This document discusses the use of technology in the math and science classroom. It makes three key points: 1. There is a need for strong support systems for teachers to learn how to effectively integrate technology into their lessons, as lack of support and professional development has led to a "digital divide". 2. Lessons should be designed purposefully using technology tools to enhance learning and engage students, not just for the sake of using technology. Frameworks like Learning for Use and T-GEM can help guide lesson planning. 3. Technology can help bring real-world experiences into the classroom through simulations, virtual field trips, and online learning environments, making lessons more relevant and interesting for students.

1. SUPPORT & PURPOSEFUL DESIGN OF TECH TOOLS: Analysis of ETEC 533
One of the most heated debates around the world today, examines how the
education system can increase achievement outcomes, worldwide. Some consider
the answer to be standardized tests, possibly known as ‘teaching to the test… ?’
Who decides how we demonstrate achievement?
As an educator, I shift my teaching toward constructivist strategies that
extend outside of the confinements of tests. I attempt to develop a classroom filled
with engagement and experimentation where students test limits and develop new
theories while learning to think and engage in multiple, complex ways. But how is
this possible? Technology is one of the many tools I use to enhance and create more
realistic depictions of what is being taught.
As I entered into my fourth MET course, I was intrigued initially by the topic
itself, technology within the math and science classroom. My initial thoughts in my
auto e-ography focused on the power of simulation and a new way of interaction
with blogs and forums. As I delved into our class community, I soon realized that
my journey would be much more than discovery of games and possibly the
development of my own. I set forth on a DISCOVERY trail of educational technology,
specifically for the math and science classroom. My interviewees in my own
teaching community set my thoughts reeling in a much different direction as I
questioned or shared the thoughts within the forum. The advances in technologies
and the new focus of instruction highlighted our conversations and I was struck
with how little has been accomplished in the last couple of decades. If we know it,
why can’t we show it? I set out to discover the answers of ‘why’.
After engaging with interviews, research and within the MET forum, my first
discovery spoke volumes. The distribution of technologies and professional
development within our nation alone has only managed to create a ‘digital divide’,
but how? It is here that my first theme of support emerged. As RM mentioned in
module A, “professional development seems to play a large role in whether or not
available technology is being integrated with instruction in the classroom. If it’s too
difficult to figure out or takes too long to learn, it probably won’t be used.” The need
for embedded support beyond workshops is apparent. Support needs to begin at
the top with administrators and board personnel that are interested and motivated
about tech, as well as a call for an increase in the community of educators who are
sharing and practicing with this new learning paradigm. Time not only to learn
from leaders but from coworkers as well.
The ability to excess resources that support technology in the math and
science classroom is essential within each school community. Without resources,
the capability to enhance learning and give students the opportunity to “knock on
the world’s doorstep” becomes non-existent. This seemed like much too bleak of a
future to digest, so I set out to see why this is occurring and how we can fix it.
Overall, it was blatantly obvious that administrators and teachers still need to give

2. their time to adopt new technologies and adapt to teaching with them as well as
being able to adjust to a new way of learning. Some educators are already doing,
some in the stages of initial integration but others, they just didn’t seem to be
hooking in and giving constructivist and technologies a chance. Frustrating to say
the least, but how can we solve this problem?
As I framed my issue, I wanted to understand how the educational system
strives to accommodate and support teachers that are reluctant or scared to use
technology as a tool. These tools are “necessary to develop strategies for students
to effectively use computers and advanced communication technologies that help
them to improve their academic performance.” (Lee et al., 2009, p.226). If as Lee
(2009) suggests, the use of technological tools helps to improve our overall
understanding and the main debate in education is how we can enhance our
outcomes, why isn’t everyone joining in and following suit?
As we began learning about technology enhanced learning environments
(TELEs), I realized that the need for effectively curriculum designs using
technological tools was essential for educators to see, hear and feel in order to feel
comfortable with the new type of teaching. Support needs to be given in the manner
of predesigned activities and examples of how tools can be used. I discovered that
ideally, the teacher should design a lesson with specific learning goals in mind and
use technology to enhance their critical thinking skills by demonstrating examples
of “thinking” outside of the box in 3 dimensional layers.
So how can we show teachers the benefit of these experiences and help them
to understand how to connect students to a changing world? The feeling of cynicism
in the teacher career was apparent in discussion and the lack of support in all
arenas was a grim reality. It is evident from personal reflections, interviews and
numerous case studies and discussions thereafter, that a shift in teaching strategies
requires pedagogical and technical shifts for educators.
It is at this part of the course, I discovered the Learning for Use Model (LfU)
and (Technology – Generate, Evaluate and Modify) T-GEM framework. I began to
see a solution and thought these types of strategies could benefit teaching. These
frameworks can be designed for teachers to use within our classrooms. I reiterate
my feeling about LfU as stated in module B, that just like a good book, a good writer
of curriculum design will chose to intrigue the learners right from the start by
setting the stage for the “big idea” and eliciting previous knowledge as well as
engaging students in the task at hand. Much like DC suggested, ““if students are
able to teach or articulate their knowledge to others, students more or less have a
grasp on the concepts.” The synthesizing part of the lesson is so important for
students. They take all those bits and pieces and put them together so that they can
understand the big picture. DH’s concluding comment that “by making the lessons
real and relevant, the students are more likely to be interested and learn.” So how
can we make learning real and relevant? Field trips everyday would be a splendid
way to get students learning with and not from textbooks but nonetheless,

3. extremely unrealistic. Technology within the math and science classroom creates
opportunities for real life learning experiences and helps in the development of
meaningful connections. Through applets, virtual field trips, videos and online
learning environments strive to engage learners and set the scene for inquiry based
learning.
Using the T-GEM (Khan 2010) model to create a lesson may help educators to
understand how they are developing ‘mastery learners’ that is, students who are
primarily motivated by the need to acquire competence rather than to strive only
for social approval and recognition (O’Keefe, 1996). In order to create ‘mastery
experiences’, educators need to understand how to use technology as a tool and
need examples of lessons while sharing ideas within their own communities; the
reluctance and fear may dissipate. As Khan (MET forum, 2012) mentioned
“designers may find it beneficial to use technology in one phase of the GEM cycle
over another. T-GEM is arguably like LfU, SKI, and anchored instruction, in that the
digital technology can be eliminated for portions of the activity, exchanged, or
repurposed.” Key point being that technology should only be used with PURPOSE
and not for glorified instruction. By the end of module B, my theme extended past
the need for support and saw the connection for the need for effective DESIGN and
the understanding of technology as a TOOL. Jonassen (2000) quotes Gagnéa (1980)
as saying “the central point of education is to teach people to think, to use their
rational powers, to become better problem solvers” (p.85).
Technology plays an important role in the math and science classroom. The
ability to help visualize, solve complex problems within learning communities and
the connection to a wealth of information is imperative within the scientific and
mathematical fields of learning. During module C, I had the opportunity to
understand how the introduction of technology enhanced learning environments
(TELEs) in the classroom requires a tremendous amount of restructuring for
administrators, educators and students.
Online learning environments, virtual worlds/trips or 3-D hands on tools can
offer opportunities to enhance intellectual growth and student centred classrooms
that attempt to connect to the learner on a personal level. These tools help
educators to combine learning experiences while eliminating barriers to
participation. Lessons today should be interactive with web and hypermedia while
adapting to student learning through tutorial programs and simulations. The social
part of virtual worlds is one of the main factors that help to motive students because
it is driven by free choice learning. Falk and Storksdiek’s study (2009) stress the
need for self -interpretation in learning and believe it influences student
perceptions. Learning is made productive through applets, virtual field trips and
interactive tools. As I suggested in module C, lessons should be created to align with
reality, which helps to enhance natural curiosity making the learning meaningful.
How then does this learning translate into my own classroom? What ways
can I integrate new models of teaching and tools that help to enhance learning

4. within my own school community? First and foremost, I would be sure to be the
guide when integrating technology, along with the curriculum expectations. Finding
purposeful simulations and virtual field trips to enhance our science units or help
students visualize mathematical concepts through applets. I believe it is imperative
to have administrator support with the integration of technology and have spent
countless hours sharing my experiences with my principal and the GM of IT with my
board. I choose to have a voice and to not only teach others but also attempt to
learn and observe when they are integrating technology. "The instructional goals of
computer-using teachers are in art, science, math, language arts, social studies, or
other disciplines, not in computers." Geisert & Futrell, 1995.
My Personal Goals to Integrate Technology:
- Communicate through blogs (kidblog.org) to increase creative writing and
reflection on experiments
- Interact on the smart board during math class, using applets and allowing
students to demonstrate thinking (student-lead)
- Use simulations when examine sound and light sources as well as the
formation of different types of rocks
- Incorporate videos to enhance mathematical concepts (intro or conclusion)
- Journey through virtual field trips to help add to contextual experiences
- Use digital cameras to illustrate curricular concepts
- Design interactive smart board lessons that students can lead learning or
work in small groups
- Offer use of smart board to other classroom (we only have 5 in our school)
and my personal expertise to help guide them through the lesson.
- Collaborate with technologists in school district and keep up to date with
board initiatives.
As technology becomes more available within our classrooms and teachers
learn how to apply it, it is important to consider how we will evaluate this type of
learning. Throughout the final discussions, many people voiced concerns about the
lack of assessments developed for the new tools being integrated. The challenge is
in preparing students for their FUTURE and not ours is often a roadblock educators
face when designing assessments. Some educators tend to teach in the way they
were taught and old forms of assessments lack the importance of communication,
collaboration and creative problem solving while having very little to do with the
incorporation of constructivist learning. Students need to be learning to use
technology to learn with and not from. So how can we adjust to teach
technologically literate learners? The way teachers EXPERIENCE learning within
Pro-D sessions is essential. By experiencing what technology can look, sound and
feel like, educators are learning to effectively lead classroom learning in the 21st
century.

5. My final thoughts are centred with how to integrate technology effectively
and the need for a pedagogical shift. I believe that scaffolding strategies and
training opportunities are essential for teachers to transform from novice
technology users to expert technology integrators as well as essential support and
guidance from administration. I must act not only for my students but also for the
community of students within my reach. A voice for reform must not only be heard
but must also show the way, demonstrating the benefits and sharing techniques will
have a measurable impact.
REFERENCES:
Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry
activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
Falk, J. & Storksdieck, M. (2010). Science learning in a leisure setting. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(2), 194-212
Gagnéa, R.M. (1980). Learnable aspects of problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 15(2), 84-92.
Geisert Paul G. & Futrell, Mynga K. (1995). Teachers, Computers, and Curriculum (2nd Edition). Needham
Heights, Mass: Simon & Schuster.
Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research
& Development, 48(4), 63-85.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Lee, S. M., Brescia, W., & Kissinger, D. (2009). Computer use and academic development in secondary
schools. Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 224-235.
O‟Keefe, B.A. (1996). A teacher’s interpretation of motivational strategies: Tools to help students
succeed. Retrieved from: http:// edpsycherver.ed.vt.edu/resources/motivation1.html