Author Archives: Jocelynn Mortlock

Ideal TELE: Intellectual Sharing of Learning

David Jonassen’s description of technology as “cognitive affordances” resonated with me most as to how technology should be incorporated into the classroom design (Jonassen, 2000). A technology-enhanced learning environment should connect students in a way traditional classrooms would not be able to achieve, while allowing students to expand their understanding with technology rather than have their learning be dictated by it.

Designers of TELEs should be questioning how the technology that they seek to include can help create meaningful thinking for students, how it can be used as a “Mindtool” (Jonassen, 2000). Jonassen further argues that both teachers and computers are merely the avenue for which students can foster their learning. An ideal design of TELE would include tools at the student’s disposal for them to use to enhance their understanding as well as provide opportunities to share their learning with others. Similar to GLOBE (Butler & MacGregor, 2003), students should have a chance to connect with other like-minded individuals working on the same aspects of learning to build on one another. Therefore, a TELE design can enhance learning through problem-solving, creative collaboration and critical thinking.

References:

Butler, D.M., MacGregor, I.D. (2003). GLOBE: Science and Education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(1), 9-20.

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Prentice Hall. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jonassen+mindtools&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

Differentiation, Balance, and support for implementation

The interviewee was an elementary teacher in the same school district. She has been teaching general Primary grades for the past 4 years. The interview was conducted at lunchtime in her classroom. Three key points were brought up in the discussion: differentiation, balancing technology and real-world activities, and supporting implementation.

Differentiation

The interviewee’s primary use of technology was to “support the math units” by “using the ipods as an extension for the grade 2’s”. This allowed her the freedom to work in a split class, “while the grade 2’s were still engaged with something that was math related on their own.” She also felt that technology was a valuable way to extend learning beyond the scope of science inquiry lessons. Using QR codes and a growing Youtube playlist, students could independently listen and learn. Other applications she used allowed her students to receive extra practice or review of a topic independently. Her main goal for having technology in the classroom came from a desire to differentiate for her learners.

Balancing real-world and tech

The interviewee also stressed the importance of balancing the amount of technology students are exposed to with the physical opportunities of the real world. Much of the interview described ways in which students can “blend” the physical with the technological aspects of learning. By introducing coding and manipulative apps to her kids, she builds her students’ thinking of math and science to relate to the real-world. They can become better engaged if they know it “comes from something [they] used in real-life”.

Support towards Implementation

Finally, an ongoing challenge the interviewee felt she encountered was the need to “get the kids rolling” with new technology. At the younger ages, students have such diverse knowledge of how to use technology. She feels many activities need heavy teacher support to get going, that some of them are not worth all the effort it takes. Parent volunteers or older expert students could be a viable solution. She proposed a “tech circle” opportunity for older kids to teach younger kids similar to a literature circle. This way students can build their knowledge together and rely less on teacher support.

Solving problems as a team

Before I began my analysis, I wanted to pick out 3 videos that I felt would give me a solid overview of technology from different contexts.

I examined Case 1 – a secondary STEM “shop” class, Case 5 – an elementary science classroom, and Case 6 – a middle school life science class.

As I examined each of the cases, I noticed that a recurring issue that teachers would often face was their personal lack of knowledge in how to use the technology. From statements made by the preservice teachers, retiring teacher and current teachers, they found they were most successful when approaching technology as a team. Students were often the solution to teachers who struggled to get started. They all learned by doing, by becoming self-taught and self-directed. I wonder how much time needs to go into finding which technologies are worth exploring with the students if the technology is not already familiar with the teacher?

Another issue that was raised was time. Teachers in these cases felt they sometimes struggled juggling the curriculum with the technology integration. Interestingly enough, however, none of the students mentioned feeling pressured from time when applying aspects of technology to science or math. Often it felt “seamless” and was “infused” within what they were working on (Case 5). Teacher M in case 1 did a miraculous job of explaining how he overcame this issue by using complex layering of the projects and making sure it related to real life problems. Through a problem-based approach, he would knock off multiple areas of the curriculum and beyond. Meanwhile, the students were applying and analyzing a variety of aspects in their learning that a traditional class could not accommodate.

Throughout the cases, many similarities arose in how the technology was being used successfully. Self-direction was a key component for the teacher and students to be risk-takers. Having some students become experts, many more were able to learn from each other as well. This tied into the collaboration aspect that was prevalent in each. Although some classes became loud, such as the class in case 5, there were many opportunities for students to get up and discuss their ideas with others. I really liked Teacher C’s method of creating a collaborative class atmosphere by taking the role of ‘coach’ for a ‘team’ rather than an instructor for her pupils.

Finally, it seemed that project-based or problem-based learning was an important component to successfully apply technology within the classroom. Students were no longer exploring a single concept, but were exploring a complex layering of real-life issues within a project. Case 1 presented a bridge building project that had the students question what the components for the construction might be. It was not explicitly stated, and neither were the techniques that they ended up discovering. I loved how open each project question was that Teacher M presented. Once the students had completed the project, the challenge wasn’t over. The teacher added another layer of making the structure as light as possible, exploring tension from an entirely new lens. This method of teaching using real-life problems seems to overcome issues of time, by combining multiple curricula, and knowledge, by making it a collaborative process.

In a science or STEM specific classroom in secondary such as this, the approach appears to be relatively simple to implement, given the expertise of the teacher in that field. In the elementary classroom, however, where teachers have more general knowledge, how might these problem-based projects be created, I wonder? How do we make good use of technology and make it applicable to the problems they are exploring if the science and math content at that level is so vast?

Technology for creative and critical thinking

When it comes to STEM in the classroom, technology is best used as an aid in critical and creative thinking, allowing students to have access to an additional modality from which to deepen their understandings. It should not be expected, however, that students arrive with a complete knowledge of how to use the technology, and be expected to use it every chance they can get. A good use of technology would first include guidance as to what to use, how to use it, and why a student should consider applying it to a particular activity, over a non-technology alternative.

As a creative avenue, technology should support exploration of concepts so they may gain new understanding through a relevant, personal experience. In a science experiment, for example, they can manipulate variables and see the effects without the need of extensive materials and preparation. Therefore, particular apps or simulations may allow for students to make intangible concepts tangible.

Something equally important to consider, however, when applying technology in STEM, is the student’s ability to recognize that an activity could benefit from the use of technology over non-technology practices. The teacher should help the student to think critically towards the purpose of the use of technology in the classroom. The use of a device for research or simulations are wonderful, but students should not become reliant. Good use of technology should provide them with an opportunity to challenge themselves further, removing barriers that would otherwise hinder their learning efforts.

Confronting misconceptions

In A Private Universe, students and faculty are asked to explain their reasoning for various scientific concepts. Heather is identified by her science teacher as being the student who she would expect to “give a better explanation than the other kids could.” Despite the assumption that Heather has all the correct answers, when prompted, Heather’s prior knowledge and exposure to the scientific concepts from external sources creates for her several misconceptions about the rotations of the Earth, the phases of the moon and the properties of light in space. With further provocation and physical tools, Heather is able to readjust her hidden misunderstandings to match the scientific concepts more accurately. Her confrontation of her misconceptions prompt her to find new, true meanings within the concepts.

Further on, however, Heather is still unable to let go of her private theories regarding light, despite a one-on-one lesson. Rosalind Driver (1985) address this refusal of change as part of the private theories being stable. While students may learn new concepts, they are not a blank slate. They may, therefore, ignore counter-evidence towards their perceived theory or alter their theory to fit the new information, rather than refute a construct they have built up in their minds previously (Driver, 1985).

This is something I have witnessed within the classroom as an educator. Students have been introduced to the word “hacking” and many of them have had different experiences related to this. While attempting to teach a lesson on coding, as a way of giving instructions to produce a result, a student raised his hand and asked if coding was like hacking? This drove us to have a meaningful conversation around internet safety, however, by the end of the lesson I could tell that there were still a few confused faces when being confronted with the word “hacking”. It wasn’t until the students engaged in meaningful activities around coding that they were able to correct their misunderstandings about coding and hacking being similar (Shapiro, 1988). Through a study conducted on university students, active learning was found to be the most effective in solidifying conceptual understandings in STEM related fields, regardless of class size or the particular STEM discipline (Freeman et al., 2014). Therefore, meaningful engagement and active learning with the concepts being studied may be the best way to help students overcome misconceptions and challenge their private theories.

When it comes to technology, having students engage with the material themselves may create a more solid understanding than a PowerPoint or video. Students can be challenged to prove their private theories by creating tutorial videos or explanatory animations where they need to interact with both the concepts and the technology to make a concept “make-sense” for someone other than themselves. Not only will this aid in further instruction by knowing where they might be coming from with their prior knowledge, but it will also clarify for themselves areas that lack a complete understanding.

Driver, R. Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas and the learning of science. Children’s ideas in science, 1-9.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120.

Schneps, Matthew. (1989). A Private Universe: Misconceptions That Block Learning. Retrieved from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9

Floppy Disks

One of the earliest memories I have of using technology in the classroom was from my elementary school computer lab, where we were being explicitly taught how to save onto a floppy disk. I remember being given very specific instructions, of what to click and drag, where to place folders, etc. The process itself was lengthy and took a number of attempts (and a few fails or lost files) to get the hang of it. It was a necessary evil when it came to using technology, but if you followed the steps properly, you could save yourself a ton of time.

Now as an educator, I have found myself going back to this simple memory of the floppy disk. I was explicitly taught the steps of how to make the most of this piece of hardware. With students having technology at their fingertips nowadays, we take for granted their knowledge and comfort with tech, and we assume they know how to get the most out of it. I think that as we move forward in teaching students to use technology for their inquiry into the world, we mustn’t forget to explicitly teach them the critical steps of the how, when and why of technology so they become technology literate and not technology inundated.

Hey from North Vancouver

Hey everyone,

My name’s Jocelynn and this is my 5th course within the MET program. I am a French Immersion teacher for the younger kiddos at the grade 3/4 level at an IB school in West Van. They are a wonderful group to work with and I love this age group. Since this course is more designed for the older level, I am interested to learn strategies of teaching math and science using technology from a different perspective than I am used to. I am also particularly interested in the neurology of learning, and so I hope to delve into that bit in relation to learning STEM, which is quite different from the arts.

When I’m away from the classroom, I also enjoy long hikes in the mountains with my dog or trying out new crafts from Pinterest.

Can’t wait to get to know you all through this course this spring/summer!

Jocelynn