Author Archives: gordon chiu

TPK + PCK = TPACK? = LEARNING???

As a Technology Integration Specialist, I spend much of my time helping teachers “to reason soundly about their teaching as well as perform skillfully” (Shulman, 1987, p. 13). The process of reasoning is collaborative as teachers must have a stronger concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and I usually have stronger concept of technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK). Thus, teachers have a better sense of “what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9), and I have better “knowledge of the existence, components, and capabilities of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning settings” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028).

A typical exchange with a teacher would start with a meeting where we discuss lesson plans and/or curriculum maps; we would go over the learning outcomes and discuss pedagogical practices that have been effective in developing student thinking and knowledge. For instance, one of my Math teachers discussed using the Harkness method and how it helped students work through more difficult problems collaboratively. From my previous interactions with the English Department, I suggested a new application called “Parlay Ideas” which facilitates Harkness style learning; with this application, students feel more comfortable sharing ideas and teachers can quickly track student learning with visual snapshots of each student’s participation/performance. After the implementation and trial period, several follow-up meetings were conducted to refine the use of the technology.

In a perfect TPACK world, every teacher would understand their content, what strategies are useful in helping students learn that content, and which technologies can provide effective enhancement to the learning process. One might argue that this framework sounds awfully teacher-centered; there is a huge push for teachers to fall into the background and allow the “human learner (to be) involved in learning and ultimately the construction of knowledge” (Jonassen et al., 1994, p. 31). Is TPACK the best model to promote student learning? How far should the pendulum swing between teacher-centered and student-centered learning?

Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational technology research and development, 42(2), 31-39.

Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching. The foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1)1-23.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

From Compliant to Impassioned

Muffoletto (1994) emphasizes that “technology is not a collection of machines and devices, but a way of acting.” Currently, there is no shortage of technology enhanced learning experiences (TELEs) that help to engage students in different ways of acting. As Trotter (1998) argues, the presence of technology does not automatically create better educational outcomes, it depends on how we engage students with technology. There are a number of frameworks for technology integration and learning objectives, but not many on student engagement. Teachers often identify student excitement with effective engagement, unfortunately that assumption can be misguided. Perhaps a better way forward is to attempt to create a framework for engagement. Below is a visualization of a framework adapted from Beairsto (2010) that attempts to identify engagement as a continuum:

In relation to technology, an “interested” level of engagement is characteristic of many game-based technologies that simply turn learning into a consumption event. At a higher “impassioned” level of engagement, student learning is transformative, self-driven and self-sustaining; this level is characteristic of many cases were students turn class projects into successful companies.

This may sound crazy, but if I were to design a technology enhanced learning experience, I would aim to challenge the student(s) with a real world problem of personal importance. The “way of acting” would employ any technology tool that helps the student solve the problem, and include a goal for the solution to be widely used beyond the school environment.

Beairsto, B. (2010). Engagement in learning: Finding the depth beyond diligence. Retrieved from https://tc2.ca/uploads/PDFs/Critical%20Discussions/engagement_in_learning.pdf.

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

Trotter, A. (Ed.) (1998). Technology counts 1998: Putting school technology to the test (special report). Education Week, 18(5).

Real-Time, Speed, Location

For this exercise, I interviewed a colleague at Pickering College, an independent K-12 school with about 450 students. “Jackie” has been teaching Math for over 17 years and is currently teaching academic and enhanced Math in Grades 10-12. She is also the Math Department Head, so she has played a main role in the recent update of the school’s K-12 Math Program. The interview was conducted face-to-face on January 23, 2018 in one of the small meeting rooms and audio recorded using an iPad. My goal for the session was to determine any commonalities in the technologies that she thought were effective in her classroom, and explore the implications for future technologies.

Real-Time

Several of the technologies that Jackie highlighted in the interview emphasized the benefit of real-time “data” to improve instruction. For instance, Microsoft OneNote is currently being used not only as a virtual notebook, but also to understand student thinking and give “direct feedback” when necessary. Game based quizzing platforms like Kahoot not only makes learning engaging for students, but also enables Jackie to quickly “know who understands” concepts without singling out each student for an answer.  Classroom activities in Desmos gives Jackie the ability to “see them (students) complete each screen in real-time” which helps her understand which students are struggling and need additional guidance.

Speed

Another common thread that Jackie emphasized throughout the interview was the ability of certain technologies to quickly engage student minds and eliminate misconceptions. For instance, an application like Geogebra helps teachers to show shapes and graphs “from almost any angle” thus improving the visualization of concepts. Similarly, Desmos makes the “teaching of ideas more smooth and less tedious” by simplifying the creation and manipulation of graphs which enables the user to focus on understanding the concepts. From a technical perspective, the consistency of the well established 1-to-1 laptop program enables teachers/students to get on task; it also gives teachers the confidence to try new applications.

Location

The last common thread from the interview was the use of technology platforms to extend learning beyond the traditional classroom. For instance, Jackie uses Microsoft OneNote to deliver units and entire online courses with the addition of Khan Academy, Edpuzzle, and other applications. From a curricular perspective, “the Math curriculum in Ontario for High School is very pre-calculus based and sometimes that takes up so much effort that we are losing interesting things that students would be able to engage with.” Within the newly developed Senior School Enhanced Math Program, the plan is to integrate STEM to increase the breadth of learning and go outside the expectations of the Ontario curriculum.

This interview continues to develop certain questions in my head about the future of educational technology. It is certain that computers have to the ability to be faster and more accurate at many tasks. In the past 5 years, my school has integrated a couple Math practice applications that boast intelligent real-time analysis, to guide students with precise differentiation and speed, in a fully online platform that can be accessed from any location with an Internet connection. Will these types of AI (artificial intelligence) driven systems fundamentally change learning and redefine the purpose of teachers?

The Underlying Vision

The Middle School program at my school is arguably less developed than the Junior and Senior School programs. Like the middle child, its sense of identity is overshadowed by the younger and older siblings; the exciting, explorative Junior School Program and the creative, culminating Senior School Program seem more attractive, at least on paper. I chose Video Cases 5&6 because they were focused on grades that would be considered Middle School at my school. I wanted to get a sense of how technology was being integrated; as I talked about in my previous post, was technology being used at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and SAMR model?

In case 6, we see a teacher who has incorporated technology in the classroom in various forms including PowerPoint, podcasts, animated gifs, audiography, and videography. One of the underlying issues that came out of this video was the overall vision for technology in schools. The teacher learned most of the technology by himself and the tools were implemented primarily to connect with students and give alternate ways of learning content. Students played an active role in teaching and explaining content which helped to synthesize main concepts. The school seemed to have a grass-roots approach to technology implementation and arguably lacked an overall direction of what they wanted their students to accomplish through technology. This begs the question, do schools really need strategic plans for technology or will teachers implement technology in the higher levels of Bloom’s and SAMR organically? A comparison of schools with a well thought out technology plan and those without any plan might shed some light on whether it has any impact on how technology is implemented.

In case 5, we see a school where one teacher has embraced technology and implemented it in various forms; some of these forms are quite noteworthy as they accomplished tasks that were not possible before the introduction of technology (communication with RAWA in Afghanistan). Two other teachers, a retiree and a new teacher, expressed their apprehension with technology citing lack of time and lack of confidence with technology. Professional development was provided but that did not seem to encourage these teachers to implement technology in a concerted way. Is the underlying issue a lack of clear vision for technology? Is it a lack of prioritization by the school to give teachers the time and resources? How can PD be improved to ensure greater buy-in with teachers?

 

Thinking and Collaboration

As some of you have already alluded to, a good use of technology would be any technology that engages students at the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy and SAMR model. Instead of technology that merely digitizes traditional learning, students should be encouraged to develop critical and design thinking skills while solidifying core knowledge. For instance in the science classroom, 3D modeling, 3D printers, and laser cutters, enable students to iterate and solve real-world problems in physics and structural design.

In addition, a good use of technology would also include any technology that enables collaboration and communication. Most jobs in the real-world require people to be effective in group settings. It is quite rare for one person to take on a large scale problem. Many current applications including Slack and Google Apps are already being used effectively in the math and science classroom to facilitate communication and group work. The more connected students are to the teacher and other students, the more likely misconceptions will be eliminated due to the exposure to different minds; student universes can no longer be private in environments that are strongly interconnected.

It is obvious that these ideas require a lot of work from teachers to implement effectively. However, school administrators also need to have a similar mindset and understanding of what makes digital technology “good”. Budgets need to shift quickly to eliminate technologies that have little impact on student learning and shift to technologies that do. For instance, ten years ago SMARTBoards were found in many modern math and science classrooms; teachers and administrators have now realized that the large budget required can be invested in better ways.

 

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.

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

A Place of Uncomfortableness

As teachers we have a natural inclination to help students understand what we understand to be true. Ultimately, our teaching methods can often be described quite simply in one of three ways:

  1. GIVE them the right answer
  2. GUIDE them with some clues
  3. LEAVE them to struggle on their own

The challenge that we have probably all struggled with is knowing which strategy or combination of strategies is best in teaching a concept or skill. Often times we help students by “scaffolding” concepts which can be seen as a delicate balancing act between the three methods; elements that are beyond the students’ capacity or ability are “controlled” to permit them to focus and learn new concepts and skills (Wood et al., 1976, p.90). The main problem that has been eating at my soul is that our controlling nature does not give enough time for students to struggle, to sit in a place of uncomfortableness and discover the truth.

From the video “A Private Universe”, it was evident that Heather accepted some of the information on the seasons and the phases of the moon as communicated by the teacher. Unfortunately, a few of her misconceptions still lingered in modified and incorrect forms. As described by Driver et al. (1985), “students may ignore counter-evidence or interpret it in terms of their prior ideas” (p. 3). During the follow-up session with Heather two weeks later, the evaluator employed two different strategies to address Heather’s misconceptions. In the first case, Heather was given time to struggle with the phases of the moon and eventually came to understand the explanation supported by current scientific evidence. In the second case, Heather was given direct instruction with a diagram describing direct and indirect light, but continued to assimilate her previous misconceptions into her thinking. This one case certainly does not prove the pedagogical superiority of allowing students to struggle over direct instruction, but it forces us to question our teaching methods and the value of student agency. As indicated by Shapiro (1988), it is important to encourage learners to reflect on their own learning processes, so that they might take an even more active role and responsibilities for their own learning (p. 114).

A related article by Shepardson et al. (2009) emphasized how seventh grade students held rudimentary concepts about global warming and climate change and lacked a rich conceptualization of the issue (p. 563). What would be the best way forward then? One important lesson that can be learned from Heather’s video is that understanding pre-conceptualizations, no matter how deep, can help in developing an effective teaching strategy. You probably have a couple technologies in mind that could help in the understanding of student thinking – here are some that have had impact in my school:

  1. Mind mapping apps like Mindomo help students develop concept maps
  2. Screen sharing apps like Screencastify help students explain their ideas with illustrations and audio recordings
  3. Conversation apps like Flipgrid to leverages the power of video and group learning
  4. Journaling apps like Microsoft OneNote helps students record and develop ideas over time

As a final thought, I wonder if we as educators spend enough time sitting in a place of uncomfortableness. Do we blindly accept scientific concepts and theories or do we challenge ourselves and spend the time struggling within them?

 

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

Shapiro, B. L. (1988). What children bring to light: Towards understanding what the primary school science learner is trying to do. Developments and dilemmas in science education, 96-120.

Shepardson, D. P., Niyogi, D., Choi, S., & Charusombat, U. (2009). Seventh grade students’ conceptions of global warming and climate change. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 549-570.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Pet Computers?

At the risk of completely dating myself, I distinctly remember my first interaction with computers around Grade 3 as a group of us crowded around a singular Commodore PET computer in the corner of the classroom. Most the time spent with this PET consisted of playing a game where you controlled a virtual fish that could only eat smaller fish; attempting to eat larger fish taught you a hard lesson about ecology.

Fast forward to 2012 and a new job as an IT Help Desk Support Technician at Pickering College. Twenty brand new iPads landed in my office with a simple list of requested applications for me to install.

As a new employee I did what I was told; I installed the apps immediately and placed them in a cart for our Junior School students/teachers to use. Later, I took it upon myself to observe these iPads being used in the classroom. The students seemed quite engaged in the educational games that the teachers had chosen. A question kept nagging at me though – after all this time and all the advancements in technology, was this the only outcome? A pet device to “edu-tain” students?

Salutations from Toronto, ON!

Hello everyone!

Where you are in your MET program and other courses you have taken?
What you hope to learn from this course?
Anything interesting you would like others to know about you (hobbies, pursuits, past-times, affiliations at work, memberships or previous jobs…)

My name is Gordon Chiu and I am a Technology Integration Specialist for Pickering College in Newmarket, Ontario, Canada. Our school focuses on developing resilient and capable learners that will be leaders in the global economy. My primary role is to work with teachers within all Grades K-12 to integrate technology in meaningful and effective ways that transform the modern classroom. This course is one of my two last courses in the MET so I am looking forward to graduating this spring! Feel free to ask me about any of these courses: ETEC 565M, 510, 540,  522, 532, 500, 512 and 511.

This course is very timely as my school is currently undergoing both a K-12 Math and Science review to ensure alignment to our Global Leadership Program, the Ontario Curriculum, and other pedagogical initiatives like STEM/STEAM, design thinking, integrative thinking, and critical thinking. I hope to gain knowledge that will help in our strategic and curriculum planning.

My personal life includes living life with my better half,  maintaining and upgrading my new home, jamming on various musical instruments, and trying not to break anything while snowboaring or playing golf.

I look forward to discussing technology in higher education and working with some of you directly in the near future!

Take care,

Gordon