Author Archives: Dana Bjornson

Subject matter as a “vehicle”: What are you driving?

In Shulman’s “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of New Reform” (1987), he provides readers with an analogy that implies that our subject matter is a vehicle that will “service other goals” (p. 7). He continues to assert that at the secondary level, “subject matter is a nearly universal vehicle for instruction” (p.7).  Near the end of his paper, he provides us with the example of the talented English teacher with two degrees, who lacked grammatical confidence.  When teaching topics that were not in her wheelhouse, she transformed into a “didactic” pedagogue, lacking confidence and displaying anxiety.

I would be lying if I never felt like a didactic pedagogue, early on in my career!  When I started out, I taught a lot of Junior Science, which meant  teaching Biology and Chemistry, two subjects that I did not have beyond a first year level of instruction. The lack of knowledge base, shook me to my core; I am certain that my lack of confidence was obvious to my students, as well. In time, I grew more comfortable with the material, but never above the level that I was teaching. Thankfully, in the last twelve years, I have solely been teaching Mathematics and Physics, but being thrown a junior science is a possibility, every year. <insert wheezing sounds>

What I have learned in my time at the wheel, is that it is OK to not know everything, but it is important to know enough.  And without question, it sure helps to have a solid grasp of at least one year above what you are teaching. Preparing students for their next course is very difficult, when you personally do not understand the material in the next level up!  So to answer my question, these days, I feel like I am driving a pretty solid BMW, although stick me with Junior Science and hello 1977 Ford Pinto.

***

One strategy that I have only recently used, is to teach/review algebra with my FPC Math 10 (academic math) class, having the students sit in pairs of their choosing. Each pair has a table top whiteboard (London Drugs sometimes clears them out…), marker and eraser.  I review the basic “moves” and reinforce opposite operations and remind them that the order of the “moves” is important (“Reverse BEDMAS”, usually helps them remember).  Then, we do a series of increasingly difficult algebraic problems, WITHOUT variables. For example, rearrange “2 + 3= 5” for 3.  My approach is to reinforce that “if it works on the numbers, it will work on the letters.”  The students work in pairs and flash me their answers.  When students are struggling, I send other students to help, that have already shown me their work. The goal is to increase student interactions— Vygotskian social learning!  During which time, I am discussing proper notation (where to put the = sign, working vertically, using fraction bars for division, etc.). What I am finding is that is is a huge confidence boost for my low folks, because they can find their own mistakes (clearly, 3 doesn’t equal 5/2, for example). When we leap into the variables, I can then attach the more abstract algebra to the concrete algebra.  Practically right away, we can then start throwing our symbols across the equal sign, completing multiple steps simultaneously.

I chose this as my example because it exemplifies how important it is to have a knowledge base beyond your subject material. Being a physics teacher, I know how important it is to be comfortable with symbolic manipulation.  My colleagues without the physics, tend to not prioritize symbolic manipulation prior to substitution. What they don’t seem to understand, is that it is far more efficient to rearrange before substituting and it is critical to do so from Physics 12 onward.

***

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23. Retrieved from chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/yerrick/UBScience/UB_Science_Education_Goes_to_School/21C_Literature_files/shulman,%201987.pdf

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

Photo by  courtesy of Imgur.

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

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

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

  1. How can I bring science or math into my classroom in ways that I otherwise could not?
  2. How can technology be used to maximize social learning interactions (student-teacher or student-student)?
  3. How can technology be used to increase engagement, curiosity, and overall excitement to learn?
Kozma, R. (2003). Technology, innovation, and educational change: A global perspective, (A report of the Second Information Technology in Education Study, Module 2). Eugene, OR: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, ISTE Publications.

My e-folio Link

Hi everyone,

Here is a link to my e-folio.  Feel free to spend your limited free time, commenting on anything that catches your interest. (or spend time with the people you care about– my father jokingly remarked this evening that there is a reason that he has two Masters degrees, a PhD and two ex-wives.)

Cheers,

Dana

Keywords: Collaboration, Gender Engagement, Risk Taking

Background:

“Brianna” has been teaching a variety of subjects for 14 years, including junior Science, senior Biology, P.E., “Reconnecting Youth” (a program for at-risk students) and Yearbook.  Presently, she is teaching Science 9 and Biology 12 at a large high school. As Brianna and I have young children at home, and she teaches at a different high school than mine, I conducted the interview via Google Hangouts, at 9 p.m., January 18. (This was a less than ideal time to interview—both of us were exhausted!) I asked Brianna to be my subject for two reasons.  1. There is only one other person in Math or Science at my school who uses any technology and she was spread so thin this week, you could see through her. 2. Bri and I have worked together for 13 years, but last year, she was bumped to another school due to seniority. This summer, I gave her a Google Classroom 101 class in my kitchen, so I was eager to see how she was coming along!

Collaboration

When prompted to respond about current technology enhanced processes she uses, the commonality to every response was sharing information between groups of people.

“Assignments, so I created an assignment, for example we did this thing like the Genius Hour, but not—  we did this project and I had it set up into three parts and so each part we did a check-in so that I could see what they were doing and when they decided to work in groups then they would share that with their group members so that all 3 of us could look at it. And with teachers, we are working on, well there’s 3 of us working on a brand new Biology 12 lab and so we have the Doc at the same time each doing different parts and seeing what the other people are working on, and adding feedback and comments and stuff like that.”

“I think that one of the things is about group projects…  one student was sick and the other student was upset because they weren’t there doing their part.  But they were able to talk using the comments on the Docs, right on the document.”

“I don’t have to worry about the TOC because I can post everything on there and the kids know exactly what they are supposed to do and I can come up with something on the fly and stick it up for them to do.  Just attaching it from the Drive, without worrying about photocopying or where it is on my desk— I just stick it on the Classroom.”

Gender Engagement

Noticing that girls have been excelling academically over the boys, Brianna was not yet at a point in her experience with technology to be able to definitively say that technology is bringing boys back into the academic arena. (She has only been using Google Classroom for one semester.)

“I do have some boys in my Science 9 class who are at a lower level, and they definitely like using Slides and being able to create that… because it is almost all boys— but they definitely enjoy using the technology a lot. As far as data, to say that it has increased their learning?  Well… they are interested in using it.”

Risk Taking

Brianna provided me with two “wow moments” in this interview.  The first came from her anecdote about a student who was so anxious about using the Google Classroom platform for assignments, that the student brought herself to tears.  Identifying this student in the first week of class, via a digital Interest Inventory on Google Forms was critical. Brianna’s limited experience with this platform, was balanced by her many years in the classroom, so she knew to address this student’s concerns immediately and with compassion. Allowing the student an alternative to the technology would have validated the student’s fears, thereby strengthening those fears. Instead, Brianna provided her with a safe and scaffolded process, that demystified the technology for the student, and the student went on to a successful and enjoyable semester.

“an interesting one with a student who was really anti-technology and her like misconception about technology she was only thinking about it as like using a cell phone all the time— so she was really scared and was in tears…. throughout the semester, she ends up adapting to the technology and once she adapted, she got over the fear of using it.”

And lastly, when asked to give advice to teachers who have yet to jump into a more technology enhanced delivery model:

“As teachers, we always want things to be organized and planned.  But this is not going to be perfect, and you just have to jump in.  We want our kids to take chances and be brave, so you have to take chances and be brave.”

 Although I need to work on my interview skills (at times, I was so awkward, that I wanted to go into the fetal position!), Brianna’s last quote is absolute gold. How can we, as teachers, as parents, as just plain people, preach to others, to act a certain way, or think a certain way, if we, ourselves, are not prepared to do so?  (side note: Kids pick up on adult hypocrisy all of the time. Perhaps we should actually listen to them, when they call us on our …. !)

Link to my transcript is here.

Are we supposed to provide a link…

to our e-folios somewhere?  I think I remember reading something, somewhere, but I am unable to relocate this information. Maybe, the e-folios are all published at the end of the course?

Also, I see that some of us are tagging our e-folio posts to this site—I have yet to do this because my posts are already elsewhere on the STEM site. I may be erroneous in thinking this, though— just wondering what others are thinking/doing with their e-folio posts.

(I am certain that most of my questions would be self-resolved if I addressed them before 11:30 at night.  I tell my students not to work on things too late— yup.  I’m a hypocrite!)

Thanks in advance,

Dana 🙂

Case 2 & 3: Battle of the Sexes

It is an understatement to say that Teacher F is a fan of the TI-83.  The issue that he raised that was most compelling to me was the notion that using technology within the classroom is a way to bring the boys back into the academic arena.  I would also agree that in the last ten years, girls have been dominating in both my Math 10 and Physics 11/12 courses. Another voice on this issue would be Stanford professor and psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who did a Ted Talk a few years ago titled, “The Demise of Guys?” (< 5 minutes, if you have a moment).  Even today, I attended a meeting with my son’s Grade 5 teacher who remarked that Jaxon is the first to finish the worksheet, the journal entry, the art work, etc., however, when it comes to anything that is technology-based, he is the last to finish. In these activities, he goes beyond the minimum requirements; he loses himself in the task. As my family will be attending two Late French Immersion Open houses this week, I will be definitely favouring the school that has a better grasp on weaving technology into the curriculum, as it is clear to me that this is where my son shines.

On the topic of gender differences in technology-based environments, Teacher A raised a couple of interesting issues, as well. He noted that girls prefer to experiment with the computer simulations on their own, saving themselves any embarrassment as they navigate through their learning process, whereas boys appreciate the immediate gratification that technology can afford in the lab.  In my experience, most people would prefer to save themselves from any embarrassing moments in their high school career! In the two years that I have been integrating technology into my courses with purpose, I have equal numbers of sexes come to me with inhibitions and apprehensions. Being a female teacher, it is very possible that my female students have more confidence in themselves, and hence ask fewer questions.  (At least 50% of my students in Physics are female; sometimes more.)

Questions that I would like to leave with…

  1. Does student engagement increase with the incorporation of technology into a unit?
  2. Does engagement differ between male students and female students?
  3. If there are gender differences surrounding student engagement, what are they and where do they stem from?

Unpacking my GT

“Good Technology” (GT) in my view, teaches or reinforces learning outcomes.  GT is engaging, and is not merely screen time for the sake of screen time. GT allows opportunities for student to reflect (privately or publicly) on their process and the process of others. GT is simple and or simplifies processes (sometimes, a whiteboard or a piece of paper is still the best technology for a situation!). GT sometimes provides students with opportunities to construct their own knowledge, yet in other times allows educators to be that guiding light. Slowly but surely, I have been using digital technology as a pedagogical tool that enhances the learning experience for both myself and my students.

  1. Google Classroom
    • I post copies of notes, tutorial videos, questions to the class, and assignments that utilize GAFE.
  2. Google Docs
    • All my labs are done on Docs.
    • Lab partners work collaboratively on one lab.
    • I provide feedback in the comments, as the students are writing their labs.
  3. Google Slideshows
    • Every project I assign, must be uploaded to a Google Slideshow, where students are required to reflect on their process.
    • One document to open for assessment, instead of 30, is a huge bonus.
  4. Desmos, Phet, The Universe and More
    • Three online reinforcement programs that often gamify the learning process, but at the very least, animate the learning process.
  5. Class Blogs
    • Students are responsible to scribe 2 -3 times per course
    • Class announcements, summaries/tutorials of lessons

On being correct, correct-ish, or not even close

In the movie, “A Private Universe”, Heather, a highly competent student as described by her teacher, begins her interview with confidence, but very soon, that confidence begins to waver and the misconceptions start to reveal themselves.  One key issue with Heather’s understanding, dealt with the orbital pathway of the Earth as it rounds the Sun. What was remarkable to me was how she began to question her initial concept, once asked where her incorrect ideation stemmed from. Heather’s realization that she had seen a similar shape in a very different context and had erroneously applied it to the Earth’s pathway, clearly helped her process the correct information.  From an information processing perspective, learners need to relate new information to previously learned information, via elaboration.  The elaborative process also generates more pathways towards information that is held in our Long-Term Memory (Orey, 2001). As Heather’s misconception exemplifies, however, sometimes our memory retrieval process leads us down some hazy pathways that result in misconceptions being “hard wired” into our brains.

Vosniadou & Brewer (1992)

Although in Heather’s situation, her conceptual challenge originated from a misinterpreting a textbook’s image, the Piagetian view that we all form our knowledge from life experiences is widely accepted as truth. Vosniadou and Brewer (1992) undertook the challenge of examining children’s mental models of the Earth. They concluded that children’s scientific views are consistent, although often, incorrect.  82% of the sixty children created models of the Earth that fell into one of only five common alternative models (see image); 38% used three dimensional, spherical-style models; and although the oldest children had the most correct models, they also had the most variation in models. The authors concluded that in order for children to circumnavigate their presuppositions, an alternative explanatory framework must exist that allows them to challenge their existing knowledge.

Math learning is ideally a combination of individuals coordinating and constructing their own knowledge and having their learning be situated within a sociocultural context (Cobb, 1994). One way to foster these Vygotskian learning conditions is the implementation of self-generated analogies.  These are analogies, which aim to ground the student’s learning within their pre-existing, core intuition.  In their study, Haglurd and Jeppsson worked with preservice physics teachers, hoping to learn if self-generated analogies would improve their understanding of entropy. They concluded that generating multiple analogies as a group helped with their understanding but that the students failed to analyze the concept macroscopically, hence missing key concepts. When scaffolded guidance was provided, however, their idiosyncratic ideas were prevented from escalating into full-blown misconceptions.

Without question, these readings have emphasized the importance providing multiple and varied opportunities for misconceptions to rise to the surface. For students like myself, who were hesitant to ask for clarification during or after class, unchallenged misconceptions can easily be entrenched. Watching Heather be challenged, validates a couple of approaches that I do when I tutor students. I like to ask students to show me their notes, before I go into an explanation and if they say something that is incorrect, I always try and think why they have retrieved erroneous information.  Students will mix concepts together, so I like to show them where they got their misconception from, in the hopes to have them create a better pathway to that information in the future.  I also like to show them that they are not completely wrong— they have learned something, even if they link the concepts together incorrectly!

Going forward, I am very keen to create a physics-based, self-generated analogy assignment.  Utilizing Google Classroom as a conduit, students could create a digital version of their analogy (stop motion or real time video, Powtoon, animation…).  Leading up to the final product, however, it would be imperative to discuss and weed out any pre-existing misconceptions: bring on the guided scaffolding!

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13-20. doi:10.3102/0013189X023007013

Haglund, J., & Jeppsson, F.(2014). Confronting conceptual challenges in thermodynamics by use of self-generated analogies. Science & Education, 23(7), 1505-1529. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9630-5

Orey, M. (2001). Information Processing. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535-585. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W

The demise of my “Practice Marriage”, Pokestops and Minecraft

Marrying my high school boyfriend at the age of 20, was not a mistake, even though we called it quits after five years. As with every experience that may end, lessons are learned, personal growth prevails. When James came home having purchased 1 Gigabyte of memory for his computer for $2000 back in 1994(?), I was not impressed. We were broke students; pasta was eaten multiple times per week.

My top CP Pokemon.

This was not the cause of the break up, however.  We had simply grown apart.  I was married to someone who preferred video games, over human interactions. (I’m sure he had his issues with me, as well, to be fair!)

Today, I observe my own relationship with technology morphing into more of an addictive nature.  When waiting for a dental appointment, what do I do? I check my email, my social media and see if there any Pokestops nearby. With my children, Minecraft and YouTube Videos of YouTubers playing Minecraft, are their favorite things to do.  When I kick them off screens, it is sometimes not well received (insert sarcastic, down playing tone).

Screen dependency, instant gratification, and the limited occurrences of the face-to-face interactions in today’s world would be topics where I would like to spend more time with, either in this class or a future one.

~Dana