Author Archives: tracy evans

Situated learning in maths

The Jasper series of videos this week reminded me of the three-act math tasks my staff have begun using with our students. They work especially well in my context (primary French Immersion) because they are wordless films that allow students to do more of the cognitive work in problem solving than with traditional textbooks or worksheets. Both the Jasper videos and the three-act-task videos are underpinned by a constructivist framework; students must view the films and determine what problem they are trying to solve and what information they still need to solve it. These videos, however, require a lot of teacher guidance in order to make sense of them, which I think works well in the immersion environment where students need time to also practice their language skills along with their math skills. Hobbs notes that there is a disconnect between what students find engaging and what students live in math class (p1290), which just isn’t interesting. The Jasper series demonstrated open-ended science and problems are significantly different from the “stories” students often read in text books where they are looking for numbers and question words that provide computational practice but not problem solving; instead, they provide students with complex, open-ended problems that require technology to solve and are interesting to the learners. I think anchored instruction demonstrates that learning in math, like any other subject, is situational and what is learned is related to where it is learned and who it is learned with.

The problem that I see with this is that technology does change so quickly that the videos soon appear to be out of date. Watching the Jasper series videos, I couldn’t help but think that students would be distracted from the concepts presented by the video quality. I think this can be countered in part by a solution found in the three-act-math tasks because the videos are kept extremely simple… no music, effects, titles, etc. to become dated.

The key to anchored instruction being effective for learners is the element of feedback for learners while they are working through the problems. This is why I think discussion and conferencing over problems can be an effective method of teaching mathematics. My adjustment to using video to anchor instruction might be to add an element of digital interaction where students might respond to the questions using a padlet or flipgrid.

Hobbs, L., & Davis, R. (2013). Narrative pedagogies in science, mathematics and technology. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1289-1305.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992b). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

A fine balance

As a teacher who was trained first in a faculty of education and then went back to school for degrees in French and English I found this week’s reading interesting. In Alberta and Saskatchewan at least, elementary generalists are trained to know a little bit about everything and an undergrad degree in education contains one class in each of the content areas plus many courses in pedagogy. Moving into the classroom, however, teachers realize they need to not only know how to teach (PK) but also what to teach (CK). I have been in the classroom long enough to see a pendulum swing from phonics instruction to whole language to phonics instruction and I see that many teachers are missing an understanding of phonics and how language is structured and are not able to include that in their teaching. As such, professional development opportunities become essential. In my division in the past couple of years there has been a fund developed to send school teachers back to university for maths courses (once I’m done my masters I’m definitely planning on taking advantage of this). As Shulman argues, there is definitely a balance for classroom teachers between all of the elements of TPCK and I think an effective teacher must be a master of not only the content (many is the university prof who knows their content inside out and backwards but is unable to teach it) but also the pedagogy and how technology augments the learning. As an elementary teacher, I see the math and science we do as being foundational and this is where a teacher with a tenuous hold on math concepts can still teach the math but may inadvertently introduce misconceptions to students that have to be corrected later in their learning journey. Something as innocuous as using “makes” instead of “equals” (ie. 3+7 makes 10 instead of 3+7 equals 10) makes it difficult for a learner to make sense of algebra later when the equal sign does not always appear at the end of a question. For this reason, I think it’s a good thing that many universities are moving to an education degree that begins with a bachelors in a content area followed by a 1-2 year education after degree.

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

Begin with the end in mind

Intellectual engagement asks what cognitive task students are engaged in, what are they thinking about while completing the work? I identified with Jonassen who states that students should be creating with technology rather than consuming from it (p41). I think that digital tools allow for cognitive engagement beyond the mechanics of completing the task. Designing learning experiences with the end in mind is essential when developing technology enhanced learning environments (TELEs). If the teacher begins with the outcomes in mind and has a clear idea of how the task will move students toward achieving the learning outcome then the learning experience should be successful.

I think in an ideal learning environment, each learner is working independently towards their own learning goals where the learning of math and science goes beyond the memorization of fact to the application of the learning to a context. Students are provided with feedback related to their learning in short cycles to ensure students are developing accurate conceptions. Learners in technology-supported learning environments work collaboratively to construct understanding together that is greater than the sum of all the parts.

Teachers and learners must plan with the learning goals in mind and be able to identify success criteria.

I think that a TELE allows the learner to become a little bit “untethered” from the instructor a little in that they have the ability to move more at their own pace as the classroom becomes more dynamic. In a traditional classroom the learner is reliant on the teacher for knowledge but I think a technology-enhanced environment allows students more agency in their learning.

Jonassen, D. (1995). Computers as Cognitive Tools/ Learning with Technology Not From Technoloy. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Vol 6(2) 40-73

New teachers… old teachers… same issues

I interviewed, a first year teacher in Grade Two French Immersion at a K-6 dual track (French Immersion and English) school. The school was built in the late 1980s and many of the school supplies in the math and science rooms have been there since the school opened. The school has very low staff turn over and most teachers have been on staff for nine or more years. I also chatted with some veteran teachers although I didn’t formally interview them due to it being report card season. I found the issues raised during our interview were the same issues I heard from veteran teachers.

This teacher completed her bachelor of education last year and as a part of which she did her internship (a 12-week placement) at this school, and she was able to return on a temporary contract this year. The teacher stated that she is a new teacher and feels she still has a lot to learn in terms of mastering her curriculum, the pedagogical approaches, meeting the needs of her students, and managing the day-to-day operations of a classroom. As I spoke with her, she was setting aside report cards to spend a few minutes talking with me. She is a classroom generalist with 21 students in her classroom and teaches all curricular areas except for music, which serves as her non-instruction (prep) period.

She stated that she doesn’t use technology that much in math. Mostly it serves to play youtube videos to demonstrate a new skill. In addition to this, applications are used on one of the classroom’s four dedicated iPads to practice addition and subtraction for reinforcement.

For science she stated that she uses technology for videos to reinforce what has been taught in the classroom. Software included Notebook, the software used together with the interactive whiteboards in the school. On the interactive white board, she uses digital tools to replace physical tools that exist in the school but, due to age, have become unreliable. For example, the thermometers she uses in support of a unit on temperature no longer reliably give the temperature. As such, she uses digital thermometers and asks students to interact with them via the interactive white board. She states that it helps students to visually see how the thermometers work and to interact with them. She made a point of stating that the children were the ones interacting with the tools and it was not used entirely by the teacher as a demonstration tool.

These interactive SMART boards are now becoming quite dated. This school was a pilot school when SMART technology was new and an interactive board was installed in every classroom. As this school was on the forefront of implementing this technology, many of the devices were installed in a way that didn’t make sense in light of teacher learning related to this technology later. For example, the board was installed in the furthest corner from internet access and the computers that control the boards live in the corner away from the board. As a plus, this forces teachers to use the boards as they were intended. As an unintended consequence, as the boards age they are increasingly difficult to interact with and often require the teacher to run to the corner of the room in order to navigate what is displayed on the board. Projectors are installed in the middle of the room with a black tube projecting out of the ceiling and as they age the connections are becoming loose, meaning that the projectors slowly sink and have to be re-centered for each use. This is relatively easy, but still a consideration in a classroom full of young learners who are often impatient for the lesson to continue. She joked that technology can be a fantastic tool for learning when it works, stating that as the tools age they become less reliable. In addition, she states that she often creates Power Point presentations for the students to introduce concepts.

She stated that she has only been a classroom teacher for five months, she has not been all the way through the curriculum at this point but anticipated technology allowing students to access information that they might not otherwise be able to access, when studying insects since they wouldn’t be able to have insects of birds in the classroom; while students wouldn’t interact themselves with the insects, they would be able to see others do so.

When asked about technology support at the school, she stated that there was lots of support and believed it to be adequate. She referred to a specialist teacher who was available to help with technical issues. Aside from this, she mentioned that if the specialist teacher was unable to resolve the issue then a work ticket had to be created and that sometimes it took an inordinate amount of time for the issue to be resolved. The Calgary Board of Education has recently moved to an IT support model in which schools are allowed a percentage of a full-time tech based on the number of students in the school. This is a reduction in time from previous years in which an IT specialist was assigned to 3-5 schools and attended to each school on a 5-6 day rotation. As IT time is reduced the load on classroom teachers is increased to solve day-to-day technical issues. She stated that she felt support for pedagogical integration of digital tools was inadequate and wondered if her feeling that it was inadequate was due to her still being new to the position.

She stated that university adequately prepared her for differentiated and multi-disciplinary learning, but that the university had provided inadequate training from a technical standpoint and from a pedagogical standpoint for the ability to plan for the integration of digital tools. She wished that the courses taken at university had dedicated some time to seeking digital resources. She felt that she had stumbled through a lot of aspects of integrating digital tools to this point. She did not, at this point, differentiate between technical aspects of technology integration and digital tools serving pedagogical purposes.

My reflection on the interview: the teacher comfortable with digital tools in the classroom but still uses them mainly in teacher-directed lessons and has yet to integrate the tools for students as a means of expressing their learning. As a new teacher, she is still learning so much about how to do her job that it is difficult to plan for the use of digital tools, too. In my reading, however, I was struck by Cuban et. al.’s writing that both veteran and new teachers experienced the same reluctance to take up digital tools in the classroom; lack of time, lack of training, and lack of support in navigating technical aspects feature in the feedback from both veteran and new teachers.

Cuban, L. Kirkpatrick, H. Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal.

Supporting Teacher Adoption of Digital Tools

One of the issues being faced in the videos that struck me are the same those faced now: reluctance to integrate digital tools. Early adopters tend to be way ahead of the curve, those in the middle are scrambling to learn the tools, and resistors simply don’t use the tools. In the videos for Teacher S both the teacher retiring and the new teacher cited the same barriers to using technology: lack of time to learn the tools and and lack of support.

In my previous courses, I explored the issue of teacher onboarding to the use of digital technologies and found that a major factor in convincing teachers to begin using digital tools is to show them the utility and to provide scaffolded support. In my position of learning leader, it is part of my role to provide support for teachers integrating digital portfolios in their classrooms, which I see as being an essential tool in the math and science classroom. Students reflect on what they already know and what their next steps are. Dylan William discusses the importance of effective student feedback as a tool for learning. Digital portfolios allow significantly eased work for teachers in the long run related to assessing, evaluating, and the ability to provide feedback and the ability to access to student conceptions related to math and science. In addition, there is significant learning for students as they are able to metacognitively reflect on their learning.

In my first year in the position, there was lots of whole-staff PD and some small-group support as needed. In the second year, the support has been more one-on-one and in the classroom with teachers. As I watch teacher uptake of the tools, I am not convinced this has been successful. Most teachers are still not using the tool with their students and those who have taken it up are those already using other digital tools in the classroom. In order for teacher uptake to be successful, I think there has to be more support for teachers. At present I have 60 minutes per 6 day cycle to support teachers, which is simply not enough.

I would be interested in hearing from others about how teacher support for technology use is supported in your contexts.

William, D. (2016). The Secret of Effective Feedback. Educational Leadership, 73(7), 10-15 http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr16/vol73/num07/The-Secret-of-Effective-Feedback.aspx

Visible Thinking

I think good use of digital technology in math and science includes tools that make thinking visible and allow teachers to respond to learners and provide feedback before errors become misconceptions. For this reason, I think all student-response systems like plickers or socrative are a good place to begin. As a primary school teacher, my focus has been on helping teachers to help students develop learning portfolios that demonstrate what students currently know and help them determine what their next steps in learning are. A portfolio shared with the teacher will help the learner make thinking visible to the teacher and allow the teacher to counter misconceptions. Digital portfolios remain a challenge in primary school due to teachers feeling that they are not prepared to support students and do not have just-in-time technical support. The prevailing feeling among teachers at my school is that primary students are not able to access these tools because they are too young to enter passwords and connect to the internet. Our board is working to remove these barriers to access by providing tablet computers that are always connected to the internet. As such, students have only to enter a username and password to access their portfolio and I find they are often able to do this independently by the middle of Grade 1.

Just-in-time feedback

Students have four options when it comes to dealing with new learning: delete pre-existing knowledge, modify new knowledge to fit existing understanding, modify existing understanding to fit new learning (altering what is known), or reject new information (Sewel, p2). Heather’s misconceptions are the result of incomplete understanding and integrating unrelated ideas into her understanding. For example, she views a diagram of something unrelated to the seasons while learning about the seasons and integrates the wrong diagram into her understanding. While she states that she thinks she understands, not having the opportunity to explain her understanding and receive teacher feedback in a timely manner was a contributing factor to the error becoming a misconception. Heather’s misconceptions could have been more effectively dealt with if the teacher had performed a pre-assessment. In this way she would have known what her students currently understood. In addition, teachers must constantly assess for understanding through the lesson; asking whether or not students all “get it” is an ineffective method of determining what has been understood. While this video is a relatively dated classroom, current interventions including digital technologies might be to use an all-student response system like plickers or socrative to determine student understanding while the lesson was occurring, and addressing misconceptions before they become fossilized.

As a primary school teacher, science concepts are often misunderstood to be obvious concepts without consideration to the fact that the work done at this level is foundational. We take for granted that a child is able to count and understand the meaning of numbers, but an understanding of the importance of zero and not jumping to the conclusion that children understand numbers to one thousand because they are able to write numbers to one thousand. In my personal experience, this has been a teacher misunderstanding that leads to inadequate attention to number concepts. Because it appears a simple concept, teachers often do not recognize that it requires a cognitive leap for learners to use 0. Shapiro underlines the importance of students’ being actively involved in the curriculum in order to construct an understanding of it. As in the video, Heather does not begin to construct or question her understanding until she has the model in her hands and is able to begin manipulating it.

A significant factor in student learning is feedback related to the learner’s conceptions. It is essential to listen for a child’s conception related to the curricular topic rather than to listen for errors or to simply move the conversation toward the correct answer. In order to counter misconceptions, we must understand where students are are and provide not only day-to-day feedback but also minute-to-minute feedback.

Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational researcher 23, no. 7: 13-20.

Mohyuddin, R., Rana, M, & Usman K. (2016). Bulletin of education and research: Misconceptions of students in learning mathematics at primary level Panjab University Press.

Sewell, A. (2002). Australian science teachers’ journal: Constructivism and student misconceptions: Why every teacher needs to know about them Australian Science Teachers’ Association.

Shaprio, B. (1988). Development and Dilemmas in Science Education. What Children Bring to Light: Toward Understanding What the Primary School Learner is Trying to Do. 96-120

COCO2

I risk dating myself here… my earliest memory of using technology was the old TRS-80 from Radio Shack. It had something ridiculous like 16k of internal memory and we hooked it up to our TV. Because it had no internal memory, we would sit in front of the TV and type in code from a thick book in order to make it do anything. One day we finally upgraded to an external cassette tape drive we could use to save the code we had typed in.

So… I take great pleasure in saying I have been “coding” since I was seven-years-old.

I have many memories of using technology with sketchy methods of saving work, including cassette tapes, floppy disks, hard disks… up to now where I am a fan of cloud computing.

My first memory of teaching with technology, especially related to math, was my first year of teaching. My mentor teacher got me started on “project lighthouse” in which we got funds for release time to build web pages that could be used in our classroom. Back then, a static page with links was still pretty innovative (at least in my mind). I think we’ve come such a long way from using technology as a “use it when you’re finished the real work” time filler to a place where it truly redefines the work we ask of students in the classroom.

It’s stunning to see how far technology has come and I imagine my young learners in 30 years will look back on the tools we use in the classroom today as being quaint attempts at innovative technology.

Hello from Calgary!

Hello everyone! Happy to be getting started on course 8 for me! The end of my MET is in sight! It has been such an incredible journey so far and I feel like I really have transformed my classroom practice through the three and a half years I have been in this program. I live in Calgary, AB. I teach Grade 3 French Immersion with a small amount of release time to work as a Learning Leader, as a part of which I get to work with other teachers on how to integrate technology in their teaching practice. I’m excited to be undertaking this course right now because our school’s school development plan is related to math this year, so I’m excited to see how I can better leverage technology in math teaching and learning.

I am a mom to two littles who I love to explore the mountains with! We can often be found hiking and camping. I was incredibly proud of my six-year-old this summer for managing to summit Sulphur Mountain (he had a blast waving at the people riding the gondola up) and to climb to the Lake Agnes tea house. I find the trail and sitting around a bonfire to be the best places for conversations with them.

I love riding my bike and commute to work by bike as often as I can. I run when I can and usually “race” a couple of half marathons each year… if you can can call a turtle’s pace racing… lol… I’m just getting my money’s worth out of the course.

Looking forward to getting to know all of you!

Tracy