ETEC 533 – Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom
I created a Website to house my final project, which I feel still needs a lot of work to fill out. Most of the work of the final project is in the academic paper but I have filled in the site with a few things I plan to build into it in the future.
https://mmetevans.wixsite.com/enigmatique
The learning for use framework we looked at in module B highlighted four principles: 1. Learning takes place through the construction and modification of knowledge structures. 2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process that is guided by a combination of conscious and unconscious understanding goals. 3. The circumstances in which knowledge is constructed and subsequently used determine its accessibility for future use. 4. Knowledge must be constructed in a form that supports use before it can be applied
My fear with young learners and complex tools like Netlogo is that the teacher becomes more of a troubleshooter for learners as they navigate the tools and less of a pedagogical expert, but I strongly believe in the power of digital tools to allow learners to access learning that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to experience. Often in my role as learning leader I find myself supporting classroom teachers who say the digital tool just doesn’t make sense for their young learners who can’t even log in to the computers and time and time again I show them it is possible with appropriate scaffolding. I found Netlogo to be clunky and difficult to navigate. For that reason, I create a series of lessons using Geogebra:
Sherry D. Parrish. (2011). Number Talks Build Numerical Reasoning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 18(3), 198-206. doi:10.5951/teacchilmath.18.3.0198
A powerful teaching for me from Elder Saa’kokoto (Randy Bottle) says that if you are a gifted a story, then you have an obligation to tell it. Stories are learned from the Elders and when retold are not to be added to or subtracted from. Stories and scientific knowing, too, in this way is passed from elder to learners and, in my opinion is an example of situated knowing, much the way the GLOBE project is and meets Bielaczyc and Collins (1999) definition of a learning community because it has (1) a diversity of expertise. All learners are considered teachers and become elders to those who come after them. There is (2) a shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills. It is essential that the ways of knowing science are passed forward and the ones who hold the knowledge are required to pass it forward. In listening to the stories the learner is expected to embody principle (3) an emphasis on learning how to learn because it is not enough to listen but it is an expectation to share what is learned. Principle (4) mechanisms for sharing what is learned may be the piece that is missing out of this experience of the Aboriginal perspective in sciences because the expertise lies in the elder. If the stories are not passed on then the knowledge goes with the elder. The Aboriginal context is knowing through community connections; knowledge without context is not knowing. The struggle, then, lies in creating the context within which scientific knowing can be shared within a larger community and still remain contextual.
GLOBE as a networked community of learners in sciences represents the four characteristics of a culture of learning because it demonstrates a diversity of expertise in that there is space for learners of all levels to contribute their data in a way that is scientifically rigorous. This participation in real-world use of data makes it relevant for students, in that they are not just collecting data for the sake of collecting data. When it is useful in a context students are more likely to see the value in a job well done. It demonstrates principle (2) a shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills because there is a “legacy document”, a tool that endures. And principle (3) an emphasis on learning how to learn. The tools serve a purpose in that students are introduced to data collection and learn how to collect data by collecting data. Finally, principle (4) mechanisms for sharing what is learned is embodied because the data on the Website endures and can be consulted by students and working scientists.
In my teaching practice, I am working very hard to reconcile Aboriginal ways of knowing with the way that I was taught science concepts and to reconcile situated learning with digitally augmented experiences that may remove learners from their environment.
Elder Randy Bottle, Circle teaching, March 2018
M.J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp. 287-320). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
This week, the two most interesting articles I read were Mirror Worlds and Deepening students’ scientific inquiry skills during a science museum field trip. While I found some elements of the field trips article problematic because it took for granted that teachers were too overworked to fully plan for a field trip to a museum that would meet their curricular outcomes, I found its focus on developing inquiry while on site interesting. In my personal experience, field trips are carefully planned with pre-visits to the site. The site is then used to seek answers previously asked or to spark inquiry that will be brought back into the classroom for later learning. In this article, Gutwill focuses on teaching students skills for inquiry through a shift from scientific knowing to scientific questioning.
Gautam, on the other hand, focused on “mirror worlds” in which the entire field trip is virtual and learners meet and collaborate with others in an online environment without ever leaving the classroom. Immersive education provides learners with the feeling of “being there” even when physical presence is not possible (Gautam, 2018) and there is a digital representation of real-world objects. This version of embodied instruction provides an exciting possibility, as described by Gautam et. al. because it allows users to collaborate in a common environment via remote locations, represented as avatars. It opens up possibilities for rich socio-cognitive learning amongst peers without expense and hassle of traveling to onsite learning environment.
For me, the learning this week was in separating embodied learning from situated learning. Situated cognition, Gautam writes, is best achieved when knowledge is situated in authentic contexts. The focus being on developing learning that is useful and not learning for the sake of learning. For the learning to be effective in this instance, the learner must feel present in the environment in order to construct their understanding. For this to happen there must be immediacy (synchronous interactions) and intimacy (ability to interact with others via proximity, eye-contact, etc.). This leads me to question the difference in cognitive benefits between learning onsite and learning via virtual environments. I would welcome your thoughts and further readings.
Gautam, A., Williams, D., Terry, K., Robinson, K., & Newbill, P. (2018). Mirror worlds: Examining the affordances of a next generation immersive learning environment. New York: Springer
Gutwill, J. P., & Allen, S. (2011). Deepening students’ scientific inquiry skills during a science museum field trip. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 130-181.
My school’s School Development Plan this year centres around improving math scores and one of the things we have been using to improve math fluency is number talks. I have found them particularly useful in my immersion context because it’s a way to get students talking in maths.
Number Talk Images has lots of good images that work well for primary students.
Which one doesn’t belong also generates a lot of good talk for my students.
All of these help my students see that there is often more than one path to follow in math problem solving and takes the pressure off of them for getting the “right” answer. I have seen them becoming more persistent problem solvers away from number talks.
I have not yet tried the zukei puzzles with my students but it’s something I’d like to try. Would love your thoughts on it!
| Theoretical Basis/ Objective | Approach | |
| Anchored instruction | Constructivist; scaffolded strategies;
Students benefit from repeated opportunities to engage in learning (Hobbs, p292) |
|
| SKI Wise | Scaffolded knowledge integration perspective; learning through inquiry; inquiry question must be sufficiently broad |
|
| LfU | Cognitive dissonance; creating a need for new knowledge | exploration, invention, and discovery (Edelson, p360)
|
| TGEM | Learning through inquiry |
|
Synthesis:
Trying to extract the difference between these theories of learning is a challenge for me. Working through them I was struck more by their similarities than by differences and much of it unfolds from the initial weeks where we looked at uncovering student conceptions related to maths and science work. As I worked through the modules I became increasingly aware of the importance of approaching instruction with a theory of learning and supporting it with research while remaining flexible in its implementation. My preference, working through the modules, is for the Learning for Use model, likely because it’s the model I currently use most often in the classroom in attempting to have students dive into maths and science work and then have them stop and wonder what works and why and then having them create questions for further investigation.
As a personal reflection this week I would like to add to the interview I did with a colleague to uncover ideas about technology integration in maths and science. This is a new teacher who I frequently chat with informally and she revealed that she thought her undergrad degree was largely useless in training her for actual in-class work and it got me thinking about teacher training being cyclical and scaffolded for professionals, too. I also personally remembering that my undergrad degree had inadequately prepared me but there must be a balance between theories of learning along with the practicalities of classroom work, in which a finely written day plan may go out the window because a child is in crisis that day. As a professional with approximately 15 years of experience under my belt I am no longer (most days) over whelmed by the day-to-day practicalities and now have the luxury of returning to masters studies and really studying and attempting to understand the learning theories that support our work. As I approach the end of my degree I am struck by how much more there is to learn. I wish I had infinite time and infinite tuition dollars!
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.
Hobbs, L., & Davis, R. (2013). Narrative pedagogies in science, mathematics and technology. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1289-1305.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
I explored an article by Clegorne & Mastrogiovanni who discuss the ways in which design thinking might bridge the worlds of science and humanities. In Grade Three, students explore the nature of sound, its sources, qualities and what it is. They learn that sound is vibration and that changes in vibration can affect the loudness, pitch and quality of sound. They learn about sound travel by studying what things carry sound, what things make it louder or softer, and what happens to sound when it reaches their ears.
As a part of this unit, we begin with a problem students may be familiar with: airplane noise because our school’s neighbourhood is on a flight path. We begin and end the unit with the same problem and can see growth in student understanding of how sound travels and how to mitigate harmful noises. A common misconception is that sound can be “blocked” by objects and students often suggest at the beginning of the unit that a good way to deal with the harmful or bothersome noises would be to put steel plates around houses to block out the noise.
As we explore sound, we integrate digital tools to counter misconceptions: a decibel meter such as the one available on itunes and twisted wave, an online audio editor that allows users to manipulate sound and view the effects of different kinds of sounds on the sound waves. For example, students might be asked to speak in a high or low pitch and to vary the loudness of the sound produced. Following this, I ask students to create a podcast studio using the design thinking process and to test which materials are best at creating the ideal quiet studio and explore why those materials might work well. They are encouraged to go through multiple iterations as they hypothesize, test, and evaluate various materials. At the end of the unit, students are asked to return to the original question about the effects of being on a flight path and how to mitigate the sounds. Almost all students recommend soft materials inside the home over steel plates. The airport problem provides students with the opportunity to extend their understanding beyond the science concepts alone and into real-world applications.
Clegorne, N., & Mastrogiovanni, J. (2015). Designing alternatives: Design thinking as a mediating learning strategy to bridge science and the humanities for leadership learning. The Journal of Leadership Education, 14(4), 46-54.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
The Grade 3 science includes two units that are very closely tied: building with a variety of materials and testing materials and design. Both involve hands-on constructivist learning for students because in order for them to understand the concepts they need to experience the design cycle and multiple iterations of their work, questioning why a design may or may not work. The curricular outcome is: problem solving through technology: Investigate a practical problem, and develop a possible solution. This is a unit that I generally undertake from a design thinking standpoint, beginning with building empathy and identifying a problem: for what reasons to people need to create structures and how are these similar to and different from structures found in nature?
While My World GIS is outside of the scope of the Grade 3 Alberta curriculum, I found the ARCgis story maps applicable, though it would need to be adapted down to my learners. While some stories include multi-media elements, the stories a found useful to my context were text-heavy and interactive-media-lean. Edelson’s article on learning for use underlines the idea that students learn best when their learning is situated in story, in experience, or in environment. Design thinking through this unit creates the need-to-know cognitive dissonance Edelson refers to because the students either discover that their structures work or, more interesting, that they don’t work and it allows us to discuss why.
Adapting the stories already available on ARCgis and developing cross curricular understanding of this unit of study and blending it with the four countries of study in grade 3 social studies: India, Tunisia, Peru, and the Ukraine would create a more complete unit of inquiry. As a part of these units of study, students explore what makes a good life, including access to a home, which links nicely to the science concepts of structures as we look at different kinds of homes, and how homes are influenced by the environment they are built within. I would adapt the story maps lesson on the Jungle Book to build an experience for students that explores all four of our countries of study and concentrates on shelter and environment.
Recently, I was chatting with a colleague about using coding and robots in our program of studies and the extension we discussed was coding the robots to visit the four countries of study and write a story in language arts that would explain what the robot saw and did on each of the stops. I wonder if any of my UBCMET colleagues have tried something similar or how you might plus this idea?
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
This week’s work gave me the opportunity to reflect on a project that I am working on with my own students, which involves a year-long inquiry into the question: how are we connected.
While the projects listed on the Web site are all outside of my curricular area of focus, I chose to look more closely at the Pine Creek project where students become explore a local creek, its environment, and ongoing status. This project was particularly interesting to me because it is reflective of the project I am currently working on. As a part of the WISE project, students participate in field trips, acquire data through water testing and observations, apply data to tables, and interpret the data for planning future trips and jobs at the creek. I am most interested in the aspect where students upgrade the quality of the environment around the creek. As a teacher, I am interested in exploring the Bow River, in my own school’s back yard, and will be doing so with the support of an Aboriginal Elder. We will be exploring our historical connection to the land and our current connections to the river. I am interested in extending this work into our sciences and maths as we look at animal habitats and why it might be important that we care for the river here and now to protect those habitats down river and the economic interests in our area.
From here, students have asked questions that have lead us off in the discovery of the people and environment around us and how that connects to the rest of the world. Our project touches on the four tenets of inquiry as noted in ‘Wise design for knowledge integration” in that it makes science readily accessible and reflects on their immediate environment. It takes into account multiple perspectives as we draw on scientists and Aboriginal knowledge keepers. And, finally, it allows students to learn from one another as we have made reflection an important aspect of the project and share through talking circles, visual journals, graphs of data, and close observation of local flora and fauna.
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Stumbled across this resource, OER Math, in my travels across the Internet and thought I would share it. Seems like there is lots of interesting stuff, especially on the student side.
https://im.openupresources.org/index.html