Author Archives: caleb poole

Overclocking Learning

Overclocking Learning 

Of the different definitions we looked at, the one that I could connect with the most was Chris Dede as he agreed with Trotter (1988).

Chris Dede, in his forward to Robert Kozma (2003) agrees with Trotter (1998) that technology is not a “vitamin” whose mere presence in schools catalyzes better educational outcomes; nor are new media just another subject in the curriculum, suited primarily for teaching technical literacy….Instead, emerging interactive media are tools in service of richer curricula, enhanced pedagogies, more effective organization structures, stronger links between schools and society, and the empowerment of disenfranchised learners (Kozma, 2003).

I find this to be an accurate and spot-on definition largely based on my experience with teaching. I started teaching right after our district got Smartboards in all of their classrooms. I have always been interested in computers and enjoy figuring them out, so I found that my way of doing things easily embraced the Smartboard. However, a number of teachers that I worked with really struggled with the transition. The talk in the staffroom was often “these new whiteboard things are useless. My kids grades aren’t going up at all and they still need to be erased.”  

Some of these teachers had misunderstood the purpose of these boards. They thought they were going to magically improve student achievement, almost like a plug-and-play grades-improver. When Chris Dede emphasized that they aren’t just some vitamin, I get that. He goes on to explain how technology provides the opportunity for deeper, enhanced learning opportunities. 

I completely agree with this, and see it very similar to overclocking a computer. For the unfamiliar, overclocking is when you make a computer processor run at a faster speed than originally intended. This would be somewhat similar to putting an aftermarket exhaust on a car. In making the processor run faster you are able to more quickly run programs, and often you are able to run new programs that your computer previously couldn’t handle. By enhancing a learning environment with technology, we should be able to communicate complicated concepts more quickly and effectively. Ultimately, achieving more meaningful or deeper levels of learning. 

Take the example of teaching about the atom. For many years it was merely a picture on a piece of paper. Today you can easily throw a 3d interactive model up and lets students move throughout an atom. Looking at the nucleus from afar, and then zooming in on the nucleus and watching the electrons orbit around. 

What once took a significant amount of time for students to picture in their mind is now done almost instantly, and rather painlessly. Much akin to overclocking a computer, previous ways of learning can be done faster, more complicated concepts can be tackled, but the learning environment is not turned completely upside down. ​

Depth, Accessibility and Differentiation

Depth, Accessibility and Differentiation

This assignment had me interviewing a colleague name Trina. She works in a K-9 school situated in Alberta. Trina has been teaching grade 5 for three years, transitioning from four years of teaching grade 1. The interview was conducted after the school day in an empty classroom in Trina’s school. Trina currently has 23 students and has taught math and science in both grade 1 and grade 5. Her classroom has one-to-one Chromebooks as well as a cart of iPads that can be brought in. While Trina is not responsible for any technology programming school wide, she is well versed in a variety of technologies and runs the school yearbook club.

In talking with Trina, three main themes came up regarding technology: depth, accessibility and independence.

Depth

Trina communicated to me that technology facilitates a depth of learning that is far deeper than a textbook and often goes further than what an individual teacher can provide. She remarked, “they [students] have access to all the teachers on the internet that can help explain a concept they are having trouble with.” She also explained that science is her favourite subject to teach because there are online resources that show “what I [Trina] am not able to show.” An example of this would be the exchange of electrons with electricity.

When speaking about students’ today, she remarked that “I think they have a really, really unique experience.” She went on to explain this is because they have close proximity to such an abundance of information, whereas during Trina’s education her learning ended with the worksheet or the textbook.

Accessibility

 It came up a couple of times in the interview how accessibility to technology is key, and through that most all known information is then accessible. When comparing the one-to-one Chromebooks with the old days of a computer lab she clearly established “A computer lab is not accessible.” She went further to explain that one-to-one access is essential because it provides them the chance to have a more realistic interaction with the technology. She finds that her students use the technology often, “If they are reading and find a word they don’t understand, they pull out their Chromebook right there.” Accessibility enables students to not be ‘left hanging’ if they are wondering about a topic.

In a conversation with Trina after our interview, she reiterated the fact that having a lab is simply not sufficient in today’s world. Students need to be able to taught how to properly manage instant access to devices.

Independence

 In listening through the recording again when transcribing, it jumped out at me how much Trina emphasized the ability of technology to facilitate the creation of independent learners. She went so far as to state that students “need to learn how to be able to learn, rather than learn specific things we want them to learn.” While she did also mention that the curriculum is important, Trina saw the world as rapidly changing, and was clear that she things the ‘sage on the stage’ days of learning are dead.

When analyzing the interview further, Trina seemed to see this independence in a few different ways. Firstly, it gives the students a chance to independently learn about topics of their choosing. They are not restricted to topic in a text or books in a library. Secondly, it allows independent programming (differentiation) when dealing most specifically with math. Thirdly, it allows them to become independent learners. Learning both on their own time, or answering their own questions in class using technology

Video 1+6

In my previous post on assumptions I presented 5 ideas that I thought lead to quality use of technology in the math and science classroom. This week, I viewed video 1 and video 6.

Video 1 takes place in an advanced STEM class where technology is paired with various concepts from physics and chemistry to find creative ways to solve existing problems. Video 6 takes place in a middle school setting in which students’ pair technology with their existing work. They use the technology to provide alternative assignments and deeper learning activities.

In watching video 1 specifically, the once idea that really jumped out was concerning the foundation of student understanding. Repeatedly in the videos, students comment on how they only understand what is happening because of a previous course. Teacher M even comments that some foundational knowledge is missing, which is ridiculous. As a result, he supplements the curriculum with other knowledge he thinks the students should know.

It is interesting seeing how video 1 features students that have benefitted from rich technology programming and video 6 presents a school that is newer in their tech-teaching journey. In my analysis I will try not to compare the two in a harsh manner as both are doing their best with available tools and training.

I will evaluate both of these videos within the 5 categories I presented previously.

Technology use in the classroom todays needs to flow seamlessly with other work. 

Video 1: Technology in the classroom flows seamlessly because the class has a focus on technology. Teacher M is also of ‘super teacher’ caliber and has a deep understanding of all learning areas, so he is able to direct students towards technology that is best suited for their application.

Video 6: This case sees technology essentially acting as an add-on to the existing teaching practice. While this might not be considered seamless, it appears well received by students and they enjoy the opportunity to learn (and present learning) in various ways.

 Good technology use should take risks.

Video 1: Here we see technology taking all sorts of risks. Students are designing Arduino based temperature control devices. They have a high likelihood of failing, and are fairly advanced…but students are trying it! Teacher M also provides realistic and challenging assignments for students that require them to take risks.

Video 6: The risks taken by this teacher are quite different. He comments on how the funding for technology was not easy to acquire. If his students don’t produce any sort of successful or attractive content, the well will dry up quite quickly. His risk is more school-organizational than video 1 but still very much a daunting reality. In trying to help his students thrive, he runs the risk of himself failing in this endeavor.

Technology must provide opportunity for differentiation.

Video 1: There are a variety of different projects and challenges for students. There are also different roles for group members within these projects. This provides students the opportunity to do ‘different things’ with technology, but doesn’t necessarily see it used as a differentiation tool.

Video 6: One of the students interviewed in this video directly highlights the fact that different students learn in different ways. Through technology, students have a change to learn in an increasing number of ways. It is very clear that in this case technology is most definitely a differentiation tool.

Technology should be taught.

Video 1: In this video students comment on learning concepts in past years. The teacher then builds on this knowledge and provides a connection to technology. It is expressly clear that the learning students are doing in this class could not be accomplished if not for the chemistry/physics/STEM concepts that were taught in previous years.

Video 6: The different interviewees in this case communicate that technology is being taught directly to students. This is in large part due to the fact that the technology is fairly new to the school and students do not have experience with it specifically. That said, it is also mentioned that students do have existing knowledge with technology in general, as many are often listening to their iPods in class.

Technology shouldn’t merely be a replacement for the current status quo.

Video 1: Technology is used to enhance, deepen and grow student understanding of previous concepts.

Video 6: The technology is used in-addition-to previous teaching, and not as a simple straight across replacement.

Conclusion:

While I feel both schools are doing a solid job with the available technology, it is hard not to be impressed by what is happening in video 1. Teacher M is a rock star, and is able to clearly communicate problems and solutions to students in a way that leads to truly impressive results. Video 6 has a school newer on the journey, but trying hard and accomplishing what they can.

As a final closing note, access to technology is one major question that came to mind when comparing these two videos. The school in video 1has programming classes, STEM classes and intro computing. It seems that there is an abundance of technology within the building, and teachers are doing a great job of managing it. Video 6 sees the teacher having to raise much of the funds himself for technology. From the outcomes occurring in each classroom, there does seem to be something to ease of access and student accomplishments.

 

 

Good Technology Use

When I think about using technology in the math and science classroom, my mind shoots back to my own schooling experience where we had to march down to a computer lab to research science topics. This brings me to my starting point: technology use in the classroom todays needs to flow seamlessly within the learning environment. It shouldn’t require an entire class to disrupt their learning to enter a room full of technology. It should be managed in a way where it is available to students in a way that seems natural and not a departure from the ordinary. Good technology use should takes risks. Best practices aren’t magically incubated in some distant laboratory and implemented with great success. Educators must try, fail and improvise in order to find out how to most effectively use the tools at their disposal. Technology must provide opportunity for differentiation. Whether that is a slightly different assignment option or an avenue for further study. Technology should be flexible enough to effectively scaffold instruction for all students. Technology should be taught.  We can’t go on assuming kids have an excellent understanding of technology just because they have grown up around it. Proper implementation of technology requires students to be shown how to use it, to the student’s full potential. Lastly, technology shouldn’t merely be a replacement for the current status quo. Too many times we replace lined paper with Google Docs simply because we can. Making a replacement is fine as long as there are actual educational benefits.

While not exhaustive, that’s my current list of what constitutes good technology use. This is far from being a concrete list, and will undoubtedly grow throughout the coming weeks of this course.

 

 

Misconceptions…are we the cause?

In the video A Private Universe, a student named Heather struggles to understand the concepts surrounding the earth’s seasons. The root of her problem seems to be a misunderstanding of the earth’s rotation, and a lack of knowledge regarding the earth’s axis. While there was much in this video, the part that stuck with me the most was precisely where she got the information that formed her misconception of the earth’s orbit.

As the video progresses, it becomes clear that her incorrect idea of the earth’s path of travel actually came from a different diagram presented to her by the teacher. In essence, her wrong understanding was an extrapolation based on accurate information given to her by the teacher.

This got me thinking about a teacher’s role in forming and breaking student misconceptions.

This past week, I was working with one of my gifted math students on the concept of converting square units. While he routinely works at the grade 7 and 8 level with little support, this young grade 5 student struggled mightily with these conversions.

In conferencing with the student, he explained quite clearly what was going on in his head.

Student: You see, 1cm is equal to 10mm. Throwing a little floating two above the unit does not change the relationship between these numbers. Math is consistent, it doesn’t change on a whim.

 

Except, this isn’t consistent, at least not in the way he was thinking.

He clearly understood how to convert measurements of length, and was directly applying this to measurements of area. However, he was missing out on a few key points, and was getting frustrated when he wasn’t able to find out the answers correctly.

He was missing the fact that square units involve the multiplication of other measurements, and not just a straight line. I then showed him the following diagram.

After explaining how the conversion process is entirely different the student remarked “I get it now. It’s like how when you square a unit, you don’t multiply it by two, you multiply it by itself.”

This diagram was able to help the student realize that his first comments were indeed correct. Math is consistent. However, he was trying to make this concept be consistent with something markedly different. The student’s misconception made sense because I had taught him a similar, correct concept. In his mind, it was a short jump to apply it to this new one.

This interaction aligns clearly with the observation made by Driver, Guesne and Tiberghien (1985). In the opening paragraphs of their article they observe two students that conclude the higher an object falls from, the faster it will fall, with no limits. Thus, dropping a small object from altitude could easily kill a person down below. They applied their knowledge of acceleration and their observations of gravity to come to a sensible, yet incorrect conclusion. These young men used what they were taught to make reasonable extensions, yet they turned out to be incorrect.

This highlights an important point by Philip Sadler and Gerhard Sonnert (2016) in their analysis of science-based misconceptions. Specifically, they looked whether or not it is adequate merely for a teacher be knowledgeable in their content area. They clearly assert that students are often not at fault for forming their misconceptions, as they are ideas that make perfect sense to them. Through a test-based study they come to conclude that a teacher being an expert in their field is simply not enough. A teacher must also have a deep knowledge of student misconceptions, and teach to these misconceptions. Without doing this a teacher is simply presenting material, not presenting the material in the way students require.

In light of these findings by Sadler and Sonnert (2016), I am going to tweak the way I do some of my math instruction from here on out. In the past, I have presented new concepts and then dealt with a student’s misconceptions in a one-on-one manner. However, looking to the future I plan on presenting and defeating misconceptions while I am introducing the new topics. I’m learning that too often as educators we will teach exciting new concepts, but we fail to teach where the boundaries of these concepts lie….and when our students run with these concepts, they often run too far.

 

Works Cited

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

Sadler, P. M., & Sonnert, G. (2016). Understanding misconceptions: Teaching and learning in middle school physical science. American Educator, 40(1), 26.

 


 

 

Typing Class and The Internet

I have two vivid memories of using technology as a young student. The first takes place in the small computer lab that was under the stairs in my elementary school. We had 30 of the old-school little grey Macs, the ones that had black and white screens. The class was called LA-Computers and pretty much solely focused on typing skills. We would be given sheets to type out, and our teacher would walk around behind us with a meter stick, slapping our knuckles when we were off home-row. While the act of slapping a student’s hand with a piece of wood may seem rather abusive, but it certainly did impress on me the importance of hand placement…ultimately making me a stronger typer.

 

My second memory has to do with my first introduction to the internet. I clearly remember walking past the grade 6 classroom as a lower elementary student, and seeing the teachers getting connected to the internet for the first time. Popping my head in, they seemed blown away. Comments like “it’s literally like a newspaper, just on the screen” and “there is SO MUCH stuff on here” were flowing from their mouths. Seeing me in the doorway, one of the teachers invited me to come back one day after school so we could “surf the web.” From there it was about 3 years until we had a computer at home, and I had to beg my mom to get off the phone so I could dial-in and play some sort of basic game like Oregon Trail. It was at least another 4 years though until I was using the internet at school for any sort of helpful research.

 

 

Hello from Sherwood Park, Alberta!

Hey Everyone,

My name is Caleb Poole and I am from Sherwood Park, Alberta. I currently teach grade 5  in nearby Fort Saskatchewan and am in my 5th year of teaching. I must say, I think grade 5 is really the sweet spot of elementary. Their world is starting to expand quickly and it’s not ‘all about me’ but they don’t have that end-of-grade-6 cocky going on yet.

This is my 9th MET course. I am also taking ETEC 590 at the same time and am very excited to graduate this semester. This is my first semester taking 2 courses, but I also won’t be coaching this term…which will be nice. Other courses I have taken (in order) are: 500, 522, 565M, 511, 512, 510, 520 and 540.

In this course, I am really hoping to gain some practical ways to better my Math/Science instruction through the use of technology. Currently I use mostly games and virtual manipulatives, but I know there is so much more that I could be doing. It’s my hope that this course has a fair bit of practical and isn’t solely theoretical/historical in its focus.

In my spare time, I am decently active. I enjoy playing basketball, volleyball and flag football. I also regularly get out on the snowboard or dirt bike when the season is right. I coach volleyball at school and lead a bit of an informal 3D printing club with interested students. I enjoy learning about all things tech related and often find myself up far too late reading different blogs.

I’m excited to work with and learn from all of you over the next few months!