Author Archives: Derek Cowan

Ideal Design of TELEs

The definition of educational technology as Mindtools, used to construct knowledge and make meaning, described by David Jonassen (2000) resonated with me. Designers of technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs) in math and science should create experiences that engage students’ prior knowledge and allow for the exploration of personally meaningful concepts. Ideally, “teams of students are engaged in solving complex, authentic problems that cross disciplinary boundaries” (Kozma, 2003). Designers should include technologies that enhance authentic learning experiences through the facilitation of unique forms creation, problem solving and collaboration. David Jonassen (1995) writes, “control of learner interactions with the computer should be taken away from designers and tutors and transferred to the learners to enable them to represent and express what they know.” Technology should also act as a support and scaffold for students by lowering the barriers to entry by providing a means to participate and contribute understanding in various ways. Designers should utilize technology as “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).

Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as Cognitive Tools: Learning with Technology, Not from Technology, Journal of Computing in Higher Education Spring 1995 Vol. 6(2), 40-73

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools, 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Kozma, B. Robert (2003) Technology and Classroom Practices, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2003.10782399

Value, Caution, and Support

I interviewed a colleague who has taught for seven years in several elementary grades. She currently teaches a Grade 3-4 split and, in recent years, has been an Inquiry-Based Learning teacher. We had sat down for a 20 minute conversation, which I transcribed after. The three words I would use to represent the themes of our conversation would be value, caution and support.

Value

Much of the conversation focused on the interviewees belief in the benefits of technology with regards to learning. For example, she mentions that technology “provides a chance for kids to show their learning in a lot of ways. Without having to be great at fine motor, technology kind of provides a way to lift barriers and allows a lot more kids in, who may have challenges.” Overall, she appreciates the value that technology can add to learning, and the way it can facilitate a variety of meaningful experiences.

Caution

Although the interviewee is convinced of the benefits of technology, she integrates it with critical reflection and caution. She is highly aware of her own context and the young age of her students. She has developed opinions regarding the style of integration she seeks in her class in Math and Science. With her students, she defines the good use of technology to be “any technology that allows them to actively engage with learning. I think it’s best, especially in the early years, when learning has a physical and digital element. Effective technology use allows them to still have hands-on experiences and there is a danger going towards just using technology to show learning.” She continually reflects on the benefit of adding technology to an experience.

Support

She communicates a desire to integrate a variety of new technologies in math and science but does not typically rely on institutional support to help her. She stated that it “mostly feels up to me. Most of what I have done was because of my interest in trying the technology. I’ve heard about it somewhere and just want to try it myself. I think we’re supported in that we get the freedom to try things in class, but I do not find the type of PD offered useful for me.” She has a developed notion of what she would need to help her achieve her goals; “I would say that peer driven PD, that is mixed group, that takes place alongside kids in an actual classroom would be helpful.”

Overall, her conception of good technology use with children connected with this quote from Clements (2002), “the computer offers unique opportunities for learning through exploration, creative problem solving, and self-guided instruction.” (p. 341) She looks for these unique opportunities and critically reflects on her experiences to inform her practice.

Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2002). The Role of Technology in Early Childhood Learning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 340-343. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/41197828

 

Across Contexts

It was very interesting witnessing technology being integrated across so many contexts. Watching how situational factors influenced opinions and decision-making demonstrated how complex technology integration really is. The range of student experiences in all the contexts demonstrates the importance of pedagogy but also of the willingness of larger educational systems to support meaningful technology integration. Access to technology, professional development opportunities, professional/school culture, instructional level, etc. all impacted the way teachers integrated technology in their contexts.

Case 1

Case one demonstrated the benefits of an integrated, interdisciplinary approach. The concepts are connected to real world problem solving and technology is used as facilitator to explore the concepts. The student’s knowledge is connected and constructed through authentic experience. I love how the teacher is excited that the kids figure concepts out on their own and independently problem solve, instead of just remembering what they were told to do. Technology is integrated but is not the focus of instruction. The students were applying the concept with the help of technology, within a theoretical framework. For example, he mentions an Arduino, but only within the context of the project. The students had a functional understanding of the technology and how they were using it to learn. The teachers discussed independence, communication, critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving as a main focus. I also thought the point about getting student teachers to engage in projects similar to the students was a great idea. I just went to a Makey Makey PD attended by a lot technologically novice teachers. The facilitator had us just do the same projects we were going to do with our students. In one day, he had everyone happily coding away in Scratch. If it the PD would have been done with a ‘stand and deliver’ approach, it would not have been nearly as successful.

Case 5

The teacher in the case 5 classroom has a very positive view of the potential of technology. She views it as an effective scaffold for English language learners. She integrates technology across the curriculum to facilitate her form of project-based learning and incorporates a lot of collaboration. I was wondering how much focus was on just incorporating a lot of technology and how much was on the topics they were learning. It was interesting to listen to the retiring teacher and the new teacher focusing on the reasons why technology is difficult to incorporate. It is a common viewpoint that using technology is a separate ability, or pet interest, that only some teachers possess. Many teachers have a growth-mindset for most subjects, but for math and technology ability is viewed as more fixed.

Case 6

The teacher talked a lot about content and being “right” in his interview. I got the impression he viewed learning as retaining content and regurgitating the answers provided to them. I think his integration provided an upgrade from traditional direct instruction, but I did wonder about the value of students just repackaging provided information through PowerPoint or podcasts. I wondered if the style of integration would allow students to address conceptual challenges. The student teacher made some good points about the benefits of hands-on, collaborative and creative learning.

Case 7

I was struck at the difference between case 1 and case 7. The participation in learning went from immersion with concepts and technology to pressing a button on a remote. Having said that, I would have loved to have access to that during my undergrad educational experience. Actively involving so many students is a very difficult task and at least they are provided with some means of participation.

Case 8

I thought the teachers in case 8 did a good job connecting the use of technology to the concepts they were teaching. They had a convincing rational explaining how the specific technology would help students understand the concepts. They also explained why the technology was more effective than using other methods. They were trying to incorporate the students work into the learning as much as possible. Some of the teachers did identify a significant issue regarding how time intensive integrating technology can be in the early years. The relative lack of independence results in a heavy burden on the teachers. I wonder if the reduced participation of kids impacts its overall educational value for students.

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.

Confronting Conceptions

In the video A Private Universe, Heather articulates personal theories regarding several natural phenomena. Heather has developed many misconceptions that she uses to explain the world around her. Her teacher is surprised when she expresses detailed an understanding not connected with content and explanations introduced in class.  Osborne and Wittrock (1983) write that “children develop ideas about their world, develop meanings for words used in science [mathematics and programming], and develop strategies to obtain explanations for how and why things behave as they do” (p. 491). Heather has many private theories and through verbal explanation and drawing, Heather becomes aware of her prior knowledge. She did seem somewhat unsure and dissatisfied with her explanations. Heather was able to reverse her misconceptions through new experiences in the classroom.  Posner writes that “a new conception is unlikely to displace on old one, unless the old one encounters difficulties, and a new intelligible and initially plausible conception is available that resolves these difficulties.” (p. 219). She confronts her private theory and is able to accommodate a new understanding. In A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science, and Programming (1990) Confrey writes “teachers are often, and understandably, impatient for their students to develop clear and adequate ideas. But putting ideas in relation to each other is not a simple job. It is confusing; and that confusion does take time. All of us need time for our confusion if we are to build the breadth and depth that give significance to our knowledge” (p.  9). This demonstrates the importance of activating prior knowledge and engaging in activities that might cause conflict within the learner.

During the video and the articles, I was connecting to the program First Steps in Math which has helped me identify many mathematical misconceptions students hold. It is all about identifying student’s misconceptions about math and having them explain and confront their thinking. When I took the PD several years ago they highlighted examples of several children using personal theories to solve math problems. Most of the teachers at the PD initially assumed the students were randomly attempting solutions. However, through the case studies, it was demonstrated that the kids had developed, although very misguided, ideas and procedures they were applying very purposefully. In one place value assessment from the program, kids have to identify the number of dinosaurs in the picture below. When they determine that there are 35 dinosaurs, they are asked to underline the 35 (without the teacher identifying the number). They are then asked to circle that many dinosaurs. The majority of the teachers said most of their kids circled 3 instead of 30 dinosaurs. It then recommends a series of activities that help address student’s misconceptions about the number system.

I think technology can be very useful to help kids address conceptions. I now usually start new math and science concepts with a chance for students to explain and demonstrate their prior knowledge and personal theories on the subject. When studying the human body my students used Explain Everything to collaboratively create videos about what they thought happened to food after they ate it. It is very interesting to hear their ideas and attempts to explain their thinking. Many came out of the project with a pretty accurate understanding before we even “started”, just through collaboration with knowledgeable students.  Technology can also allow students to manipulate visualizations or participate in online environments that provide immediate feedback, allowing them to continually test their thinking.

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of research in education, 16, 3-56. http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/1167350

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

Lemmings

My earliest interaction with technology at school was with a single computer at the back of each classroom in elementary school. For the most part it went unused, but every so often we took turns playing the game Lemmings on it when there was extra time. After elementary school, most of my memories are of word processing, typing classes, internet research projects, etc.. The one technology I remember very positively from throughout school was the use of video cameras. I was part of several group movie projects over the years that I still have VHS copies of. I remember them as unique (at the time) highly engaging, collaborative projects that really captured our interest and imagination.

Hello from Winnipeg, MB

Hello,

My name is Derek Cowan and I am excited to be starting my sixth MET course. I have been teaching for the last nine years in a large elementary school in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am currently teaching grade five. I took my B.A., B. Ed. and PBDE all at the University of Manitoba. I am looking forward to exploring new ways to integrate technology in  math and science.

On a personal note, I love spending my time traveling and being as active as possible.

Thanks!