Author Archives: trisha roffey

Transcend Click Training

Technology is here to stay. Yet education is still one of the only businesses asking whether or not we should use technology. If we take the time to understand the constraints of how these technologies influence what teachers do or do not do in their classrooms we have the opportunity to rethink teacher education and teacher professional development. If we fail to do this we run the risk of teachers having and inadequate experience with technology for teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). Many teachers having not been educated in a digitally rich environment do not feel they are sufficiently prepared and do not appreciate or value technology as relevant to teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). We are battling the changing of mindsets instead of changing technology. At the end of the day we have to remember that whether we like it or not “technology is used to support   student-centred, personalized, authentic learning for all students” (Learning with Technology, 2015). Aristotle himself declared that the ultimate test of understanding is based on the ability to transform what you know into the ability to teach (Shulman, 1986). It is imperative to ensure that teachers have an experience of technology that translates to actual application to the classroom. Teacher training thus far has equated to the click training of Pavlov’s Dogs. “Click here” has not transformed into actual influence in the classroom as technology has been long held as siloed professional development. We have spent many years responding to the lack of integration by deskilling of teachers and promoting the use of black masters, teacher guides, and recipes for learning. We have reduced teaching to a transmission of knowledge. We in many ways have done this to ourselves hiring teachers who are teaching with their nose in a book in combination with the expectation of teaching to the standardized test. Here and now we have the opportunity to achieve standards without standardization (Shulman, 1987). One sure fire way to make sure that technology is part and parcel with everyday knowledge and content is to stop inservicing teachers that technology is a separate and independent knowledge domain (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). There are those who demand that we fire any teacher who will not comply with the mindless transmission of ready made knowledge. . (Loveless & Griffith, 2014). Have we gone to far in the deprofessionalization and deskilling of teachers as experts who can navigate the content, knowledge, and needs of the individual student?

 

My role is to ensure that PD transcends simple click training that is outside of the context and content of the classroom. This type of professional development is neither trivial nor obvious when we are asking teachers to convert these tools to actual classroom practice (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006). Teachers do not simply be need to be trained in the use of technology. There needs to be an established purpose, environment, and use of tools than enhances the content alone in a pedagogical way that meets the individual needs of the student. The TPACK we were presented with parallels the Learning and Technology Policy Framework here in Alberta. We are invited to have a conversation with all stakeholders about how technology enhanced environments affect student centred learning. Take for example the examination and demonstration of learning for this UDL (Universal Drawing for Learning…excuse the pun). Students were asked to examine the nature of Osmosis of Cells. In this case students had the freedom of expression based on their needs, interests, and abilities using a Google Drawing or traditional paper to share the understanding of the YouTube video demonstration. In another example students were able to represent their understanding of the excretory system using a sequence of GIFS. In each case the teacher was able to navigate the knowledge and content based on the needs of the child using technology as a vehicle for this type of transformative learning.

Here you can also see my reflection of the TPACK with the LTPF found here in Alberta

References:

Koehler, M.J., Cain, W., & Mishra, P.  (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?

Learning with Technology  |  Overview. (2015, September 23). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/learning-with-technology/overview/

Loveless, D & Griffith, B. (2014). Critical Pedagogy for a Polymodal World. Sense Publishers.  Read Chapter 1, Pages 1- 22

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

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

Look at Your Learning Space with 21st Century Eyes

There is one absolute that we can all agree upon in education, that we as educators are in the business of preparing students for their future. There is also one absolute that we all disagree on, what exactly that future is and what students will need to know. The scary part of this entire debate is that our reality is preparing students for a future that is in motion using curriculum and pedagogy frozen in time. We have to realize that we are living in a “postFordism” world where we have to examine our responsibility as educators to consider the implications of what we do in our classrooms to ensure our students are adequately prepared for a productive life (The New London Group, 1996). We need to look at the design of our learning environments and ask ourselves if we are creating a space that is for student centered creativity.

 

A technology enhanced learning environment allows for a individualized and flexible learning experience. It is essential that in our design we break down the faceless learning machine to have a personalized approach that is built upon the students as individuals. More than students consuming content that was created for a “one size fits all” learning environment, technology allows for learning to become co-created, interactive, and flexible to the current ability, reality, and context of the student. Instead of planning tasks that are simply technological extensions of everyday traditional paper and pencil teaching, we can swim into the deep end of SAMR with a redefinition of what the students are doing and why. Learning that is purposeful, creative, and fits into the real lives of the students. This notion of technology enhanced learning reflects what Jonassen described in his definition of students learning WITH not FROM technology (2000).

 

My image I created reflects the 4 key areas of my TELE with the balled up paper in the center to represent going back to the drawing board of what we know about learning then…to what we know about learning now.

 

References

Burvall, A., & Ryder, D. (2017). Intention: Critical Creativity in the Classroom. EdTechTeam Press.

Keeler, A., Herrington, D., & Boaler, J. (2017). Teaching Math with Google apps: 50 g suite activities. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting.

Learning with Technology  |  Overview. (2015, September 23). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/learning-with-technology/overview/

Puentedura, R. (2018). SAMR and TPCK: A Hands-On Approach to Classroom Practice. [online] Ruben R. Puentedura’s Weblog. Available at: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/12/11/SAMRandTPCK_HandsOnApproachClassroomPractice.pdf [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

The New London Group. (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies:Designing Social Futures.”  Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.

Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. NY, NY: Penguin Books.

Syvertsen, J., & Pigozzi, A. O. D. W. (2010). The third teacher: 79 ways you can use design to transform teaching & learning. Abrams.

A New Mindset for Teacher Professional Development

In preparing for the interview assignment I wanted to consider how to conduct the interview in a way that reflected by current reality of being a consultant for my school district and focus on teacher professional development. I decided to interview two of my colleagues from the department I work for called Learning Services Innovation. This department is comprised of consultants that are responsible for technology, curriculum, assessment, languages, and inclusive education. The primary role of consultants is to provide teacher professional development, model classroom lessons, create classroom resources based on the Program of Study, and support research in their discipline area. We all work independently and separately of each other, that is unless we choose to collaborate. This collaboration became the inspiration for my interview. One of my fellow Emerging Technology Consultants decided to work together with one of our Mathematics Consultants to create a series of professional development to support technology in mathematics instruction. I decided to interview them both.

 

“Doug”  has been teaching for 20 years from Elementary to Junior High. He was trained as a Generalist Educator teaching all subject areas but through the years his focus became Science, Technology and Math in junior high. He holds a BEd, CST (Computer Systems Diploma) and a Masters of Educational Leadership. He has been an Emerging Technology Consultant for  for 6 years

 

“Tracy” has been teaching for 26 years as an Elementary generalist. She has taught all subjects for grades 1-6. She always loved teaching math  according to her “once I understood it”. Tammy has been an Elementary Math Consultant for the last 5 years with a focus on grades 1-4.

The interview was conducted on Jan 17 at our Learning Services innovation home base St Peters Centre. This is an old school that has been converted to hold meetings in old classrooms, and house consultants in an old gym which we lovingly call the Bull Pit. Despite the openness of the gym, we have cubicle areas for our departments thus creating physical silos. Collaboration is rare. Used voice typing in Google Docs to capture the conversation.

My questions were developed to examine teacher professional development.

  1. What was your rationale for deciding to have both the Math Consultant and the Emerging Technology consultant collaborate for teacher professional development?
  2. As an educational consultant, how would you respond to the statement “technology is optional in mathematics instruction”?
  3. How do you use and model technology in teacher professional development?
  4. What are specific technology tools and use of those tools that you recommend to enhance math instruction?
  5. What has been the impact of using technology for mathematics on student learning you have experienced both positive and/or negative?
  6. If you could offer some advice, how could we better prepare teachers to integrate technology in math?

 

The interview was enlightening and inspiring. Three key words became clear as we engaged in this professional conversation. Professional Development, Student Learning, and Mindset.

 

Professional Development

Teacher professional development is key to my role as a consultant. My job is to vision what information and skills teachers need in order to affect student achievement. Traditionally professional development has been face to face sit and get style sessions where the “expert” (in this case the consultant) transmits information to the participants. The teachers then take away the information and go back to their classrooms to apply it. Our department runs these sessions in independent subject area silos. The time and space between the session and the classroom is where the difficulties of application can be found. Teacher’s do not find themselves sufficiently prepared to use technology in the classroom due to a lack of preparation during the course of their education degrees and a one size fits all technology integration approach found in professional development that does not take into account the diverse context of their teaching (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). A new approach for teacher professional development is necessary. One that is cross disciplined, hands on, community driven, and timely. Tracy and Doug wanted to reimagine the possibilities of professional development.  Tracy spoke of the rationale for this partnership based on “ it rose out of aneed. As the math consultant I was looking for ways to incorporate more technology into classrooms and also help technology be seen as a tool for instruction and learning. Not simply for using computers to play or to go on the math website and have students randomly play games on it.” Many teachers will contact consultants only for lists of apps or websites. It is a difficult conversation to have when you know that the teacher needs the pedagogy and content to go with the list of tech. Doug is hoping these professional development series where teachers come for hands on application and training can help. Doug said “it was important to me as an educational technology consultant to root the technology into pedagogy and embed as part of curriculum.  There does have to be a purpose communicated for teachers so that it [technology] is not looked upon as a shiny new toy or something fun that’s in the classroom that has no rigor behind it. To be able to link up with another consultant provides that for me as well. As well it helps to reduce the silos that we often experience in education where we have people working in their own areas, but yet there’s so much richness among the other areas it was good to join forces so that we can share the strengths and talents to better serve our students”. Prior to working with Doug, Tracy shared that her professional development lacked the importance of technology as one of the mathematical processes. She said “Prior to working with “Doug” I was integrating only a small amount of technology but when we look at our mathematical processes one of our processes is technology. So I had the use of low tech like pencils, paper and calculators, but I really wanted to integrate technology by using it as an effective tool to enhance student instruction instead of for gaming purposes”. Tracy goes on to describe the purpose behind this PD model “I think it’s really important that when we are modeling the technology we also give the rationale behind it. It’s really important to to share with teachers our purpose and the purpose of using a specific tool in their math classrooms. We also really showcase how by building teacher capacity with a sharing out of crowdsourcing and co-creating lessons showing how technology can be used and shared amongst others and in ways to easily differentiate your math instruction.” It is essential in professional development that teachers have the opportunity to understand the deeper knowledge fundamentals of what they teach (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). This is what leads to student learning.

 

Student Learning

The key to all we do is student learning. It is what we are in the business of afterall. It is essential that we attempt to dispel the myth that technology is optional in mathematics instruction. In fact it is one of the mathematical processes as found in our Alberta Program of Study. Yet a major impact on student learning of ICT skills as part of their daily instruction is teacher skill. The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) is a new international study whose purpose is to assess the extent to which students know about, understand, and are able to use information and communications technology (ICT). When teachers face too many barriers and obstacles with using technology, they are more likely to not have those technologies used by their students in class.

Additionally we need to look at personalized learning and what each student needs to succeed. Tracy outlines this by stating “technology is not optional in a math classes when we really look at the needs of all learners and we look at the different needs of how are students are coming in and  where we have gaps in their learning. We have to look at technology to enhance student instruction, so it really is about differentiation. Traditionally when we only have the paper, pencil and textbook we are reaching only a small number of students. So technology to me is hugely valuable and it can’t be an option, you can’t opt out when we look at all these list of tools that are out there and all the support that can act as a central component in the math world”. Doug furthers this by sharing “I think it’s also important that we look at leveling the playing field for kids. Technology definitely plays a large role in helping those students who need those other methods. It’s at least allowing more venues for students to be able to to learn the concepts they otherwise could not learn from traditional pencil and paper alone. We are building upon a competency so that we are creating those individuals that are ready for society as adults that can contribute in a productive and effective way.” Purpose is important and we need to model and share specific ways to use technology as part of our instruction in order to impact learning. We cannot make suggestions based on general ideas and terms. Both Tracy and Doug are very specific in their modeling and recommendations as actionable tasks to be taken directly to students. Tracy recommends using technology for “guided math or small group instruction. Technology really enables teachers to set up stations where students can be self-paced. They can work on their own or  they can work in a group so you know it could be a mass light that yoon math learning sites or virtual manipulatives. Really individualizing personalized instruction by using such things as hyperdocs makes learning personal for the student.” Doug continues this by also recommending “some of the movements that we had in our district with the use of Google Apps for Education and the Makerspace movement and how that really ties into math from bringing things in such as stop motion to Green Screen. It really immerses the students into those concepts  and competencies that we are looking to have students achieve with the Alberta education curriculum that will prepare them for what we consider an unknown future”.

 

Mindset

Impacting teacher mindset is both a goal and an obstacle. If we can influence teachers to see the value of technology as part of mathematical instruction as having a positive impact on student learning, then we can begin to build their own personal technological skills in relation to content and pedagogy. Yet the mindset of “back to the basics” and math being about answers on paper, change is slow. Tracy shares here experience of this “I think the impact on technology in math has been slow. When I look at your mindset, math is that one subject area that has been traditionally set with paper and pencil tasks. It is more the teacher mindset to the willingness to be open to try new things. They are still very comfortable teaching the way they were taught. Even though technology you know might be for one student,  they’re not impacting all learners so it’s not reaching students. Teachers are still not comfortable in the classroom using technology in the area of mathematics so right now to me it it’s limited. There are certainly teachers using it and when they embrace it they love it, but I do find it’s very slow moving because of the comfort level and mindset of teachers”. Doug experiences this as well in classrooms “it goes back to the old saying where we often mentioned we we teach the way we were taught and in particular I think mathematics takes takes that to heart. Technology integration has been in pockets of classrooms, but definitely not has not called wildfire and been consistent among all classrooms. I think it’s just very select few kids or a student with difficulties with learning as opposed to looking at things from a Universal Design for Learning kind of a platform where they can look at all these tools to benefit all kids. So it’s definitely a paradigm shift and the teachers mindsets to open themselves to the possibility of how they can use technology in math but it’s it’s definitely a journey that we are still continuing to try to make some ground up on it and get those teachers to a place where they can certainly support all kids.”

 

Through effective modeling, re-imagined professional development, and quality classroom examples and resources, we can impact teacher mindset. This mindset is the deciding factor to successful professional development experiences which in turn will affect student learning.

 

References

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada Programs & Initiatives Learning Assessment Programs International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS). (2013). Retrieved January 21, 2018, from https://www.cmec.ca/322/International_Computer_and_Information_Literacy_Study_(ICILS)_.html

Koehler, M.J., Cain, W., & Mishra, P.  (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?

Student Centered Learning in Cases 5 and 8

I chose to analyze video cases 5 and 8. I chose these two cases because they were from elementary environments and compared the experience and perspectives of technology integration from a master teacher, a new teacher, a retiring teacher, and from pre-service teachers. As well the students could be observed and heard from as well. What was striking in in watching these videos is how perfectly they captured the reality and discourse that I have experienced and observed regarding technology integration in classrooms here in my own district.

 

There are three key issues that arise in all of the videos:

Time

Teacher Mindset

Student Centered Learning

 

Time

In the videos you could observe learning environments that were noisy, boisterous, and moving. Students were working in multiple areas of the classroom with a variety of materials including a blend of no-tech and high-tech. In case study 5 the teacher described a very flexible, risk taking environment where multiple outcomes and curricular areas needed to be included in these projects to make them worth the time. The students of case study 5 spoke to the degree that they were invested in the project and how much time they took. This time was seen as valuable, worthwhile and effective to the student learning having impacted understanding. There is no one right way to integrate technology into curriculum, technology is best suited to be creatively designed into subject matter and classroom contexts as could be observed in case study 5 (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013).

 

On the other side of the coin in case study 8 the pre-service teachers unanimously described the immense amount of time the stop motion project was taking to which all of them agreed that even if the technology was readily available to them in their classrooms they would not use it. Both the retired teacher and the new teacher from case study 5 described the reason for not integrating technology as being a lack of time both in the classroom as far as time for student learning, and out of the classroom for their own learning.

 

These observations about time left me with these questions:

What is a reasonable amount of time for teachers to engage in professional development for learning a new technology? Should self directed learning be expected?

 

By what measure are teachers determining they do have time for paper and pencil (or any other traditional tool), but do not have time for technology? If the outcomes or task haven’t changed, how can we base time on the tool we are using?

 

How can we effectively help teachers reframe or re-plan the task to allow for the time needed for technology integration?

 

Teacher Mindset

This was a clear theme in the videos. In all of the scenarios the classrooms had a similar make up of student demographic including large populations of ELL students. The teachers all have access to technology with no lack tangible resources or infrastructure (despite this being the case in many other school scenarios). The interviewer at one point asked the pre-service teachers in case study 8 if they would integrate technology if they had no limitations to access…they awkwardly responded no. What is surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) is that the retired teacher, and the new, and pre-service teachers all had similar mindsets. They were rigid in their thinking that they could not integrate technology. This decision was made with themselves in mind with no reference made to the needs of students. The teachers in these case studies spoke of lack of understanding due to professional development opportunities and teacher preparation courses. If we take the time to understand the constraints of how these technologies influence what teachers do or do not do in their classrooms we have the opportunity to rethink teacher education and teacher professional development. If we fail to do this we run the risk of teachers having and inadequate experience with technology for teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). Many teachers having not been educated in a digitally rich environment do not feel they are sufficiently prepared and do not appreciate or value technology as relevant to teaching and learning (Koehler, Cain, & Mishra, 2013). We are battling the changing of mindsets instead of changing technology.

 

These observations about time left me with these questions:

Can teachers continue to claim that technology is optional?

 

What does effective professional learning look like for teachers who need to learn about technology integration in a classroom context?

 

Student Centered Learning

In the case 5 video with the master teacher she uses an excited and descriptive language regarding technology in her classroom that has very little to do with her or the technology itself. She speaks about student learning, the impact on engagement, and the positive effects in the classroom. The chaos, noise, time, failures and frustrations are all described as worth it. The teacher speaks of the student needs in their language acquisition and the opportunity to level the playing field of learning with their peers. In case study 8 the teacher share similar sentiments and extends this to the practicality of technology being able to extend the learning and do what the textbook could not. The learning. Plain and simple. The Learning and Technology Policy Framework from Alberta Education puts at the heart of the framework goal number one for technology integration and this is Student Centered Learning.

 

“Technology is used to support   student-centred, personalized, authentic learning for all students” (Learning with Technology, 2015).

 

These observations about time left me with these questions:

How can we ensure that technology decisions are made based on student learning needs? Who should make these decisions?

 

How can we plan cross curricular activities that are authentic and use technology to enhance student learning?

 

How do we support the needs of the individual learner with technology?

 

Observing these case studies has inspired a direction for my own area of professional need and expertise focusing in teacher professional development to affect student centered learning.

 

References

Learning with Technology  |  Overview. (2015, September 23). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/learning-with-technology/overview/

 

Koehler, M.J., Cain, W., & Mishra, P.  (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?

 

TPACK 101. (2014, July 14). Retrieved from http://www.matt-koehler.com/tpack-101/

Process Over Product

Technology is not longer optional in our classrooms. As educators we must make decisions not only about “if” we should use technology, but to go deeper and determine how and why it will enhance learning in an intentional way. This strategic intention is key to educators providing greater access to mathematics for students and increase their understanding, proficiency, and interest (NCTM, 2015). This learning environment is not simply one that has technology present in the room, or one where the technology has conveniently taken the place of a piece of paper. Too often I see classrooms that have carts of iPads and Chromebooks where students are completing electronic versions of those same question and answer worksheets that used to be photocopied and handed out. Now we simply assign these in our Google Classrooms and pat ourselves on the back calling it 21st century learning. Alice Keeler says “use paper for paper tasks and digital tools for digital tasks”. Let’s face it…we have begun using some pretty expensive pieces of “paper”. However if we were to make some intentional changes to the use of technology to enhance process over product it would be small steps in the right direction. One of the key difficulties in conceptual challenges is students engaging in the process of metacognition, making their thinking visible, and identifying possible misconceptions. Math classes have been plagued by the mantra of “show your work” much to the dismay of the students. Using technology we can allow students to provide more than the answer while at the same time capturing their understandings both correct and incorrect to drive further instruction.

 

There are some simple to use technology options that can support capturing process in order to make thinking visible as well as enhance information, ideas, and interactions (NCTM, 2015). This same technology can also help to transform the teacher from a distributor of information to creating critical thinkers reflecting on the process over product (Keeler, Herrington, & Boaler, 2017).

 

Screencasting: There are many free and easy to use tools that allow students to quickly and easily record their understanding of a concept. My favorite by far is Screencastify. Students record an explanation to how they would or have solve a problem talking about their strategy and reasoning. They have also creating our own little math ESports by recording themselves getting their highest score possible on an online math game and explaining how they did it

 

The Camera and Google Slides: our Chromebooks have a great camera built right in. Students have a chance to capture the before, during and after of solving a problem with or without manipulatives and then organizing that process beside the question on a Google Slide. Another version of this is collaborative Google Slides where each student claims a slide to share their strategy and process and they can look at each others

 

Revision History and Google Drawings: by creating math questions using digital manipulatives in Google Slides or Drawings teachers can use the power of revision history to see minute by minute how the student solved the problem, how long it took them, what steps they did etc. A digital record of thinking

 

These are just a few ways that we can use simple and free technology in any classroom. A tip of the iceberg really. Using technology to teach math is not about going paperless. It is about supporting an environment that allows students to collaborate and connect to authentic learning contexts in a way that will increase their critical thinking and make them self aware of what they have learned and why (Keeler, Herrington, & Boaler, 2017).

 

“If technology is going to impact student learning the task has to change” ((Keeler, Herrington, & Boaler, 2017, p.87).

 

Trish

If you are interested here is a link to my Professional Development Workshop materials I use to help teachers use Google Apps to teach math, make thinking visible, and focus on process over product. There are many templates and ideas to try included in the slides inspired by Alice Keeler.

 

References

Keeler, A., Herrington, D., & Boaler, J. (2017). Teaching Ma² (h) with Google apps: 50 g suite activities. San Diego, CA: Dave Burgess Consulting.

Strategic Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning Mathematics. (2015, July). Retrieved January 11, 2018, from http://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Strategic-Use-of-Technology-in-Teaching-and-Learning-Mathematics/

Teach Questions Not Answers

Why? Why? Why? This question seems to come at me a thousand times a day from students, staff members, and my own three children. This ongoing inquisition can range from simple yes and no questions, to complex concepts requiring deep explanation. What is tempting is to provide answers. That shoot from the hip response in order to solve the problem, answer the question, provide the information, and move on. This method of me simply giving the answers was causing a crisis of inquiry in my world and despite me attempting to provide answers as a solution, it actually increased the volume of questions I was being asked…because I was the easy answer. This ask and get an answer was not proving to be deep learning for any party involved.  

 

The questions are actually a good thing, a crucial element to examining one’s own understanding as well as challenge assumptions and conceptions (or in many cases mis-conceptions). We intuitively make sense of the world in any way we can based on our everyday experiences and will structure an understanding prior to any formal “education” on the matter (Confrey, 1990; Fouche, 2015; Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). Right or wrong, this thirst for understanding is innate to the human mind and drives our learning. In fact, certain kinds of misconceptions which students experience are actually intrinsic to the growth of scientific understanding (Confrey, 1990). Heather demonstrated this confident construction of private theories. These private theories meant to be a jumping off point for inquiry and not an end point for information acquisition. It is safe to make clear that we can no longer assume that students are entering our classrooms as a blank slate ready to receive the information to begin their construction of understanding, or having received the correct prior knowledge based on previous years of instruction alone (Confrey, 1990). The key stone to creating conditions for  flexibility of learning is to question our students’ understanding and private theories  in order to challenge their misconceptions and plan appropriate inquiry opportunities (Confrey, 1990; Fouche, 2015). We also must find the misconceptions and make them clear. Heather’s teacher needed to know not only what she didn’t know, but what she thought she knew as well in order to plan. This to me really explained the use of KWL organizers in classrooms prior to beginning a unit of study. Taking the time to ask “what do you know” being a crucial first step. Teachers can make great strides in STEM education if they “prepare ahead of time questions that will do three things: elicit prior knowledge, uncover student misconceptions, and move students toward their conceptual goal” (Fouche, 2015, p.64).

 

Now enters the ultimate educational temptation…to find provide answers to the misconceptions or missing information. Instead the challenge is to use predictive questioning and give time for inquiry, observation, and explanation based on these misconceptions (Fouche, 2015) in order allow children an opportunity to reinterpret their presuppositions based on these new experiences (Vosniadou & Brewer, 1992). Note the word experiences, it was personal experiences after all that led us to create our initial private theories and it will take experiences to reconstruct our understanding. “All of us need time for our confusion if we are to build the breadth and depth that give significance to our knowledge” (Confrey, 1990, p. 82). It is an incredibly tempting to speed this process up by giving students the answers when you see them struggling.

 

I think this Constructivist pedagogy of teaching questions instead of answers leads to a deeper experiential based understanding especially when it comes to a makerspace environment. This hands on exploration of concepts as opposed to rote memorization allows for a solid foundation of understanding that has been built as opposed to information given in the hopes of retention in longer term memory. In teaching a Grade 5 science class the Electricity unit I decided to use a Makey Makey. The Makey Makey is an electronic invention kit that is full of wonder and whimsy and is hugely engaging to students as well as an opportunity to experience exploration of electrical components. This kit is full of coloured wires and alligator clips. It was amazing to me the misconceptions of the colour of the wire mattering (too many action movies?), the fear of getting electrocuted if you touched the wire (more movies?), and that the Makey Makey was “magic”. By taking the time to question and challenge these understandings led to a purposeful investigation comparing conductivity and electrical current. The students had a reason to challenge their understanding in order to build a successful operation game.

Misconceptions come to life

 

The reconstruction of understanding after challenging misconceptions

This predictive questioning and hands  on inquiry seems to make sense in science class. We have a golden opportunity to use inquiry to improve our understanding and a chance to use technology to observe and interact with the phenomena….but what does this mean for mathematics when conceptual understanding is our greatest area of weakness (according to our PAT regression analysis) but we do not follow the same procedures to uncover misconceptions, or engage in inquiry. We tend to ask questions and teach answers.

 

Can this same method of questioning be applied to math? Have you authentically engaged in authentic inquiry as a way to construct meaning in your math classes?

 

Trish

PS This is a video that inspired me to become a teacher that asked more questions instead of teaching answers. I hope that it inspires you too.

References

Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of research in education, 16, 3-56

Fouché, J. (2015). Predicting Student Misconceptions in Science. Educational Leadership, 73(1), 60-65. Retrieved January 8, 2018, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept15/vol73/num01/Predicting-Student-Misconceptions-in-Science.aspx

Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive psychology, 24(4), 535-585

A Slice of Pi Changed my Life!

I was a child who was always fascinated by tinkering and how things work. I could often be found tinkering with broken toys or building traps like Indiana Jones. I was the classic 80s kid who was caught up in the wonder of the growing technology generation of home computers, video game consoles, and the dot matrix printer! Alas this technology was always out of reach for me due to very impoverished circumstances. There was no home computer for the homeless kid. Because of this lack of exposure I really became a massive technophobe. I actually never used a computer myself until I was in my Grade 12 year of high school (1996 YIKES). When I finally owned my own laptop for university I used it to type out good copies of the papers that I hand wrote. I became the teacher who barely checked email, was terrified of my SMART board, and never used any form of tech with my students. In 2012 I was teaching a special needs program at an inner city school and was struggling to find ways to break free from the traditional with my students. I heard about this new little pocket sized computer called a Raspberry Pi for only $35 that could be programmed by children. I knew it was now or never to breakout of my fear of technology and find something that could change my students’ learning. So I was lucky enough to see a teachers convention session for the Raspberry Pi that was being offered at one of the local high schools. When I got to the door for the session the facilitator stopped me at the door. He told me not to come in because this was a Raspberry Pi session…I said yes I know…he then said “the computer kind not the eating kind”. I was SHOCKED. I looked around the room and it was full of male secondary teachers and technology consultants. The facilitator was also a male. And here I was the only girl trying to come and learn something about computer science only to be shamed and turned away. I was my own self fulfilling prophecy of being a female afraid of technology. That moment changed my career forever. I walked in that room and I was the first one to build my Pi and unpack my NOOBS all on my own. After that day that little computer changed my students learning allowing illiterate children to code stories, make math games, build animal security cameras and more. Then I dove head first into any and all technology, learned multiple coding languages, started my technology consultant position, and began my MET journey. That was six year ago and I have never looked back. Technology is my life and I love it. It took one closed door for me to open hundreds and now I make sure that I try and open doors for teachers and students everyday.

Super Geek from Alberta

Hi Everyone!

My name is Trish Roffey and I am from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada! This term is exciting as I am completing my 8th and 9th MET course! I am one of those very geeky girls that loves to take risks and jump into the deep end to try anything and everything that could help to transform the learning experience of our students. Actually that is pretty much my job description as well! I am an Emerging Technology Consultant for my school district. I have 96 schools, 3500 teachers and 40,000 students that I work with! I work with a team of 4 other inspired educators who are also passionate about educational technology. My personal role on the team is to do what hasn’t been done before! I specialize in coding, robotics, makerspace, assistive technology, VR, AR, and all things Google! In a single day I can be found working with teachers and students in multiple schools to build a computer using a Raspberry Pi, code a poetry generator, developing flight simulator using recycled materials, create our own Mars Rovers, take a field trip to swim with the sharks in Virtual Reality,  and hack a word wall to make it talk! I work with students from preschool to Grade 12 with a special focus on our most at risk students and how we can use technology to transform the learning experience and allow for tasks that would have previously been inconceivable for them.

I am really hoping that I can explore using technology to enhance mathematics and science for students who struggle in a way that does not simply digitize or replace a traditional learning task. So often technology is a simple substitution and I want to use this term to explore transformation of learning in a way that all students, especially those with special needs, can enjoy and explore both science and math again. These are courses where our fringe students fall behind or a locked out, and I hope to be able to use technology to help change that.

When I am not plugged in I am a girl who likes to be lost in nature with my three kids and two dogs experiencing the “real” world.

I am excited to get to know everyone in the course!

Trish