Category Archives: A. Video cases

I thoroughly enjoy watching video cases. Part of this could be because I am more of a visual learner, but I also like the switch up from having to read article after article.

First of all, I have to say I LOVE the 360 video and am blown away by the possibilities it could bring to the classroom. I was so captivated by the first 360 videos that I decided to focus on Video Case 1: Secondary STEM and then I picked something a little more relevant to me with Video Case 5: Elementary Space Science.

Underlying Issues:

• Time
• Information or Knowledge and Tech Support

Time is something that is a very prevalent factor in many aspects of our profession as educators. It often comes as the first defence in numerous situations where we feel overwhelmed.

As teachers, we desperately need to get away from this notion that we are the information keepers, the brains, the knower of all, in order to effectively teach our 21st century learners. No longer is it possible for us to know all, nor should we as our curriculum in BC now facilitates this switching of thought to make us the facilitators, the coaches, the mentors who can help guide students to acquire the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. With this new understanding and acceptance of our changed role comes a more natural relationship to be built with technology in the classroom. As one of the teachers in Video 1 states, “go in with a flexible approach to what we need to get done and how we’re going to get it done and we always have 2-3 options available”. Teachers need to be problem solvers in some situations while also providing their students with tools to become problem solvers themselves.

Further Questions:

• Where do we find time to explore and play with technology ourselves?
• How can we build appropriate tech support within our districts that facilitate both hardware support, teaching needs, and inspiration models for moving forward?

Response:

I think one of the ways to explore a response to my further questions was discussed in the first video case where teachers were talking about seeking release time to go and visit other schools with models they were interested in and also to talk with other educators about new directions that could and should be taken. In my district we can apply for collaborative grants and I see how this type of teacher inquiry could be very meaningful and impactful. One of the most enriching things about my experience in the MET program has been through connecting with other educators around the province, country, and globe in similar and diverse situations than my own and hearing their triumphs and challenges. Outside of this program, where do we find and build these networks? Social media seems to be one platform to support this desire. What about others? How can we reignite the fire, while being respectful of time, to build better support networks amongst our own colleagues? I look forward to exploring some of these questions in my interviews this week.

Analysis of: Case 5 – Learning Environment 4 with Teacher S (Elementary Space Science); Case 6 – Learning Environment 5 with Teacher C (Middle School Life Science); Case 8 – Learning Environment 7 with Teacher E (Science, Elementary Preservice Teacher Education).

I was most interested in the elementary and middle school cases, as they most closely related to my current teaching position (grade 4/5 split class). I found watching the videos interesting, especially from the perspectives of educators at various stages of their careers. I found that I could connect to many of the points discussed, both for and against technology, as I believe (increasingly) in the important role digital technology plays in our classrooms, but I also 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).

I found there were many significant similarities and important educational threads linking the three videos. To begin, and probably most importantly, teachers and students alike all appeared to agree that the integration of digital technology into the classroom enhanced engagement and meaningful learning experiences. In addition to being interested by the ability to use digital technology, students were cognisant of the fact that they were “publishing” their work for others to see, which meant fact accuracy and effort were both increasingly important. Along with this, was the fact that digital technology, in all examples presented, meant that students were developing collaboration skills as they worked in a “team” environment with peers to complete group projects, rather than simply working independently. When we consider the diverse learners in our classrooms, the videos also demonstrated how digital technologies helped to create an inclusive environment for all students. For example, Case 8 discussed the support digital technology provided for visual learners, and in Case 5 and Case 8, the importance of learning and/or presenting knowledge for English language learners was addressed. More specifically, in Case 5, “Teacher S” addressed the fact that with digital technology, students who could understand concepts but were prevented from sharing their knowledge due to language barriers were able to demonstrate their understanding in ways other than written language, providing all learners with an equal playing field. The integration of technology also allowed for teaching diversity in terms of integration of subjects. While in Case 6 and Case 8, students focused on a science-based task, students in Case 5 incorporated language arts, science, math and fine arts into their projects.

I found there was a significant difference in the comfort and enthusiasm of teachers, even new teachers, in relation to integrating digital technology into the classroom. The new teacher in Case 5, who had been enrolled in a teacher-education program without much focus on technology, felt it would have been helpful to have more training during her education program. As a result of this, she shared that while she would like to incorporate more digital technology into her classroom, she found it difficult to do due to time constraints as well as feeling ill-equipped. While all teachers felt that options were available, some, both retiring and new, felt that there was not time to apply skills learned in workshops, and so they were forgotten (Case 5). In addition to this, the retiring teacher admitted that she found digital technology “extremely frustrating” due to the lack of understanding and time. While there were other teachers within the building who could act as mentors, there were concerns of relying too much on another teacher as they all had busy lives and other teachers were busy teaching their own classes as well. While teachers vary widely in their teaching styles, I feel that there is a relatively great divide today between teachers who are comfortable with their ability to incorporate technology and those who are not, as was evident in the interviews presented.

Two of the teachers (Case 5 and Case 6) both alluded to the fact that much of the digital technology they use was learned on their own or from their students. I found this interesting because I think it highlights that for some people, incorporating digital technologies into the classroom comes more naturally as it is already an interest or area they feel confident enough to explore on their own. As more educators begin to feel comfortable exploring new technologies independently, the amount of digital technology used in the classroom will increase. Waiting for workshops is a way to engage with new technologies in a more comfortable learning environment, but as digital technology develops so rapidly today, attending a workshop every six months will no longer keep educators up-to-date with current educational technologies.

I found the points given by the teacher education professor (Case 8) summed up two important points for me regarding the “good” use of digital technology in the math and science classrooms. “Teacher E” discussed the fact that digital technology should not be treated as a stand-alone subject area, but must instead be integrated into our classrooms. In addition to this, digital technologies should be used only when they are enhancing students’ learning. “Teacher E” pointed out that if a student can learn just as well from a book, then perhaps we should simply allow them to read the book. However, if learning can be enhanced by using digital technology, then we must be prepared to use digital technology. This was an important point for me because it emphasized the fact that we do not have to try to integrate digital technology into all aspects of our classroom. Sometimes, more traditional methods continue to work quite well, but it is up to us as educators to be able to identify and understand the difference. Finally, “Teacher C” (Case 6) highlighted the fact that while his students had prior knowledge in emailing, social media, and games, they had limited knowledge of how to use digital technology to help them learn subjects in science. I believe this is one last important “take away” point because it reminds us as educators that while students may appear to understand technology, they often still need adult guidance to teach them how to use technology effectively to support their educations.

Through the ‘Case 4’ video clips, the educator effectively summarizes his opinions on the three possible levels of incorporating technology in the classroom. Briefly, they are:

• Level 1 – Lecture enhancement (through direct control by the teacher)
• Level 2 – Lockstep student usage (students perform a technology based activity simultaneously)
• Level 3 – Self-directed and self-paced student learning (students progress as their own rate through a study guide)

These three levels are a great reminder of how digital technology could be effectively used in the classroom and perhaps, how they should be appropriately or better used to enhance learning.

Level 1 remains the most simplistic and easiest use of technology without any changes to pedagogy. A lecture can be enhanced with a PowerPoint presentation or digital projections of images but the essence of the lecture remains the same. Lawrence mentioned in his blog post last week that the use of technology should be for more than just a replacement of archaic methods. Current digital technology has the ability to surpass previous methods of lecture with increasingly complex representations of information and media. For instance, animation or video clips can now be easily integrated into a lecture.

Both Levels 2 and 3 introduce a greater integration of technology in the classroom with each level increasing the change in pedagogy. Level 2 promotes direct technology usage by students. Through simulations or similar activities, small groups of students interact with their learning. For example, online digital dissections provide an avenue for students to prepare for, or even in place of, actual dissections. Level 3 seems to be the pinnacle of digital technology and learning with students largely directing their own study at their own pace. As evident in the video, students were investigating a problem with guidance by the educator.

Through the video clips, the benefits of effectively implementing and integrating digital technology are evident. Students are engaged and challenged with their learning. As described in the ‘Case 3’ videos, students develop transferable skills that will inevitably enhance their own lives outside of the classroom. Despite these advantages, however, there are likely some limitations or issues. The instructor himself mentions the need for a support unit, especially to troubleshoot any potential problems with the technology. As technology increasingly advances, it will likely be more difficult to have mentors to support and fix this cutting edge material. Further, the hardware and software itself needs to be constantly updated, which can be both costly and time-consuming without the proper support; thus, resulting in funding complications. For example, in attempting to spontaneously run a PhET simulation this past week, the school computers did not have the proper update and administrative rights to correct the problem. Unfortunately, since this needs to be completed by the district tech support, the class has to omit that simulation. Other concerns at Level 2 are also evident in the ‘Case 3’ video, which demonstrated a physics class attempting to perform a laboratory exercise with digital technology. The use of computer programs and other apps do require some front-end loading. As mentioned in the video, curriculum is a key factor in determining lessons and often, time constraints prevent the full exploration of technological uses. This specific problem poses another challenge – the balance in using technology or not. I appreciate that throughout the year certain labs required technology and others did not; but a key issue remains how much do educators immerse their lessons in technology. The video mentioned for that specific lab they would not have to be “bogged down by data collection” and could instead focus on analyzing the physics but retrieving and data collection is still an aspect of science that should be valued.

Finally, while Level 3 is the ideal merging of technology and learning, I wonder about the ability of executing the realities of such a task in a secondary school setting. While this type of learning is well suited for a post-secondary, university level program, other audiences (secondary or elementary) or a more diverse classroom might not always be as receptive or have positive results, as described in the video.

With changes to the secondary curriculum in B.C. through the elimination of the provincial exams and the promotion of ‘core competencies’, there seems to be more freedom in creating lessons and units allowing educators the opportunity to incorporate advanced technologies to their teachings. Inevitably there are both benefits and challenges to incorporating technology to promote learning, where do you stand at integrating technology into your practice?

What are the underlying issues and why are they issues?

There seem to be several different categories of issues related to the use of technology in middle school science classrooms in Cases 5 and 6. These could be broadly categorized as equipment, training, and implementation.

With regards to equipment, both of the teachers in these cases noted at least some use of their own personal equipment in the classroom. This would seem to present a barrier to less tech-savvy teachers as they may not already have access to devices with which to learn. In case 5 we could see that students were working in groups. It appears to be fairly common that most technology implementations are not 1-1. This causes me some concerns as it undermines some of the most powerful affordances of technology such as individualizing instruction/assessment and giving students an individual voice.

Teachers in both cases noted that, while professional development was available, currently training offerings were insufficient. They identified technology learning as an ongoing practice requiring time, experimentation, knowledgeable mentor colleagues, and ongoing support. Without these supports, teachers expressed frustration in integrating technology. As with any type of student, youth or adult, early success can be crucial to developing a feeling of efficacy. Without out this feeling of self efficacy, it seems unlikely that novice technology users will persist and develop competence.

Implementation requires both pedagogical and technological foundations. I found it distressing that some of the case teachers considered technology to be an ad hoc item to be used “on the fly”. Technology can eat up incredible amounts of time with limited gains to show for it if its use is not properly planned and scaffolded. Pedagogically, the case 6 teacher echoed my own thoughts. There is a degree of accountability needed with technology. If it is not working we need to reconsider how/why we are using it.

What further questions does the video raise for you?

A major question these cases raised for me was how can we best aide teachers in acquiring technological self efficacy and the ability to learn and grow independently in their technology skills.

How would you explore a response to this issue?

The qualitative interviews we have observed in this lesson seem to be a great starting point. Analysis for key themes already suggests that PD sessions must be coupled with practice/exploration time, planning time, and the assistance of a knowledgeable mentor to be most effective.

How might the issue that is raised exacerbate or ameliorate a conceptual challenge held by students?

When a teacher is not comfortable with technology they may misrepresent concepts as a result. For instance, if a teacher is only able to use a limited set of animation functions, this will necessarily reduce the techniques that they can use to express concepts.

I chose these two video cases to analyze due to my current teaching context of middle school students. Both cases show experienced teachers implementing a plethora of technology with students grades six to eight. As well, the classrooms appear lively and noisy where different groups of students are engaged in different projects incorporating technology. In both cases, there is great diversity in terms of how students demonstrate their learning in the sciences. Also, the teachers in both cases expressed the effective use of technology in the sciences as helping students understand knowledge accurately and increasing engagement in the content. Finally, in both classrooms, there seemed to be adequate resources of technology equipment for students.

At the same time, there was a significant difference between the two cases. That is, there were some contrasts in the openness of technology between the preservice and new teachers. In Case 6, the student teacher interview discussed her incorporation of technology in her practicum class. She had positive notions of it and expressed benefits such as collaboration, hands-on approach, and exposure to media literacy. In Case 6, the new teacher interview expressed she was frustrated with using technology and how it was a work in progress.
An interesting issue I am wondering about is with regards to assessment. That is, how will educators adequately assess students when they use different ways to showcase their learning? For instance, in both classrooms, the teachers mentioned the use of raps, podcasts, videos, experiments, and interactive websites where different groups of students are engaged in. Though this can increase participation, how will educators be able to monitor students’ process of learning? It seems like educators will be required to circulate and keep track of the diversity of projects going on. As well, how would students’ depth of learning be assessed? Will educators be using a standard rubric to assess students? Assessment is definitely a relevant question in terms of integrating technology in the math and sciences.

The collection of videos reflected current successes and concerns around the use of technology in math and science classrooms. . Although they highlighted the underlying issues with the integration of technology into the math and science classrooms they also showed the light at the end of this tunnel.

The issues seemed to correlate with my thoughts as I unpacked some of my own assumptions. Access to computer labs as well as time came up several times within the videos. In addition, the lack of training or perceived lack of competence using technology to teach was revealed when the new teacher said she felt that she wanted to incorporate technology in her teaching, but that she felt pressured due to time constraints and the fact that she felt that she didn’t have enough prior knowledge of the technology to teach it properly. She also felt unprepared to troubleshoot in the moment, which seemed to make her fearful of trying to incorporate the technology.  Considering student issues with technology, interestingly one of the students videoed reflected on the graphing calculator and although she used it because she said it saved time and she was “lazy”, she also relayed the fact that she felt that it disguised her mathematical problem solving and that she preferred pencil and paper to work out her math problem, at least initially.

I also noticed that technology was viewed as a “time” saver in some ways, and in another way was used for project based work, which tended to take more time and be more in depth. I think this was based on how the technology was used, whether for solving a specific problem or creating a presentation. This was just a reflection.

Another theme I noticed was that the technology used seemed to be limited to a few “tried and true” uses. This is not an underlying issue, just a reflection I made as I watched the videos. I think with technology often educators become familiar with a specific set of technology uses or presentation tools and stick with them. They also share these with other educators and so these get used more and more. One example of this would be the overuse (in my view) of PowerPoint when there are many more varied options available to present information in the same way.  Again, this is probably due to time and training.

On the positive side technology was being used in many of the classrooms. From Powerpoint to podcasting, internet researching, animated GIFs, Flash presentations, graphic calculators to problem solve, videotaping creative dramatic science representations, soundscapes, etc. Both educators and students found it engaging and it helped to promote teamwork and partnered problem solving. In addition, pencil and paper was not thrown out the window but was seamlessly incorporated as part of the learning process, technology working alongside this. Different student learning needs were met with the variety of ways they could both access learning and present their understandings.

In considering a response to some of the underlying issues I chose to focus on using the resources available to the best of their capabilities. New teachers should be mentored and supported through being teamed up with more seasoned educators and then allowed to use technology in their teaching with guidance and supports. In addition, educators should be given time to share technology tools at staff meetings or division meetings. Students should also be utilized as an important resource when integrating technology in your teaching. Often the students are able to figure out how to use the technology, or already know how to use it and can show the teacher. Teachers need to bring the technology in, even if they are feeling a bit unsure. Even if the educator can wrap there head around one new technology tool, it may promote them to use it and to slowly integrate technology into their classroom.

In summation, I think it is important that technology is providing for differentiation. Students are not only bound to textbooks and written work, but are able to act, produce, reflect, create, problem solve, hypothesize, cooperate and present using technology as a tool. This is important and is providing for a deeper and more engaging learning experience for many.  I look forward to reading your reflections.