Week 2 – Unpacking Assumptions
What “counts” as good use of technology in math and science learning environments?
- Allows students to imagine their learning outside of the classroom walls
- Gives students a more equitable learning experience
- Provides opportunities for learning that might not have been possible without tech
- Empowers students to try new things
- Empowers students to feel confident in what they know
Good use of technology in the math and science classroom looks like excitement. It sounds loud with conversation about things that students are discovering using technology, things that can’t be learnt through textbooks or teachers. Good use of technology feels like students are confident and empowered to take chances, make mistakes, and discover what they don’t know. On a less abstract level, good use of technology is well thought out. It enhances the learning environment for students without becoming the center of the learning experience. So often, students can misuse technology or can find themselves more enamoured with the gamification aspect. Though these types of programs have a place in our math and science classrooms, good technology use is going to allow students to tap into those higher order skills.
Educators don’t have a lot of time on their hands, and these days, less and less. Good technology use is going to help educators understand their students’ needs better. Whether it’s a quick formative check-in, or a more in depth analyzation of conceptual challenges, good technology in the math and science classroom provides educators with support for their students’ academic growth. Technological needs are contextual. What might be a great use of technology one day, might not work the next. As much as it is on the teacher to incorporate technology into the classroom, the responsibility of good technology use also lies with the students. So though I haven’t given a concrete example of good technology use in the math and science classroom, I think the important thing to remember is that it needs to be dynamic and intentional.
Week 1/2 – Conceptual challenges
Conceptual challenges in the science and math classroom are often plenty. Student’s come to us with their preconceived ideas and though often, there are parts of them that resemble the actual concept, they are laced with misunderstandings gained from personal experiences, previous education, or even ideas from their imagination. Though we weren’t explicitly told where Heather’s misunderstandings came from, it is evident that she was very firm in her beliefs of bouncing light and initially, her belief of how earth orbited the sun. What registered most with me from A Private Universe was when Heather’s teacher, Marlene, discussed how as educators, we aren’t always privy to the things our students are grasping or thinking. This can make it challenging to address misconceptions.
Fosnot (2005) explores how these “contradictions” in what students think they know versus what the actual concept is, “need to be illuminated, explored, and discussed” (p. 25). The challenge here is being able to identify students’ contradictions and misconceptions before they are too self-conscious to admit them and before they become too ingrained in their cognitive understanding. As an area of further research, I wanted to see ways in which these misconceptions can be identified. Soeharto et al. (2019) shares from Gurel et al. (2015) how “a combination is better than a single method” when looking to identify common misconceptions in science (p. 259). These methods can include interviews, multiple tier tests and multiple choice questions (Soeharto, 2019). So, with this in mind, would it be possible to attempt to identify the common contradictions in a science class at the beginning of a term, and then purposefully address them throughout the course? This is where technology could come into play with the ability to analyze the results and identify the contradictions that would align most closely with the course content.
Having a deeper understanding of what knowledge our learners are bringing into our classrooms could have a great impact on our ability to ensure they move forward with legitimate information and learning. Erickon (1979) shares that “the most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows” (p. 221). If this is the case, why are we not spending more time identifying this when we first meet our students? Though we can assume a new sixth grader is coming into our classroom knowing the concepts of the fifth grade curriculum, it seems it would be a disservice not to try and pinpoint more accurately what misconceptions exist so they can be better addressed and opportunities can be provided for them to be challenged.
References:
Erickson, G. L. (1979). Children’s conceptions of heat and temperature. Science Education 63 (2), 221-230.
Fosnot, C. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press. https://go.exlibris.link/QnnMtSbC
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (1987). A Private Universe [Video]. Annenberg Learner. https://www.learner.org/series/a-private-universe/1-a-private-universe
Soeharto, S., Csapó, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247-266.
Week 1 – Auto e-ography
You can find my auto e-ography here. And, for those curious about these infamous Plickers cards, you can see what they’re all about here.