Author Archives: BrynHammett

How digital resources have reshaped learning in the Math and Science classroom

How can learning be distributed and accelerated with access to digital resources and specialized tools and what are several implications of learning of math and science just in time and on demand?

When I attended high school in the late nineties, I understood math and science to be a list of facts and processes that needed to be learned and later restated on a test from rote memory. I vividly remember my teacher going through an example of completing the square in math class and worrying how I would ever remember every single step. I eventually memorized each step in the correct sequence and ended up doing quite well on the final exam as I recall. But I never really had a strong understanding of the purpose behind this or many other skills or facts I had learned in my many senior classes. I found many lessons lacked relevance and required that I trusted that what I was learning would serve me in the future.

Throughout my 9 year career as a math and physics teacher, I have noticed an evolution in how learning occurs with greater access to digital resources and specialized tools in the classroom. While graphing calculators have remained fairly unchanged in the last 20 years, other digital resources have revolutionized how student acquire, communicate and visualize mathematical and scientific knowledge.

One significant change that I have noticed in last 20 years is that students rely less heavily on their teacher as a source of all knowledge. The fact that a student can revisit posted lessons on the Google Classroom and view an endless number of video lessons on Youtube has empowered students to take full responsibility of their learning. In turn, teachers can spend class time digging deeper into questions without having to worry that they cover every type of question a student may face in their homework. Students also have access to endless information on their devices. Teachers no longer need to teach every trivial fact and can expect students to research things that they need to know. In turn, the teacher’s role has shifted from disseminating knowledge to helping students connect knowledge in meaningful ways. Teachers model how inquiry can lead to startling conclusions and how questions ground learning. I found myself in a chat with some students a couple months back about the economic model of Amazon Prime and whether a Prime membership is worth the annual fee? I decided to postpone my lesson that day and have students investigate when one should purchase a Prime membership and what is the true cost of free shipping. As a result, students were using their numeracy and research skills to formulate arguments and communicate their thinking using substantiating factual evidence. If anything, greater access to digital technologies have reintroduced spontaneity and creativity back into the math and science classroom and improved student engagement in authentic problem based learning.

Greater access to digital resources has also revolutionized how students visualize and experience scientific phenomena. When I took Biology 12, I can recall learning from many diagrams in textbooks, such as this one, describing processes such as DNA replication. I can remember spending endless hours creating and refining my mental model of each process without truly knowing whether my model was entirely correct. Today, students have access to endless visualizations and simulations that provide an empirical understanding of many processes. This video, for instance, showcases DNA replication in far greater acuity than any diagram ever could. This simulation, as another example, affords students not only the ability to observe the unobservable but to explore various variables pertaining to the process. In effect, digital resources allow students to visualize, explore, to predict and play with natural phenomena like never before. In turn, students are better able to construct knowledge in meaningful ways all the while satisfying their need to inquire about the natural world around them.

Considerations of Virtual Reality and the future of experiential education

I was inspired by much of the literature pertaining to the adoption of virtual reality found within innovative learning designs. These technologies have an enormous potential to completely redefine what experiential learning looks and feels like within the contexts of math and science education. I can still remember the many field trips I took as a child and the power of experiential and hands-on learning. Many of these experiences opened my eyes to science at an early age. Novel environments coupled with long bus rides and hands-on activities grounded my learning to something real and secured newly-formed knowledge into my long-term memory for life. VR technology has the potential to dramatically improve student access to experiential learning opportunities and promote student curiosity.

While field trips have enormous pedagogical value, they are expensive, logistical nightmares and a pain to organize. I am excited by the affordances that emerging technology provide classrooms to explore the world like never before without ever stepping foot outside of the school. I see promise in the continued developments into Google Earth’s Street View and virtual reality technology which continue to allow students to explore their world in ways never before imagined. Who knows, Google Earth might one day house a virtual world where online communities share, collaborate and learn from one and other, in turn, completely disrupting the status quo in education and truly transforming the nature of how we teach and learn.

“The same way that you use Internet Explorer or Chrome or Safari to go and visit websites, you’d use Google Earth to go and visit places, and you could author information about those places within Google Earth and then share those things. For example, ‘this is where I went on holiday,’ or ‘this is my view of the political geography of South Africa,’ and use Google Earth as a tool for making that story available to people.” -Ed Parsons (Google Earth’s Chief Geospatial Technologist)

While I acknowledge nothing beats hands-on learning in the real world, virtual learning experiences are far more economical and time efficient. There is no question that VR will become a standard educational tool in every classroom. Soon, it will become common practice for science teachers to take their students for walks along the beaches of Galapagos, for students to virtually stand on top of Mt Everest to conduct experiments and fly across the Arctic to survey the sea ice melt. There will truly be an infinite number of possible ways for teachers to inspire their students to understand the world and draw deeper connections with the curriculum.

This future is not without concern. The questions I have for you are:

1) How will schools adopt VR in their classrooms? Will schools invest in VR “carts” or will students be expected to bring their own device similar to BYOD?

2) What are some limitations to using VR in education? When conducting scientific inquiry, does a lack of touch, smell and taste hinder the learning process?

3) What will be lost in the learning process if hands-on experiences are increasingly replaced by virtual experiences? Are virtual experience less memorable than real experiences? If so, how does one improve the “stickiness” of a virtual experience?

The World of TELEs

The four learning environments aim to support student understanding of complex scientific phenomena and mathematical concepts. In their own, each technology-enhanced learning environment (TELE) employs various constructivist approaches in their pedagogies. Rather than considering students as empty vessels, needing to be filled with knowledge content, constructivist approaches assume that students, when exposed to the right conditions, will construct knowledge in deep and meaningful ways to satisfy an inherent curiosity and build upon their own prior knowledge. Every student enters a learning environment, whether traditional and technologically enhanced, with a unique set of understandings, experiences, and preconceptions of science and math. Effective learning environments draw upon this prior knowledge and spark a sense of curiosity from within the learner.

The four TELEs that were investigated (Jasper, WISE, MyWorld, and Chemland) shared many similarities and differences in their design. Each TELE adopted a constructivist approach to learning allowing students to draw from prior experiences and make inferences based on their observations. Each environment extended and deepened the student’s understanding and their mental model of various natural phenomena. Through visualizations, videos, simulations, and data-rich maps, students were encouraged to experiment, observe, predict, and reflect upon the consistencies and reconcile any inconsistencies between their prior experiences and recent observations.

While all TELEs lean heavily on technology, each differed to varying degrees in the type of media employed and the degree of scaffolding provided. For instance, Jasper, MyWorld, and Chemland provided very little scaffolding for students which affords the teacher the flexibility to use these learning environments as they find most appropriate in the classroom. Likewise, students are afforded the opportunity to explore their interests more organically rendering these activities much more engaging. WISE, on the other hand, offers a high level of scaffolding and affords students a more rigid and linear learning structure. Similarly, teachers can rely on WISE to provide students with an appropriate level of scaffolding for their students. Additionally, the four TELEs differed in the types of media they employed. While Jasper relied heavily on video content to present information and elicit curiosity, WISE, MyWorld, and Chemland employed a cocktail of simulations, animations, data-enriched maps and video content. While differing in their own regards, each environment was carefully designed to facilitate inquiry-based learning within the science and math classroom.

A more comprehensive comparison between the four TELE and their respective learning theories can be found in the table below.

	Learning Goals	TELE
Jasper and Anchored Instruction	AI introduces students to authentic real-world problems through various means. Students develop sub-questions that stem from larger questions in order to develop critical thought and pursue their own curiosity.	Jasper is a collection of videos that present engaging real-world problems to students. It should be noted, that the videos are quite dated and lack a certain level of relevance to students today.
WISE and SKI	Scaffolded Knowledge Integration allows students to continually build upon understanding and document their learning process. The SKI framework effectively guides students through an inquiry process.	WISE walks students through a linear set of lessons and modules within a scertain topic of study. Students are able to apply their understanding in frequent reflections and explore variables within computer simulations.
MyWorld and LfU	Learning for Use places a great emphasis on how knowledge is constructed. Three elements of LfU are motivation, knowledge construction and knowledge refinement.	MyWorld presented students with data-rich maps that highlight weather and other geographic phenomena that occur on Earth. Students are able to find patterns and relationships from these data sets.
Chemland and T-GEM	T-GEM is another learning strategy that guides students through a process of inquiry. The 3 stages of GEM are a) Generate a relationship between two variables, b) Evaluate the relationship and c) Modify the parameters to investigate the effects of a third variable.	Chemland allows students to investigate the effect of changing some variables while leaving others unchanged within a chemistry experiment.

This investigation into various TELEs has shaped how I will integrate technology into the classroom in the future. Each environment opened my eyes to the possibility of using technology to further support inquiry-based learning in the science and math classroom. Most importantly each environment reinforced the notion that technology should not be simply used for the sake of using technology. Rather, technology should be incorporated into the science and math pedagogical design in order to help students see patterns within natural phenomena that they would otherwise not be able to see due to spatial or temporal limitations. For instance, a good use of technology would allow students to develop a robust mental model of phenomena such as molecular bonding angles, orbital motion, and large glaciation events. Technology should afford the learner opportunities to observe these otherwise invisible phenomena by manipulating variables and exploring rich datasets. TELEs should empower students to pursue their own curiosities in science and math using engaging and well-designed learning environments. Regardless of whichever TELE is adopted, it must be appropriate for the students’ abilities and the learning goals of the course.

Using GEM to Explore Pendular Motion

For a moment, imagine a 1-m pendulum with a 500g bob on one end. The pendulum is given an initial starting angle of 20°. Which of the following actions will increase or decrease the period of the pendulum swing?

Shortening or lengthening the length of the pendulum
Decreasing or increasing the mass of the bob
Increasing or decreasing the starting angle by 10°.

This is one of my favourite questions to ask a class of Physics 11 students in order to introduce pendular motion. While usually all students are familiar with pendulums, few have ever taken the time to evaluate how length, mass and starting angle affect its period.

In this lesson plan below, the teacher addresses pendular using a 3 step T-GEM cycle with their class:

Step 1: Background content information

Class discussion and traditional notes:

What is a pendulum? What are some examples?

How do they work?
What are the parts of a pendulum?
What is the period of a pendulum?
What is the frequency of a pendulum?
What variables affect a pendulum’s period?

Length of the pendulum
Starting angle of the pendulum
Mass of the bob
Force of gravity

Step 2: Generate

Students are asked to predict the relationship between a pendulum’s period and the mass of the bob. As the mass increases, what happens to the period? Think-Pair-Share: Students have 30 seconds to arrive a conclusion, share with a partner, followed by a short class discussion.

The teacher uses a real pendulum and students are asked to measure the time it takes the lighter and heavier bob to complete 10 cycles with their phones. Students arrive at the conclusion that the mass of the pendulum has no effect on the period of the pendulum.

Step 3: Evaluate

Students are asked to work in table groups to investigate: Why does the mass of the bob not affect the period of the pendulum?

Students will use pendulums at their table to arrive at their conclusion. Groups will then share out their understanding.

Students are asked to explore other variables that may have an effect on the period of a pendulum. Students will begin to notice that the length of the pendulum has an effect on the period.

Step 4: Modify

Students are asked to work in table groups to investigate: What is the relationship between length and period? (Linear, quadratic, exponential, logarithmic or other?)

Students run several tests in the following pendulum simulation to eliminate confounding variables. Students are asked to summarize the relationship by generating an equation that might describe the effect length has on period.

Step 5: Generate

Students are asked to predict the relationship between a pendulum and the gravitational field strength (g). How would the period change if the pendulum was brought to the moon?

The process repeats through a second GEM cycle.

Simulation

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/pendulum-lab/latest/pendulum-lab_en.html

References

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

LfU Design at Upper Elementary: Designing a Dream House

In what ways would you teach an LfU-based activity to explore a concept in math or science? Draw on LfU and My World scholarship to support your pedagogical directions. Given its social and cognitive affordances, extend the discussion by describing how the actions and roles of the teacher and students are aligned with LfU principles.

I thoroughly enjoyed being introduced to all the amazing GIS-related educational technology. I was inspired by the educational potential of using large datasets pertaining to geography and atmospheric phenomena to teach math and science in innovative ways. I also really appreciated learning about the LfU model that attempts to support the design of learning activities through the following guiding principles:

“Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures
Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding of goals.
The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determines its accessibility for future use.
Knowledge must be constructed in a form that constructs use before it can be applied.”
(Endelson, 2001, p. 356)

I would use LfU-based activity to have upper elementary students explore volume, surface area and the application of spreadsheets. The goal would be for students to use their understanding of surface area and volume to design a house given certain parameters and calculate the total cost of building materials.

What Students Will Do:

Students would begin by searching for a 0.20-hectare parcel of undeveloped land on Google Earth. They would then begin to sketch a floor plan for their house and include large furniture and appliances. Students are given a full inventory of materials and respective costs for each item (e.g. 1 m^2 of counter space costs $80, 1 m^2 of laminate flooring costs $12). Once the house design is finalized, students will use Google Sheets to calculate the total cost of materials needed for each room and the house in total. Students then author a building report that contains a copy of the floor plan and a description of each room along with a complete itemized table of building costs.

What the Teacher Will Do:

Teacher instruction will only be provided as needed and will aim to improve the efficiency of students achieving the goal. For instance, students will naturally be inclined to manually sum the costs on Google Sheets. Only once all students have begun doing calculations will the teacher show the class how to sum columns instantly using the summing tool. This reinforces the power of this tool for more advanced students while providing slower students the opportunity to quickly catch up with the rest of the class. The teacher will circulate and provide support and offer feedback while students are working. The teacher is constantly encouraging students to seek and receive support and feedback from fellow tablemates and reflect upon their work.

How Knowledge is Constructed:

Ultimately, knowledge and skills will be constructed as needed to accomplish each element of the goal. Students will acquire skills and knowledge from the teacher, their peers and personal research. Regardless of the source of origin, knowledge and skills will be constructed in a form that constructs use before it is applied. Each student will also construct knowledge differently based on their conscious and unconscious understanding of the goal. Students may be more interested in one element of this project over another and, in turn, their final projects will reflect these interests. Some students, for instance, might be more focused on designing an aesthetically pleasing and equally practical house while others might take a greater interest in the professional presentation of their final report. Ultimately, students will acquire knowledge to achieve a certain goal that that is tailored to their unique interests.

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.

In praise of simulations in WISE

I thoroughly enjoyed exploring the WISE on Projectile Motion and the International Space Station. I was very impressed with how the curriculum design supported local adaptation, inquiry-based learning while sustaining a logical and coherent science curriculum. This learning environment effectively navigates students through a linear and inquiry approach to learning and provides substantial instructional feedback on student reflections thus promoting the effective construction of skills and understanding. The modules draw out prior knowledge, provide contextual information, allow students to explore the effects of various variables, require students to apply their understanding to real-life questions and engage students to reflect upon their ideas.

Linn et al. (2003) highlight the trade-off made in curriculum design in WISEs:

“The inquiry map presents curriculum designers with a tradeoff. If inquiry steps are too precise, resembling a recipe, then students will fail to engage in inquiry. If steps are too broad, then students will flounder and become distracted.” (p. 520)

In my opinion, the inquiry map of this specific environment is perhaps too formulaic and linear. Student complete tasks in a specific order and are not provided with opportunities to dive deeper into specific areas of interest. I, unfortunately, was unable to load the simulators embedded in this environment but I trust they are similar to the simulations available online. While simulations are fantastic tools for students to test their assumptions, I would have placed the simulations at the beginning of the WISE in order to improve student engagement and generate rich class discussions right from the start. From here, these discussions can serve to launch a student inquiry into projectile motion and the ISS.

Linn (2003) points out that WISEs allow students to “bring to science class multiple conflicting views of scientific phenomena, often tied to specific contexts, examples, experiences, or situations” (p. 518). Simulations provide fantastic opportunities for students to engage with real-world phenomena, play with variables, and make well-supported predictions. For instance, I often use the following Phet simulation when introducing my students to Planetary Motion in Physics 12. At the start of class, students are asked if the Earth’s mass were to increase by say 25%, how would the distance between the Earth and Moon change? How would the lunar orbital period change? After an initial discussion, students are asked to explore the question further using the simulation. Once the class comes to a consensus as to the effects of increasing Earth’s mass, students are then asked why these effects occur? After some initial responses, students are asked if their response is grounded in intuition or in fact? Throughout the year, we would have discussed how assumptions often lead to misconceptions and how evaluating motion through mathematical models can help support our understanding and reveal misunderstandings. Students would then have to research and report on how celestial orbits are affected by the mass of each object, the distance between the objects and the angular velocity of the body in orbit. The partnership of WISE and other learning activities, such as those mentioned above, hold enormous potential to develop core competencies within the classroom, notably, creative and critical thinking and communication.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

Ideal Design

I was taken by Muffoletto’s (1994) observation that technology is “not a collection of machines and devices, but a way of acting.” While I would argue that the collection of machines and devices is one component of technology, two equally important components of technology are the user and the interaction between the user and the device. I postulate that the design of an effective technology-enhanced learning environment should consider not only what information and applications the technologies offer but also how the user will engage with the educational technology.

An effective TELE should engage and inspire student learning. It should rely on a variety of media (text, images, simulations, and video) to convey information in manageable and differentiated chunks of information. The educational technology should emphasize generative learning by anchoring the information to real-world and meaningful contexts. The technology should encourage the student to think, argue and reflect by engaging the students with important complex problems. The student should not be left with the impression that the technology is the bearer of all knowledge of which they, the student, need to somehow absorb. Rather, the student should feel actively involved in the construction of knowledge and given opportunities to practice expressing and refining their point of view. Finally, a well designed TELE should support both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration between students so that a rich learning community is established.

Roblyer (2012) argues that each teacher must assume the role of “scriptwriter” and plan for all contingencies. I worry that this view might limit the potential for learning within a learning environment. While a teacher should create learning guidelines and behavioral expectations for students to follow, Roblyer’s “script”, in my mind, should not dictate how and exactly what students learn but rather, it should guide students through their learning process.

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2012). Integrating educational technology into teaching.

Muffoletto, R. (1994). Technology and restructuring education: Constructing a context. Educational Technology, 34(2), 24-28.

Affordances, Efficiency and Intention Within the Use of Technology in the Mathematics Classroom

Interviewee
Mr. M
Years of Experience: 5 years
Subject Levels: High school mathematics
Current course load: PreCalc 12, PreCalc 11
Interview Date: January 18, 2018.

During the interview activity, I was interested in exploring new roles of technology in the senior mathematics classroom. I had the pleasure of interviewing Mr. M on his experience employing various technology in the classroom. Mr. M is 5 years into his teaching career and is an early adopter of many new educational technologies. The interview was conducted through Google Docs in order to allow Mr. M the flexibility to reflect and answer questions at his convenience. It was clear from the interview, that Mr. M is comfortable experimenting with new technologies and actively tries to innovate his teaching practice with technology. Three central themes that arose most frequently during the interview process were affordances, access, and intentionality.

Affordances

Mr. M responded at length the many ways he uses technology and the affordances it offers to his classroom. “There are many ways that technology enhances learning in my classroom,” Mr. M said, “I am able to write better on my tablet than on a whiteboard. The use of a tablet also allows for notes to be uploaded online. This allows students to revisit ideas that they may have missed in class.” He also mentions the affordance of asynchronous learning whereby technology “allows for learning to be completed outside of the classroom setting, as students can learn at home through the use of videos or revisiting notes.” In short, Mr. M summarizes that technology “enhances [his] teaching and makes the knowledge easier to understand” for his students.

Efficiency

Another recurring theme throughout the interview was that of efficiency. Mr. M’s use of technology was often closely tied to improving the efficiency of learning and communication in the classroom. For instance, Mr. M uses “a collaboration tool called Slack to allow for text messaging between myself and students. This allows [Mr. M.] to address student questions and concerns almost anywhere at any time.” Likewise, Mr. M’s students frequently use graphing calculators which “make many calculations and graphing more accessible to students”; additionally “many [students] would have a difficult time if they did not have one.” At Mr. M’s school, many students miss school due to extra-curricular activities. Technology allows Mr. M to efficiently “send students links to videos that teach various skills in case they miss class or are struggling to understand a topic” Bottom line, technology greases the proverbial wheel and provides more opportunity for students to learn at their own pace.

Intention

Mr. M demonstrates a high degree of intention behind every piece of technology he uses. He recognizes when technology is appropriate and when it is not. Mr. Ma avoids using technology for the sake of technology and will use traditional approaches when appropriate. For instance, “learning how to solve an equation is a skill that is best learned through constant practice [using] pencil and paper… I am unsure if there are better ways to for students to be more proficient at [solving equations] on the computer than by hand.” Although showing online video instruction instead of direct instruction might employ more technology in the classroom, he argues that instructional videos are “not very good at explaining ideas that would allow students to arrive at a deeper understanding of Mathematics.” Ultimately, there is a great deal of intention behind every decision he makes concerning technology use. “I never show a video in front of a class in order to teach a concept. Instead of spending time in class teaching students how to perform different operations on a graphing calculator, I simply direct them to a video instead.”

Case #1 STEM Program

I really enjoyed watching Case #1 and #2 as they both pertain to my role as a senior math, calculus and physics teacher. I found Case #1 particularly interesting as I had collaborated with this teacher on two different ETEC projects in the past year. I had always found this STEM program quite interesting and inspiring and enjoyed gaining an appreciation for his workspace and watching how his students engage with the program. Below are some themes that stuck out with me:

Relevance:

My years of experience teaching math and physics onboard a sailing high school have reinforced my belief that students learn best when they recognize the relevance and applications of what they are learning. In this case, students are working through problems and then testing their conclusions in real life. Awesome!

Guide on the Side:

Furthermore, much of the knowledge the students were acquiring did not come from the teacher; it was the product of self-directed inquiry and discussing with more-knowledgeable peers. The role of the teacher here is to provide enough information for the teams to get started and then offer direction and support while holding each group accountable to their learning when necessary.

Quality vs Quantity

As opposed to my rather traditional classroom where we might solve a dozen or so questions in a class, these students were solving one big question over the course of a long period of time.

Resources

Students had access to superb materials, resources, and tools. In one video, we see the teacher showcase the material testing equipment suitable for testing the limits of various materials. We also notice students are using computers and other electronics to develop code. I appreciated how digital technology was connected with hands-on materials.

This case definitely left me with a few questions concerning management and accountability of learning.

How does the teacher manage, support and direct so many teams while holding each student accountable to the course objectives (particularly with less motivated students)?
How are the mechanics of physics/math assessed? Or are mechanics less important?

I recall the teacher once saying during one of our conversations that he does struggle with class control at times. Not that students are often misbehaving, but more struggling to know where each team is at. In a traditional classroom, the teacher is able to manage learning expectations and the pacing of course content fairly easily. Here, the teacher really needs to trust that the students are intrinsically motivated to solve problems using the tools available to them. For this program to be successful, the teacher needs to understand what the students are able to accomplish, understand the tools and resources available and build a class culture that supports inquiry and curiosity.

The use of digital technologies and hands-on material definitely ameliorate conceptual challenges in understanding physics and material design. Students can feel what happens to the strength of the materials when they modified or rearranged. Learning needs to grow from prior knowledge and experience and what better way than have students constantly test their most intimate form of knowledge, their intuition.

Unpacking Assumptions: 5 Characteristics of good digital educational technology

From my experience, good digital technology must meet at least one of the following criteria.

First off, digital technology needs to help students develop a mental model for some intangible phenomena. I can remember how confusing it was to learn DNA transcription & translation and protein synthesis from a textbook when I was in grade 12. The text was dry and the diagrams confusing. Today, students have access to incredibly detailed videos on Youtube that animate unseeable events that occur throughout our body. The short video linked below, for instance, has helped me dramatically improve my mental model of protein synthesis and has left me with a more honest understanding of this process.

https://youtu.be/TfYf_rPWUdY

Second, good digital technology allows learners to manipulate variables and experiment in order to test predictions and find patterns. Hands-on activities are fantastic educational tools but they are often unrealistic or require too much setting up. I often use PHET simulations as a fun way to introduce topics in Physics. Check out this simple simulation on buoyancy. Think of the rich discussion and great questions this very simulation can promote.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/density-and-buoyancy/buoyancy_en.html

Third, good digital technology provides instantaneous feedback for students. Learning math from a textbook is painful at times. Searching for solutions in the back of the book can be soul crushing. I have found online learning platform, such as Khan Academy, so much more engaging for students. I challenge you to open this link to a Khan Academy skill and not want to solve the first question. The addiction students feel towards instantaneous feedback in the mathematics classroom, is a sign that it has been a long time missing.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/basic-geo/basic-geo-area-and-perimeter/area-trap-composite/e/area-of-quadrilaterals-and-polygons

Fourth, good digital technology should promote joy, inquiry, curiosity and wonder into the classroom. There are so many fantastic resources that bring life back into the classroom. None, however, quite like Kahoot. It is scary sometimes how jazzed students get over Kahoot. Google Earth is another digital technology that inspires curiosity, wonder, and exploration in the classroom.

https://create.kahoot.it/

Finally, good digital technology allows students to create, share and collaborate. As Dr. Ken Robinson argues, we need to infuse creativity back into the classroom. Digital technology such as Tinkercad, is a fantastic program that allows students to create 3D digital renderings and later print them out on a 3D printer. From my experience, when students are given the opportunity to match understanding with creativity, magic happens in the classroom.

https://www.tinkercad.com/

There are certain characteristics of bad technology that I would like to highlight. First off, bad technology is poorly designed and unintuitive to operate. The learning curve to understand the technology requires to much processing power from the student that they lose interest. Second, bad technology is technology that does not enhance learning but simply replaces traditional activities. Using digital textbooks, for instance, does nothing to enhance the learning experience.

The Pendulum Misconception

One misconception that I have noticed when teaching pendulum motion in Physics is that students often believe that the period of the bob is a product of its weight and its initial angle of displacement, with lighter bobs and greater angular displacement of the bob both correlated to longer periods. With the right equipment on hand, these are fantastic misconceptions to disprove with a quick demonstration. The challenges arise when two pendulums swing at once as they often hit each other and it is challenging to measure the angle of distortion with much accuracy. The demonstration at least provides students a chance to ponder if all pendulums have the same period and if not, what variables affect the rate of swing? I then have students test their assumptions by using the following Phet simulations.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/pendulum-lab/latest/pendulum-lab_en.html

In my opinion, this simulation ticks all the boxes for good digital technology. First off, the simulation allows students to witness unseeable phenomena such as how pendulums operate under various gravitational field strengths while allowing students to experiment and manipulate variables (bob weight, pendulum length and angle of distortion). Finally, the simulation provides instantaneous feedback for students and inspires curiosity, wonder, and experimentation. This simulation stimulates creativity and collaboration as students must build connections between what they saw during the demonstration and experienced with the simulation.

The effective implementation of digital technology can support learning in many ways. I am not of the mindset that it should attempt to support learning in all ways. The use of digital technology in the classroom should be done so to augment, modify and redefine specific learning tasks. Teachers should be wary of digital technology that acts as a learning tool substitute and fails to provide any functional change (Puentedura, 2010)

References:

Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Retrieved February, 12, 2013.