Author Archives: allison greig

TPACK & STEM

The construction and necessity of knowledge is one of the most compelling issues in education today, in my opinion.  What knowledge do we need to have?  How much time should we devote or focus on knowledge versus skill development?  Is knowledge synonymous with information?  Do we have a universal understanding of knowledge?  The rate at which information changes and the fluidity of knowledge has left structures and institutions burnt out and feeling disconnected in their attempts to maintain the interplay among knowledge in the TPACK (2006) framework. Yet still, the TPACK framework finds relevance among the halls and walls of 21st century schools.   

 

Since this was not my first experience with the TPACK framework, I decided to refer to some additional resources.  I came across a website and post by Matthew Koehler (2012).  There he writes that “Effective technology integration for pedagogy around specific subject matter requires developing sensitivity to the dynamic, transactional relationship between these components of knowledge situated in unique contexts” (Koehler, 2012).  This reminded me there are specific skills related to reading in each subject area that we must teach.  I was involved in a provincial pilot project to implement Reading Apprenticeship, (https://readingapprenticeship.org/) which specifically teaches reading in content areas.  Specifically, there are reading strategies and skills that scientists or mathematicians have and need to develop in order to be successful.  Similar to this, the TPACK framework explains that there are technological content area requirements that teachers need to attune to in order to meet students’ needs. 

 

Last year, a group of grade five and six students and I submitted an application to the Samsung Solve for Tomorrow challenge.  It required the students to select a problem in their community and use STEM to solve it.  After I submitted our application in the first round, we were 1 of 150 finalist in Canada who had the opportunity to turn our plan into actions!  We also won some Samsung technology to help us out.  My group of eight students attempted to build a dual garbage and recycling bin prototype to post in our school yard to clean up the litter.  They also made a website to spread the message about cleaning up the environment.   

 

I think this experience would have been better if I had used the TPACK framework more effectively and thought more about how scientists use the tools and technology to combine it with pedagogy.  We didn’t think enough about how someone in a STEM field might build a garbage can; what materials would they use?  How would they test it?  What tools would they use?  It is a good opportunity for me to reflect on how to improve my learning and teaching to enhance that of my students’.   

 

Koehler, M. (2012). TPACK Explained. TPACK.ORG. Retrieved 3 February 2018, from http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/ 

 

MISHRA, P., & KOEHLER, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x  

Layers of Opportunities

One of my favourite quotes is from John Dewey in 1915.  He said “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow”.  This idea has been true since the early 1900s and it continues to resonate in the design of learning experiences.  When I think about designing learning experiences for all learners, what do I envision?  I created a word cloud that helped me begin.

I believe that TELEs should foster learning and growth of new content and tools.  Learners should be questioning, collaborating, evaluating, and building their skillset.  It must be around a topic/content that they value or believe is important so that they are actively engaged.  Lee and Choi’s (2017) research on higher-order thinking in technology enhanced learning environments helped develop my thinking and understanding of what I truly value.  One of their ideas adds another dimension to TELEs to strengthen the experience; Lee and Choi explain that synthesizing information to arrive at multiple solutions is a critical component of higher-order thinking (Lee & Choi, 2017, p. 144).   Technology-enhanced learning experiences should be layered with many opportunities that require learners to develop their skills and build knowledge in authentic contexts.

 

Lee, J., & Choi, H. (2017). What affects learner’s higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Computers & Education, 115, 143-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.015

Collaboration, Persistence, & Communication

I interviewed a colleague at a K – 8 school who is a Continuous Improvement Coach.  This is her first year in the role, as it is a new job in the division, but she has been in a coaching type of role in her six years in the division.  Prior to that, she worked in Ontario in administration for private school where she was part of the development and founding team and worked with gifted and talented students.  The reason I chose M is because her and I have worked closely together in the last few years on STEM, personalized learning, and technology related projects.  However, she has a more supportive and engaged administrator and teacher team and our projects often end up looking very different.

 

M and I had difficulty connecting for a face to face interview.  Between her illness and the tightness of our tech tools, our options were limited.  We ended chatting through todaysmeet.com, which is actually blocked through our school division.  The division will block sites to force us to use ones that they provide.  The teachers in the division have access to Office 365 but Microsoft Teams would not allow me to export the chat transcript or print it.  Secondly, we wanted to be able to speak freely about some of the divisional controls on a non-divisional tool.

 

M identified immediately that she used technology with staff and students for collaboration.  While technology use varies across the school, she explained that “For the most part the kids use technology for research and presentations.  I’ve been trying hard to get people to look beyond that and how it can be a tool to the actual project, as well as the collaboration.  The technology can also BE the project.  Or provide opportunities for them to create their own learning”.  She described that students wanted to know how to make a Snapchat filter and how much learning has to go into a project like that.  However, when I asked her what her favourite ways to use technology in the math and science classroom are I found the examples to be very surface level, symbolic learning.  Melissa described Mathletics, Khan Academy, Kahoot, and exit tickets via email. Are these authentic ways to use technology in a math and science classroom?  Do they provide true opportunities for collaboration?  I am skeptical that these tools do more than make learning fun and easy.  They are great entry points but not the whole story.

 

Part of the story I hoped to hear from M was about the misconceptions about technology and STEM that she hears from parents, staff, and/or students.  M stepped in right away to say “That it is floof, or a free for all – or even more so, that you need to be an expert to teach it.  You need persistence and patience – you do not need expertise”.  I think this is a great message for teachers and students.  STEM is not about having all of the answers, it is about being curious enough and determined to find them.  M continued, “Your students will figure it out.  There are tutorials for pretty much everything online.  We should not limit our students learning to our comfort zones – that is ridiculous – but often happens”.

 

Woven throughout the interview was M’s reference to Bring Your Own Device, and closer to the end of our discussion we addressed it when I asked her ‘In what ways has the school division helped and hindered the implementation of technology in your context?’.  To summarize, M said that students are prevented from using tools at school that they use at home.  She believes that “…for years they [the division] have been so terrified of privacy and protecting the children that we are super far behind”.   This is directly reflected in fact that for K-8 schools (she could not speak to 9-12 contexts) there are and have never been any BYOD plans or foundations started.  We both stated a belief regarding how important BYOD is to being able to successfully and authentically facilitate STEM which led me to a whole new question.

 

Ally:

If we were to make an argument, why is it important for students to have experience with technology in a STEM context?

 

M:

I would say that it is the absolute most important tool for all learning – these subjects included.  It can be used through the learning process in so many roles.  AND it’s essential to prepare 21st century learners ready for the workforce.  I can’t think of any job that doesn’t use technology in some form or fashion.

 

Ally:

It really is the door to so many opportunities!  Thank you for your candor and expertise, M!

 

M:

You are most welcome, Ally!

 

 

Reflecting on this interview, I wish I had asked a few more questions.

  • What does she wish she could do with technology?
  • What can’t technology do?
  • What assumptions do students/staff/parents make about STEM & technology?
  • Where is literacy in STEM?
  • Apple or PC? ????

 

As a parent and an educator, M also strongly advocates for better technological communication with parents.  It was a common thread throughout our interview and it led me to wonder if these stakeholders aren’t receiving enough information?  Are they getting everything they need regarding STEM and technology?

 

Ultimately, this interview magnified the importance of communication.

Video Cases 5 & 6

Hey everyone!  Sorry this is a little late; I pinched a nerve in my neck that has made school/laptop work a little difficult.  I have enjoyed reading your posts and your questions for the interviews.  It will be great to read the abstracts next week.  The common threads I am finding amongst our challenges and successes are reassuring.

In many ways, I saw myself and my colleagues in these videos.  Like the teacher in the video, I am a coach who works closely classroom teachers and their students.  In these cases, I noted a few key values that my colleagues and I share:

  • Collaboration – the importance of working as a team.
  • Risk Taking – in the safety of the classroom
  • Adaptability – on the part of teachers and students
  • Challenging Ways of Thinking & Being Open Minded

I also heard common frustrations regarding time, teachers’ skill set, and an overall lack of knowledge.  What I didn’t hear was a lack of access to technology, as that is a widespread issue and source of contention for our context.  I am curious, how do these schools manage the technology so that each classroom and child gets what they need?  How much control do they have over the technology budget and what devices are purchased for them to use?

The characteristics I observed and noted about student learning was overwhelmingly positive and reflective of the skills and values we want students to develop.  I recognized many of the criteria we highlighted in our “Unpacking Assumptions” posts.  These include:

  • Students using background knowledge and applying the knowledge they acquire.
  • Technology facilitates deeper, more authentic engagement.
  • Activities and lessons are more hands on.
  • Students have more control over and ownership in their learning.

In Case 6, one student commented that he maybe didn’t understand the content until he applied it using technology.  It led me to wonder, how often does this happen?  How often are students not given the opportunity to timely apply what they have learned and it negatively impacts their understanding?  How many times do we as educators and a system assess surface level understanding, in many cases without even knowing we’re doing it?

I also wondered what kind of questions are being asked?  Who is asking the questions?  How are they arriving at these key, essential questions that are required to facilitate these learning experiences?

Unpacking Assumptions

Technology in the math and science classrooms has many similarities to effective overall practice but there are a few nuances that are required to elevate its use in these areas.  Technology use needs to be ethical, responsible, and most importantly, purposeful.  In any context, a specific technology should only be used if it is the best tool for the job.  Technology selection is a critical component.  The technology should fit the problem students are trying to solve and not finding activities and concepts for a specific technology.   

When I imagined a science and math class, I pictured curious, active, excited students.  Students who want to learn about the world around them and collaborate with their peers and the tools available to them.  Asking questions was at the forefront of my mind.  When I imagined technology in a science and/or math class, I envisioned students using technology in the ways scientists and mathematicians do in authentic contexts.  The technology may or may not be specific to the field but student should be developing skills as scientists and mathematicians.  In addition, students should understand why they are using the technology and know how to use it properly.   

Fundamentally, technology use should be student led and help students solve problems.

The First Time

I was eight years old when my family got our first computer.  I remember the large monitor; the loud clicks of the keys and the mouse.  The physical space that the computer took up was immense and over time, the space in our lives that the computer took up grew as well.  My siblings and I had the game “James Discovers Math” and played it endlessly, nearly wearing out the CD-ROM.  We sorted shapes, counted, etc. etc.

I was twenty-nine years old when I watched my two-year old niece teach herself how to play “Busy Shapes & Colours” on my iPad.  She opened the first game independently and figured out that she needed to drag the coloured object to the shape.  The physical space that the iPad takes up is minimal; Isla can find the device and open the game to play without anyone knowing.  The impact and space the iPad takes up in our world is significant and pivital.

These two experiences highlight similarities and differences in our history with educational technology.  I am a passionate about learning how to responsibly harness and leverage the power of technology to engage all ages.

 

Hey from Manitoba!

A late hello from Brandon, Manitoba!  It is not so cold here right now, so we are coming out from under our blankets to bask in the sunshine.

This is my 10th MET course!  I have been waiting for the day to come to be able to say that!  I have taken 500, 510, 511, 512, 530, 532, 540, 565A, & 565G.  I have enjoyed each course for its depth and creativity and am so grateful to have learned so much along the way.

I am currently a Continuous Improvement Coach at a K-8 school in Brandon.  My experience prior to that is in enrichment education and literacy support and grades 5 – 8.  I do a lot of work with Genius Hour and personalized learning.  In the last couple years, I have started exploring makerspaces and STEM and an excited to learn more.  I love exploring design thinking with kids.

Looking forward to exploring these topics throughout the course and learning with you!

Ally