ETEC 533 – Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom
Hey Everyone,
I discovered DCACLab when working through this last module. It is a great tool with which to create, modify and examine circuits. It has some similarities to simulations found in PhET, however, I really like how it is stand alone.
It provides the opportunity to share designs and is useful from simple elementary circuits all the way through high school.
Developing this week’s post has been a neat experience. When looking through the different resources this week, I specifically enjoyed the simulations provided by PhET. In exploring the wide variety of applets, I came upon the Balloon and Static Electricity resource. This is exactly what I have been needing the past few years. Part of the curriculum I teach centres on static electricity, and we do a number of experiments using balloons. I have always used the Smartboard to draw the exchanges of protons and electrons, which is visual but not ‘live’ or interactive. I have prepared the below T-GEM lesson focused on this resource. It is a lesson I plan to add to my Electricity unit for next year.
When evaluating the effectiveness of simulations and digital resources, I was definitely surprised by the findings of Srinivasa et al. (2006). After an involved competitive study, they concluded that students do not see simulations as being as effective as actual hands on learning. This was also in stark contrast to opinion of recognized experts, who see great value in using simulations.
In the simulation used below, I feel that it avoids the student opinions highlighted by Srinivasa et al (2006) as it is used primarily as an extension activity. The PhET resource is used as an extension to make invisible forces visible. This is supported by the work of Finkelstein et al. (2005) where they ultimately determine that “simulations used in the right contexts can be more effective educational tools than real laboratory equipment; both in developing student facility with real equipment and at fostering student conceptual understanding.” (p.1)
Generate
Evaluate
Modify
All the students in the class will have a prior understanding of static electricity. We live in a land of long, dry winters where static hair and ‘shocking your friends’ happen almost daily from Nov-April. The beauty of this lesson is that it starts to provide a conceptual explanation to the observed phenomenon, and then uses technology to visually represent the invisible. I am excited to try this next year and feel it will help the students understand more clearly as it provides a more involved and clear experience than my rudimentary drawings do.
Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.
Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 137-141.
I must start by apologizing for my late post. This last week before Spring Break has been jammed packed with interviews and a field trip. Unfortunately, that saw posting take the back seat.
The unintended benefit of this busy week was an increasingly authentic space in which to analyze and reflect on Virtual Field Trips (VFT) and other concepts. This week saw my class visit the Telus World of Science in Edmonton, where the students participated in hands-on activities learning about electricity. They go home at the end of the day with a small electric car and a deeper understanding of how electricity can be applied in the world around us.
On this field trip, the students benefitted as they just finished their unit on electricity. This field trip served as an extension activity, and not a foundational learning experience.
I saw an interesting connection between building simple circuits and the mathematics analysis performed by Carraher, Carraher and Schliemann (1985). They examine the practical use of math by working-children in Brazil to the learning of math that happens in the traditional classroom. They conclude that there are “doubts about the pedagogical practice of teaching mathematical operations in a disembedded form before applying them to word problems.” (p. 27) This got me thinking about science, and the benefit that different VFT-type activities could provide learners both at home and at school.
DCACLab is a resource I stumbled upon this week when looking for different virtual experiences for my students. While it is not necessarily categorized as a VFT, it allows students to observe and manipulate electricity in a way that is similar to the VFT’s featured in this week’s readings. It allows for students to manipulate and explore circuits in a way that is realistic and open-ended while having quality data output that are akin to a simulator. The social feature is also positive, as it allows one to share their designs and results with peers, teachers or the world.
In incorporating this resource into learning, I see many benefits. First, it could be used in under-educated areas like the Brazialian cities examined by Carraher et al. There, individuals without formal electrical training could explore ways to repair electronics. Effectively recreating the circuitry and simulating different fixes. It would eliminate a great deal of trial-and-error, and allow for increasingly safe repairs.
It could also be useful for more directly educational pursuits. A colleague of mine has his students create carnival games using electricity for a 9th grade culminating project. He outlines clear parameters for the students to ensure safety as they build their creations. However, every year a student surprises him with a highly creative, yet slightly dangerous design. Students seem keen to rip apart dated home electronics and use the innards for their academic gain. There have even been a handful of creations that he outright refused to plug in at school. DCACLab could provide these students the ability to plan and prepare for an invention that uses components of home electronics. They would be able to plan it all at school and then attempt the build at home. It also allows them to test for safety in between iterations. Eliminating the potential for accidents that result from a small tweak or change. It would even allow them to publish their design to the internet community and seek feedback from more experienced individuals.
(I must say, I have in the past questioned him on the wisdom of having students build these devices when certain students continually disregard the guidelines and get wildly creative. However, that is not the objective of this post, I am merely looking for applications for technologies.
Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.
Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British journal of developmental psychology, 3(1), 21-29.
I first became interested in the idea of VR years ago when I read an article about the future of video games. The author predicted that the near-ish future would involve games where the player was practically unable to distinguish the virtual world from reality. At the time, the thought of this sounded incredible. Imagining a world in which I could play in the NHL with the speed and quickness of Paul Kariya? Could I take to the soccer pitch and have skills akin to that of David Beckham?
While the predictions in that article have yet to come true, it seems we are well on a way to fully immersive virtual worlds. I first became interested in VR/AR a few years ago while working on a MET project. Through the assignment I was able to see the great educational potential for this technology and have incorporated it into my teaching in a handful of ways. This past month, I was able to use an AR app called Quiver to achieve a modified outcome for a developmentally delayed student. Quiver is an app that turns coloring pages into 3D-interactive characters with the help of an iPad. For this specific assignment, the class was tasked with creating a 3D model of a vehicle using Tinkercad. Unfortunately, due to neuromuscular and cognitive challenges, this student was unable to complete the same project as the rest of the class. With the help of Quiver, she was able to stylize and bring to life her very own 3D model (similar to the picture below). This consistent with the benefits of AR/VR described by Adamo-Villani & Wilbur (2007), in which they applaud VR/AR’s ability to create safe, barrier-free environments for special needs students.
In working through the material this week, I happened upon the app VR MATH. This app is an interesting way of letting students manipulate and interact with different geometric shapes. It has the potential to be incredibly effective as it is highly engaging and provides students the ability to move, explore and interact. (Winn, 2002) While it is held back by its focus on Google Cardboard viewers and not more immersive VR platforms, VR MATH is an exciting indication of where this style of learning is headed. It won’t be long before a student is able to virtually stand in a room as it slowly fills with 1cm cubes. As these games continue to develop, the interaction available to students is set to increase. This movement adds to students’ ability to learn as it often primes the mind for the construction of knowledge. (Lindgren & Johnson-Glenberg, 2013)
VR/AR is still definitely in its early stages. The physical technology is developing rapidly, and the software needs some time to catchup. My only caution related to this has to do with a 100-year-old French cartoon we were presented at a recent PD opportunity.
As you can see, the prediction was that students seem fairly unengaged in their learning. The teacher is on the side feeding knowledge into a grinder, and it is somehow being imparted into their brains. Are we on track to be in a similar position, with VR headsets instead of headphones?
My questions for this technology would be as follows:
1) Is the scenario in the cartoon all that bad? If the technology is effective, should we shy away from it?
2) How can we prevent what we see in the cartoon? Specifically in regards to VR, if it is the best way to experience a math/science lesson, how do we responsibly manage it?
3) As the technology advances, will we as educators push to have more Embodied learning elements (movement etc.)? Or will we be at the mercies of tech companies as we so often are?
Adamo-Villani, N., & Wilbur, R. (2007, July). An immersive game for K-5 math and science education. In Information Visualization, 2007. IV’07. 11th International Conference (pp. 921-924). IEEE.
Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445-452.
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
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.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-905.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10086/abstract
T-GEM-Circuits
One of the areas where I find students struggle every year is the construction of parallel and series circuits. When using actual batteries/wires, students often are able to make a lightbulb glow or a motor run simply by randomly connecting different objects together. While this might accomplish a goal, it does not help build student understanding as to how circuits can be designed.
In looking through resources to help with this T-GEM lesson, I came upon a resource called Circuit World, provided by Cumbria and Lancashire Education Online (CLEO). Circuit World is incredibly helpful because it allows students to build circuits with no real room for false-positives, and lets students represent their circuits using 3 different visual themes.
Generate:
To start this lesson, I would demonstrate for students how to build a working circuit using Circuit World. I would then lead us in a talk about the difference between parallel and series circuits, culminating with the class building a parallel circuit together on the smartboard.
I would then ask students to build 2 different circuits; one using the larger lightbulb and the other using the smaller lightbulbs. I would also ask them to add switches so that both lightbulbs could be used independently.
Attached to this section I would ask the following questions:
-Why do you think our original circuit design was not able to light up the large lightbulb?
-Why is switch placement so important? Were there places you put the switch that didn’t help with the goal of operating them independently?
-Did anyone happen to burn out a lightbulb? (A common problem of adding too many batteries.)
Evaluate:
Next, I would present a number of circuits to students that are non-functional. I would then ask them to recreate the circuit on their own computer, but improve it by making it functional. The problems with circuits here would range from simple (no battery) to more advanced (more bulbs than the batteries can power) to quite difficult (wiring all over the place).
Modify:
For this final step, I would ask students to get creative with their circuit design. I would ask that they use newer elements (resistors) and incorporate them into their previous circuits. What effect do these new elements have? How do they change what you are able to do with the circuit? I would also challenge them to use a variety of output devices (alarm, motor) instead of just lightbulbs. How do series and parallel circuits differ when adding in a variety of output devices?
LfU Infused Programming
Currently, I am about to start a programming mini-unit with my class. I’ve mentioned it before, so I won’t go into too much background, but its purpose is to help wrap up our unit on electricity. I feel that the LfU model of motivation, construction and refinement could breathe life into students learning how to effectively code. (Edelson, 2001)
This project involves students using the program Scratch. They have some previous understanding of it from past years. However, the goal of the past was to make “basic, functional” programs. I believe LfU can be essential in taking students into the realm of the the advanced-functional.
Motivate
I would start this LfU-based activity by having students explore different games created on Scratch. Have them create a short-list of games that they think are excellent, both in fun and quality. Students will then create a list of attributes detailing what makes these games so great. The goal of this portion is to let students realize how far the Scratch program can take them, and also have them asking questions about how exactly others were able to create such robust programs.
Construct
Students would them be directed to ‘look under the hood’ of these top-notch games and see how exactly they were programmed. Much of the methods will be new to them, but should conceptually make sense based on their previous experience. Through exploring, tweaking and changing some of this code, students will be able to understand how to build and manipulate more advanced elements. I would then challenge them to add 1 or 2 of these elements to a Scratch game that they created last year.
Reflect
For this final part of the journey, I would have students make a short 3-4 Google Slides presentation in which they:
I would also emphasize the importance of including screenshots in their presentation as it will let us grasp what they are communicating far easier. This both gives them an opportunity to think through the learning and process it further through sharing.
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
Moving on from Gasoline: The End of an Era or Wishful Thinking?
The WISE lesson I chose to examine and modify was called “Chemical Reactions and Alternative Fuels: Making a Change.” There are two main sections to the lesson. The first dives into the chemical reaction that takes place when gasoline is ignited. It then explores information on increasing carbon dioxide rates globally. The second section introduces the learner to alternative fuels. It briefly looks at different methods of producing electricity and asks the student to form some ideas about what the best solution would be going forward. Both halves of this assignment have an emphasis of making a claim, backing it up with evidence, and providing reasoning for suggestions. Ultimately, this lesson culminates with students writing a persuasive letter to their congressman.
I was really impressed with this lesson and thought it did a good job in drawing in cross-curricular elements (letter writing), a call to action and strong science teaching. However, there are a few major tweaks that I made.
First, this lesson has students writing down important information in their notebook. I instead created them all a Google Slides presentation, and would have students do their journaling-type activities there. By doing this in a presentation format, it provides opportunity for students to easily share their learning with a group of other people. The explanation of this would be simple: What if your elected official invites you to their office to pitch your ideas in person? Reading journal entries is far less engaging than a well-constructed presentation.
Second, I added a compare and contrast chart after different methods of electricity generation are introduced. One small weakness with this lesson is that it doesn’t look at the other complexities related to producing electricity. (ie. Wind turbines make noise, nuclear is hard to dispose of) This would have students look at the broader pros/cons of coal, wind and hydro. This serves to help them better formulate quality conclusions on the issue, as well as drive home the understanding that there is no easy overnight solution to fossil fuels. This chart is supplemented with two videos that debate for/against the use of wind turbines.
Finally, I added in a link to Clipchamp where students can record a 30 second ‘elevator explanation’ of their proposal. A short snippet to show a prospective listener what they are all about, and demonstrate their depth of understanding on the topic. While not directly in the lesson, I would implement the 3rd goal of WISE (having students learn from each other) by encouraging students to watch the videos of 4-5 of their peers. (Linn, Clark, Slotta, 2003)
The changes I have suggested for this lesson aim to modernize some of the technology use, and help students better communicate their learning going forward. The core content of this lesson was very strong and it already did a stellar job of communicating the science behind internal combustion engines.
Given the quality of scaffolding that occurs in this lesson, I would let students work on it independently during science classes. I would allocate 40 minute periods for them to pick away at it over the course of a week.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10086/abstract
Question: Creating digital video is now more available and more efficient than it was when the Jasper series were initially developed. Briefly, if given the opportunity, what kind of mathematical or science adventure might you design? Why? Pay attention to your underlying assumptions about teaching and learning regarding your design and your definition of technology. How would instruction in this adventure help to address misconceptions in math or science for some students?
Answer: If I could create any sort of adventure, it would definitely be a combination of the more difficult math and science concepts found the grade 5 Alberta curriculum. More specifically, these concepts would involve:
Math:
– 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication
– solving equations with one variable
– 3-digit by 1-digit division
Science:
– building a variety of circuits using discovery methods
– reading electricity meters
In creating an adventure environment for this, I feel it would be highly engaging to have an escape room type scenario. For those of you unfamiliar with the escape room concept, you can watch a short explanation video here. This could be completed by actually building the escape room, or by having fictional characters in a video series. Lately a number of my students have been raving about their time in an escape room, and some of their highlights have been all about the learning that occurred during their unsuccessful escape attempts.
The goal would be for this scenario to follow the “Guided Generation” model, outlined by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). In this model, students are put in relatively complex situations where all of the goals for completion are not explicitly specified. One of the main keys to successfully using this model is scaffolding learning appropriately, while still giving opportunity for students to generate their own understanding.
While the theme of the escape room could always be different, it could include elements that required students to complete circuits to open locks. They could potentially repair a radio and send a message out. The opportunities are endless, both in their possibilities and in their difficulty. It provides opportunities for students to solve a problem in a variety of ways. Which lends to different learning styles, and gives learners a chance to re-enter the room and try to be successful in a different way.
While the concepts used would require some pre-teaching, this type of scenario could show students how the math and science isn’t just theoretical or busy-work. Especially when it comes to the more difficult multiplication problems, I often get the complaint-question “when will we ever do this in real life, we have cell phones now.” There also seems to be a misconception with science that what is learned at school cannot be further developed outside of the classroom. While I think this may come from teachers’ well intended cautions about playing with electricity and chemicals, it can often lead to an unfortunate stifling of students’ passion for learning. This escape room type adventure could both illuminate the usefulness of learned concepts, as well as demonstrate its different applications.
The escape room model could also be sprinkled in throughout different lessons.
For Example:
This would let students be introduced to circuits/division without any teaching. During the lessons, hopefully a lightbulb would go off in which they realize this is the clue for a specific part of the room.
My ideas aren’t entirely solidified yet, but this is what I’ve been mulling over this past week. I feel it would build upon the quality ideas in the Jasper Research while also pulling in more recent PBL theories and best practices.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992a). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40(1), 65-80.
Park, K., & Park, S. (2012). Development of professional engineers’ authentic contexts in blended learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E14-E18.
Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2005). Technology-supported math instruction for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development.
This week for me was one of the most beneficial weeks of learning that I’ve had in a long time. I’ve taken other courses where peers have frequently referred to the TPACK model. Group mates have brought it up repeatedly in conversation. Up to this point, I have only done enough study of it so I’m not lost when in these situations.
This week has truly been illuminating for me, and now I feel both knowledgeable and informed about PCK and TPCK. When reading through the first Shulman (1986) article, I was really taken aback by how rigorously teachers were tested on their content knowledge. Nowadays I’ve heard the statement dozens of times that a teacher only need be “one lesson ahead of the students” in terms of their understanding of the content. Shulman (1986) clearly posits that content knowledge should not be left behind, yet should not be the entire focus of teacher training. It needs to be coupled with the more recent focus on pedagogy.
Incorporating technology into the dynamic is a necessity given the direction the world is headed in. My incorporating Technology into PCK, we are able to incorporate the best of teaching content and pedagogical knowledge with the learning affordances available through technology. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
In my own classroom, we annually tackle the concepts of 2-digit by 2-digit multiplication. 48×75 seems to be a challenging question for most 10 year olds. My first few years of doing this, I taught directly what the textbook had, and had the students answer textbook questions. (Rather PK in nature.) As I grow as a teacher, I have been able to teach the concepts with many of my own tips and tricks, while still incorporating information from the textbook and other resources. Students then answer the questions from the textbook. (Getting into that PCK zone.) Currently I am using a similar teaching method, but completely avoiding the textbook questions. I have been using an online game called Prodigy that lets me select the type of questions students answer. Students receive immediate feedback about their answers, and practice their math skills in a manner that is highly engaging and doesn’t at all feel like ‘work.’ (Now arriving the TPCK zone.) For good measure, I ask students to come and check-in with me if the every get 2 questions wrong in a row. In addition to this, I have a full table that shows students’ instant results.
I can easily say that teaching this multiplication in a more TPCK-style is incredibly successful, especially when compared to just PK. When compared to PCK, it is highly engaging and more motivating for students. As I continue to teach, I am constantly looking for more math and science concepts that I can move towards the TPCK arena of teaching.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4 -14.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.