representative of life. Many educators dream of incorporating technology, but simply do not have time to balance work, feeling pressured to know everything before teaching kids. Professional development workshops can help, though is easily forgotten without application. Another issue is lack of familiarity as some teachers begin with initial hatred, being unsure and afraid of technical problems. Colleagues can provide support networks to troubleshoot, though people may not want to continually be a bother. While upgrading technology, districts should prioritize training, introducing tools as early as teacher education programs, though pre-service teachers may find jumping into teaching is difficult enough already. An interesting perspective arose from one such teacher wanting to actively teach than watch students learn, viewing technology as medium and accessory. A possible response is letting go of being the expert, and promoting student ownership as it is much easier for students to pick up and conduct peer teaching. Group-based learning may come with noisier classes, but can often lead to surprising results.

Is Technology Just Another Tool?

Some notes on: What “counts” as good use of technology in math and science learning environments.

-Applications and devices that allow students to be actively engaged in their own learning

-educators who embrace change and want to try and implement technology into the classroom

-Used for sharing, communicating and displaying work so others can learn from one another

In a previous MET course, I came across the question, “Is technology just another tool to use in education?” This made me think long and hard. If it isn’t, then what is it? I realized that technology is so much more than just a tool. If it can transform the way we do things, is it then just a tool? For example, I will use the app called Padlet to demonstrate my thinking. Sometimes in class, I will ask my students a question and ask them to answer using this app. For one, it allows other shy students to express their thoughts, and to think and reflect on other’s posts at their own pace. Is Padlet a tool? Well, technically yes but it can transform education.

Ideally, such a learning environment would have each student own their own technological device or have one available at school. With this however comes cost. At this point, most schools don’t have the funds for every student to have their own device let alone each student bring their own from home. Some schools do have an iPad cart where classes must share, but this is not available all the time.

Learning through technology could address conceptual challenges. For instance, in last week’s video titled, “A Private Universe” Heather believed Earth’s rotation around the Sun was in a figure eight movement. Instead of relying on the teacher to explain what the real movement is, she could use technology and search it up herself in a matter of seconds. Technology is not just a tool, but has transformed our lives and ways of thinking.

Good use= Effective use?

What is a good use of digital technology in the math and science classroom? What would such a learning experience and environment look like? What would be some characteristics of what it is and what it isn’t? How might a learning experience with technology address a conceptual challenge, such as the one you researched in the last lesson?

A good use of digital technology in the math and science classroom is hard to define. But in my attempt to answer this question, I asked myself a few questions. “What makes a digital technology a good addition to a math and science classroom? Should it be useful in helping teach content? Should it be good because it’s multifunctional and not just for math and science? or Is it the easiness of the technology the reason it is a good use of technology as its simplicity results in frequent usage? ” A good use is perhaps another way of saying a good addition to the classroom, and a good addition is perhaps so because it’s easy to use and can help students understand the math and science content easier. Regardless of why or how we classified a digital technology to be of good use, one commonality that can be seen is definitely on the frequency of use. If it’s good and useful, it’s used, and in my books, a good use if when something is used often enough that the frequencies offset the cost of the item. A math and science classroom with the correct digital technology(s) shouldn’t require a lot of tools, and definitely not a lot of unneeded or unused equipment. An effective learning environment that yields positive learning experiences should just have “the right amount” of technologies, so if one very effective tool can be found, just one if ten then so be it. Either way, in my opinion, it should not be a space that has more technologies than students. Perhaps this is why now, more and more traditional classrooms are having their classrooms’ traditional technologies replaced by digital ones, as one digital technology can have functions that replace two or more devices, saving space.

With the right technology, conceptual challenges can be addressed as it would help students understand and see the same course materials from different perspectives and not just from their imagination. It can also better present materials that are hard to explain. This can alter one’s learning experience greatly.

Lesson Learned

What’s interesting to note here in the video titled, “A Private Universe,” is how recent Harvard graduates still don’t know why the Earth has seasons. One would think after years of post-secondary education that there would be far fewer misconceptions on this question coming from 21 out of 23 students who were interviewed. Either, these students still don’t understand after being taught why Earth has seasons, or they missed school that day. This proves that misconceptions can happen to anyone, from any educational background. Aguirre, Haggerty and Linder (1990) realize that children bring their own theories on how things work and on the world into the science classroom and us educators have to recognize this and embrace it. As in the case with Heather.

For Heather, she had many misconceptions about Earth Science. For one, she believed the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun is in a figure eight movement. Why does she think this? At first, she has no idea and then remembers that she saw another diagram from her science textbook about something different and assumed this orbital path was for the Earth too. Posner, Strike, Hcwson and Gertzog (as cited in Shapiro and Bonnie, 1988, p. 99) presented a great argument; that learning is a rational activity where learners make their judgements solely based on the evidence available at the time. I agree with this statement. Learning needs to be inquiry based. For example, every science unit I teach to my students I have a wonder wall where they ask questions that they want to know the answer to. I hope over the course of the unit that they will have answered many of them, if not all. We use science interactive notebooks, have guest speakers, conduct experiments and ask each other questions. There are times where I will teach facts, but mostly I want my students to learn through inquiry.

Posner, Strike, Hcwson and Gertzog (1982) have outlined student’s misconceptions through a process called conceptual change. More specifically assimilation and accommodation. With assimilation, students use existing concepts and theories to deal with new phenomena. With accommodation, student sometimes can’t grasp new concepts or ideas and thus need to reorganize his/her previously learned concepts. In Heather’s case, I believe she needed to assimilate her concepts with the new one learned on Earth’s rotation around the Sun. She had the right idea, just needed to modify the orbit to a more elliptical pattern.

Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student‐teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: a case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12(4), 381-390.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.

Shapiro, B. (1994). What Children Bring to Light: A Constructivist Perspective on Children’s Learning in Science. Ways of Knowing in Science Series. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10027

Seymour Papert and Constructivist Opportunities

Mathematics teaching has traditionally followed a linear form of instruction that involves an emphasis on skill drills and repetitive technique practice that requires students to progress through their learning path without adequate consideration to personalized and individualized learning styles. However, students require greater opportunities to engage with collaborative, constructivist learning approaches as they build a mathematical understanding through discussion, experimentation, and reflection. As Constructivism views knowledge as the outcome of experience mediated by one’s own prior knowledge and the experience of others, student learning benefits through the exploration of mathematical and scientific concepts by engaging with a variety of learning technologies, including programming languages.

Despite the benefits of enhanced student engagement and motivation, and the development of skills in creativity, problem solving and collaboration, technologies for learners (including programming) have been slow to gain entry into formal educational settings, as their integration necessitates major changes in school cultures. In some cases, it seems that technologies for learners have not been widely accepted in school instructional programs because they challenge the standards-based perspective on instructional change in schools.

By reflecting on the roles that technology plays in the current educational climate, we also need to reflect on past approaches to technology, and to consider how we’ve ultimately arrived where we are. In terms of mathematics and science learning, the work of Seymour Papert integrates technology across the curriculum, and Papert’s ideas and perspectives on educational technology can help move us toward an exciting and engaging future for our students. Seymour Papert’s influence extends throughout current pedagogical approaches to the integration of educational technology, constructivism, constructionism, and the teaching of science and mathematics, to name but a few areas of significance. Papert and Solomon’s Twenty Things to Do With a Computer (1971), raises key questions and issues around educational technology that are still current and overwhelmingly relevant, more than 40 years after the report had been written.

Papert and Solomon question the reasons as to why schools seemed to be “confined” in their approach to educational technology, particularly within mathematics and science, to uses that limit students to problem solving uses rather than opportunities to produce some form of action. Constructivist theory, when combined with technology integration, supports the enhancement of opportunities for students to engage in collaboration, higher order thinking and problem solving to enhance classroom learning environments.

References

Papert, Samuel and Solomon, Cynthia. (1971). Twenty Things to Do With a Computer. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: A.I. Laboratory.

Moving beyond substitution

Good use of digital technology in the math and science classroom begins with an educator who has a vision on how to engage their students towards meaningful inquiry. Meaningful use of technology moves away from teaching content in isolation and moves towards interdisciplinary problem-solving. Teachers who are passionate about motivating their students to think critically, collaborate effectively, and take risks in their learning are what is important in these STEM classrooms. When students are learning WHY something is important, in a hands-on way that explores real-world connections, students are more likely to care and engage in the learning engagements. Digital technology goes beyond the replacement of an ‘old’ way of doing something, but rather is innovative and modifies and redefines the original task. This is the SAMR model at heart.

Digital technology should be implemented with a clear scope and sequence but also be able to handle the teachable moments that present themselves along the way. Students need to develop their computational thinking in a fun way that challenges yet sustains interest.The benefits of using a variety of digital technology tools within the classroom is that there are many different options for students to personalize their learning. For example, when students struggle with conceptual challenges such as volume and capacity, students can watch Brainpop videos, use hands-on manipulatives such as bottles, in order to understand. They can explain their thinking with various iPad apps to document their thinking and learning, as well as be used as reflective samples for their portfolios. A successful science and math class is one that aligns itself with the inquiry cycle, where students are encouraged to tune into real world issues, find out more about these problems and begin making connections while attempting to find solutions, or take meaningful action. Overall, an effective STEM classroom is one where the teacher cannot be found at the front of the room, but rather can be seen transitioning between small groups of students who are busy tinkering, designing, and collaborating.

Implementing effective and useful digital technology in the classroom is possible when educators stop making excuses in their own abilities, such as saying ‘Technology is not my thing.’ As well, I believe it is equally important to break down gender inequality when it comes to digital technology. All teachers need to be supportive of all students learning to become digitally literate. I am fortunate to work in a school that believes in supporting teachers through professional development in digital technology, such as coding and robotics. When schools are creative the possibilities are truly endless, and digital technology does not have to always be about having the latest high-end technology, but it is necessary that all technology should be used effectively.

A Means to an End…

As with all learning, technology integration is at its best when designed to facilitate and enhance a constructivist teaching pedagogy. Learning technologies can allow for qualitatively unique capabilities and experiences for both students and educators. Whether used to facilitate creative expression, provide prompt feedback, increase collaboration, etc., technology can help develop abilities by expanding educational opportunity. Technology is not an end in itself. Many learning experiences are not enhanced by technology. Educators should critically reflect on whether technology adds to an experience and seek balance for students.

My division has recently engaged in a problem-based math iPad project, which I have been a part of for the last two years. It came to mind when considering practices that demonstrate good use from both a classroom and divisional level. The iPads were purposely organized to include apps and resources that facilitate problem-based instruction and learning. Apps such as Explain Everything, iMovie, Virtual Manipulatives were explored within a pedagogical context. Below are some more examples…

The primary focus was math but we displayed our learning through the technology tools we were exploring. All grade 4 – 9 teachers participated and helped facilitate 10 flexible half-day pedagogy and content focused PD sessions. Optional technology focused help sessions were also offered. Teachers preformed diagnostic assessments and have continually tracked the development of the students over the last several years to assess the benefits of the project. The pedological focus could have been a variety of topics but the overall design supported teachers of all abilities to integrate technology in a purposeful way.