Technology.... Balancing the Good with the Bad

"Teachers need to integrate technology seamlessly into the curriculum instead of viewing it as an add-on, an afterthought, or an event."
-Heidi-Hayes Jacobs, Educational Consultant

What is technology? Technology (in short) is anything that makes the process, product, and/or outcome of a task easier. Although this blog post is meant to address technology in the classroom and how decisions to use it should be based on learning theory and our student goals, it is important to mention that technology is not just computers and electronics. The technology in the classroom can range from the whiteboard (or chalkboard) in the front of the room to the mechanical pencil in your students' hands.

Technology has the ability to effectively supplement the presentation, understanding, and creating (synthesizing) aspects of learning content. Technology can improve all three of the areas of learning mentioned above, however, every form of technology has its trade-offs. The job of the teacher is to seamlessly integrate the technology into the classroom and do so with the awareness that technology does not always pack benefits. So ask yourself... does this form and use of technology have benefits that outweigh the drawbacks? Is the technology going to send an inaccurate implicit or even explicit message to my students? Thus, the integration of technology into the classroom, while necessary to provide a well-rounded education for our students, it turns into a balancing act. This balancing act is too often overlooked when technology becomes an add-on, afterthought, or used as an event and reasoning is not rooted in years of research (learning theory) and our student goals.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Explicit links between technology decisions and both learning theories and goals for students.

Technology can improve the presentation of information and aid in the facilitation of students in making connections. For example, if students were asked to develop concept maps in student-groups about the knowledge they recently constructed (assimilated or accommodated into schema-CLT) the teacher could collect and review them following the class (formative assessment) and create a prezi presentation to share with the class. The use of prezi allows the teacher to present information in a concept map fashion, while addressing student misconceptions (from formative assessment), and asking students to elaborate on the labels that connect the components of the concept map.

Prezi vs the Whiteboard.

By using prezi it offers the ability to "zoom in" or focus in on a certain section but quickly bounce out to the bigger picture. The prezi can be updated should students identify additional misconceptions or in light of information that was conveyed implicitly but students would like to explicitly add to presentation. The prezi can be sent to students or if need be printed out. The main implicit message that the prezi presentation may send is that once the document is created it is error free and complete. This is where facilitating a conversation about the prezi presentation (based on students concept maps)  that we as a class are going to elaborate on it and review it is important. I may have left a common misconception that was present in the student-group generated concept maps and ask thought-provoking questions about its validity. The benefit of the technology is to have a tool that will present information that can be tweaked, organized, and accessible (for later use).  By incorporating this technology with a class discussion the students are encouraged to use their robust understanding of science content to deepen the connections in the concept map and communicate effectively to their peers (SLT) their understanding of the content. Students will be encouraged to think critically about the class generated concept map and communicate their concerns in a respectful manner.

Technology can improve student understanding of information. For example, the use of pH probes in chemistry or physical science can allow students to take student-generated experiments to another level opposed to having to carry-out titrations every time.

WATCH OUT!!
If you were to have students conduct an investigation using pH probes prior to the construction of knowledge about what the pH probe is doing can push the well-intended investigation into a downward spiral!

Premature use of a device can interfere with students perception of what is happening. Be cautious and ask yourself... do my students know what is going on here? Is the use of this device asking my students to take an supported leap in their logic?!  Learning theory informs us [educators/learners] that concrete representations are easier to understand than abstract representations. Thus it is important that if developmentally appropriate (in students' cognitive reach) we address the fundamentals of pH and what the pH probe is doing. So developmental theory (well-established explanation of phenomenon) informs us that concrete representations are the way to go! For this particular situation I would have my students doing titrations by hand and using indicators, prior to the use of pH probes. I also think that if developmentally appropriate you can have a discussion about what the indicators are doing/ how they work (this can be referenced when discussing how the pH probe works). Too often students have the misconception that the indicators are some sort of science magic! (YIKES) So after students have dealt with the exploration of titrations (by hand) and built an understanding of the concepts for application purposes the pH probe seems right to allow students to go beyond determining the pH. Students good investigate anti-acid digestion tablets and house hold products using pH related concepts. To take the technology even deeper to support their learning, you can have students think about ways to increase the technology (be ready to have additional resources about updated technology ...seeing as your school may not have the top of line!). I would just caution that you are diagnosing and assessing student understanding of the technology being used so not to overlook the concept the technology is supporting.

 I would like to address the use of social media and computer (in general) technology. Learning theory supports that concrete representations are best for building an understanding. Concrete can mean that you are manipulating real objects and or using familiar situations (BE CAREFUL DO NOT ASSUME ALL STUDENTS ARE FAMILIAR--- ASSESS).

Simulations on a computer are not guaranteed concrete representations. Most simulations consist of photos, drawings, diagrams, and graphs which are not as concrete as real objects. So, I would caution the use of simulation to begin with and challenge the idea of an even more concrete representation prior to the simulation. Also, be sure to address the representations with student goals. For example, does the simulation allow students to be creative, think critically, self-assess, does the simulation support learning or is it masking students' misconceptions or rejection of new information (CLT)? What is the simulation saying about the nature of science? Is there a large icon that pops up "CORRECT!" for getting the SINGLE desired response?! Are students able to communicate with peers during the simulation to partake in consensus building? Beings the simulation is near the middle of the concrete to abstract continuum is it allowing students to apply their current understanding to other situations or disciplines? So many questions and decisions to consider. TEACHING IS DECISION-MAKING!

The importance of literacy in the content areas can be supported by technology. For example, twitter is commonly used among adolescents in their free-time. However, is it not part of our student goals for them to use their knowledge and apply it to everyday life, to see how science can relate to other disciplines and use it to connect/collaborate with others? When twitter is used accurately it can allow students to increase their learning by writing to learn, communicating with their peers, self-assessing their understanding (140 characters-concise), promotes components of the nature of science (creative, limited, collaboration, peer review (critical thinking), creative, more than one accurate response, subjectivity of interpretation, and etc...), and in most cases is a familiar tool to our students (DLT).  The tasks and activities we select for our students ought to be actively  mentally engaging. By this students should be accessing their prior knowledge (and using it throughout --not just referencing it in the beginning of a topic), responding to thought-provoking questions [teacher-guided], collaborating with their peers, making decisions on how to solve problems, collect data, interpret data, and to take the creative leap from interpretations to conclusion. Twitter is a form of technology that can support (not an activity in and of itself) guided-inquiry in which students are given a teacher-directed question to respond to and encouraged to discuss and comment on their peers responses. Student actions encouraged are that students (as mentioned previously) communicate effectively and respectfully, embrace differences and value equity in peer responses, and that they recognize the impact of personal behaviors on community and make informed choices (posting on a public site and should be thoughtful in what they post). Twitter can also serve as a support for self-assessment. Students may be prompted to reflect on the outcome of their guided or open-inquiry and what they interpreted from the data, observations, potential errors in their created approach or procedure to the investigation or experiment (depending on control and manipulation of variables).

In the end, the teacher decisions for technology need to be based off of student actions you are asking or promoting to be exhibited (student goals), messages sent in regards to nature of science and learning, and also reflecting on learning theories about what will be developmentally appropriate (DLT), encourage the use of content language (SLT), constructing knowledge among peers (SLT)(this is more beneficial than independent work because students are able to serve as each others more knowledgeable peer in some cases, more than one mental framework addressing task, etc...), and how the technology is supporting them while they assimilate or accommodate the new information to existing mental framework (CLT) (connection of new information to existing knowledge is the only way students will truly understand information, retain information, and be able to apply it to new situations (the GOAL of moving students to abstract understanding!).

Comments, suggestions, questions, and concerns ALL welcome!

-AB

CLT - Constructivist Learning Theory
DLT - Developmental Learning Theory
SLT- Social Learning Theory

M&M Activity Reflections and Questions

M&M Activity Reflections and Questions (Activity/Lesson on 4/3/12 in EDUC 236 Class)

The M&M activity had a lot going for itself, to say the least.

First my thoughts and reflections on varying components of the activity. I like that the activity had so many learning objectives. I will take away from this activity that lessons or even other activities should not be narrow in focus. When you can create or reflect on an activity and have over ten learning objectives you can explore, elaborate, or review on a lot of content. The nature of the activity presented itself as an inquiry activity with roots in developmental learning theory (starting concrete and applying abstract concepts), social learning theory (collaborative learning, communicating thoughts), constructivist learning theory (active mental engagement and prior knowledge), and behavioral learning theory (walking outside appropriately and highlight consequences for not doing so, when question is posed by teacher or peer that students think about question during wait time). The students were able to make decisions and felt invested in their own learning. Being able to witness the power of being emotionally (being "right" or "wrong"), mentally, and physically invested in an activity or concept helps with active mental engagement, meaning-making, activate prior knowledge, formulate questions, and take ownership of ones thoughts and understandings.

The final two things that really stood out to me and that I will take away from this activity presentation is that "data doesn't tell, data is interpreted" and to ask myself [as a teacher] "what decisions can students make?". To this point, I have always had teachers and peers refer to the data as a way to tell us if something is wrong or right. However, I now completely disagree with both statements. Data can be interpreted in many ways and even represented in many ways (like our different graphs). The difference is not about wrong or right. The point was brought up that indeed there is likely a more effective way to represent or interpret data but all accepted interpretations can be accurate. In science there is not a wrong and right. In science the more appropriate terms are accepted and unaccepted. I found it very interesting to see the number of similarities and differences in which my peers represented the data that was collected! I like the idea of putting a sign somewhere near my desk or on my computer that reminds me constantly to consider "what decisions can students make?". Is this not what student-centered learning is all about?

Questions and concerns that exist after the activity include:

• How does one find a decent stopping point during the activity to pick up with the next class period?
• How does one monitor and encourage all students to participate? With the students discussing in groups and working collaboratively it appears easy for some to "check out". 
• When answering questions posed by teacher how does the teacher truly understand if the student knows what they are saying? 
• Because there are SO many learning objectives it felt like some concepts or objectives were abandoned. 
• Would a teacher consider having the students write about the possible nature of science components of the activity (instead of given them one and asking them to apply or support it with the activity).

Learning Objectives Identified
Nature of Science (NOS)

• Data is interpreted
• Science has biases
• No scientific method
• Consensus Building
• Science is collaborative
• Science is culturally embedded
• Role of evidence in science
• Science uses models

Science Inquiry

• Make graphs/data analysis
• Explaining (ideas, thoughts, observations)
• Questioning (formulating questions and answering)
• Data collection

Content

• Natural Selection
• Camouflage
• Mutation
• Genetics (review)

 

"Real Science"

Chemistry Matters: The Life of a Chemist (video clip)

Are "traditional" high school science teachers doing a disservice to students by neglecting to tell the truth about science? 

This Chemistry Matters video clip shows REAL chemists doing REAL chemistry and it is not as straight forward and dull as too many high school students perceive chemistry to be. This misconception of science having clear solutions, being routine, and irrelevant to every day life that students too often have when they leave their high school chemistry classroom (or sadly by the end of the first quarter of their chemistry course) needs to end. Science teachers need to make it a priority to incorporate the truth about science and what it has to offer to their students and potentially future scientists. 

The nature of science is discussed in this video by numerous chemists who all address important concepts. High school science educators should discuss these nature of science concepts in the classroom (preferably on a regular basis). Just a few of the nature of science (NOS) concepts mentioned in this film include; collaboration, curiosity, creativity, interesting (science is not a 9-5 job), and that being a scientist is similar to being a musician (composing explanations and/or advancements). 

Yes, learning the basics about science can be challenging and dry to many. However, it is an educator's challenge/duty to incorporate the real aspects of science into the learning of the basics and applications of science and engage students in science the way REAL scientists do. Now we (science educators) know what needs to be done, so how do we do it?

Additional Chemistry Matter Video Clips

Article related to presenting science in an interesting and thought-provoking fashion:
Backus, Lisa. (2005). A Year Without Procedures. The Science Teacher. Vol 72(7),
pages54-58.
Broad suggestions for implementation of science content:
Student-centered learning
Guided Inquiry (esp. labs)
Active Mental Engagement
Higher-order thinking (HOTS)

NSTA Position Statement: The Nature of Science

National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: The Nature of Science (2000). 

This position statement provides great insight into the key components to understand the Nature of Science (NOS). I have read numerous articles on the topic of NOS, but feel that this one is a must to revisit if one already understands NOS and also helpful for those new to the ideas.

Reflections

Science "evolves" thus one needs to think critically about scientific knowledge. Yet, many components of scientific knowledge have been and remain widely accepted, that does not ensure "correctness".  (Science is reliable and tentative)

The process of science is NOT linear. The process of science has many shared elements or patterns but there is not a single universal scientific method.

Science is exciting and imaginative. Many scientists use creativity to spark or ignite the production of scientific knowledge. Creativity may arise while searching for another approach or explanation or may be sparked unintentionally by the need to explain something one stumbled upon.

Science cannot nor should attempt to explain the supernatural. Science is limited. Science is the study of the natural world.

The difference between theories and laws (formed to organize science). Laws are the "what" of how aspects of the natural world work. Theories are the "why" of aspects in the natural world. Not all laws have theories. Theories do NOT become laws!

Science is a collaborative endeavor. People across the world provide resources (contributions) for others.

The process of science is contextualized. Science is impacted by social and cultural contexts. (i.e. Stem-cell research) Scientists have personal biases and varied conceptual frameworks (prior experiences and understandings). Peer review is a component of science that helps compensate for personal scientists' biases.

Continue to question and think critically about "basic" science (knowing for knowledge sake). Science evolves and one should question the foundational scientific knowledge.

Science does NOT equal technology. Science impacts technology. Basic science (knowing for knowledge sake) vs. applied science (applying science for practical purposes (improve the process and/or outcome/product) is technology.)

"Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care." -Theodore Roosevelt

“Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself.” -John Dewey