Module 5: Science teaching...a veritable smorgasbord of technology opportunities

Buckle up people...this one is a bit too long.  In my defence, I consider that there are essentially 2 blog post topics in this week’s material – ideas about hardware/software choices in specific disciplines and also benefits and challenges associated with the TIP framework in our teaching area. 

I have to say that I think the TIP framework is just sound lesson planning practice that includes a couple of extra considerations with regards to the use of technology.  Wiggins and McTighe (as cited in Henderson and Exley, 2012, p. 26) use the term 'backward design'  and emphasised the need for lesson planning decisions starting with outcomes and required standards, and working backwards to learning activities.  The steps identified by Wiggings & Mctighe are similar to those in the TIP framework.  

I do however, particularly like the ‘determination of relative advantage’ step – sound practice to eliminate the use of technology simply because it’s a curriculum requirement and avoid having students conduct some word processing or spreadsheeting or create the dreaded Powerpoint.  And, the TPACK assessment is also particularly important.  There’s little advantage to introducing the students to a whizz-bang piece of shiny technology if you spend the entire lesson trying to get it to work.  This is particularly true with respect to technology integration in science teaching – there are so many areas in which things could go wrong if you are not savvy with the tech you are using.  When I was doing Physics in year 12  (many years ago), the nature of equipment then, and Physics itself (which I never grew to love) meant that one often spent the entire lesson trying to get one’s prac to work!  We had a particularly groovy teacher who used to say:  “if it smells it’s chemistry, if it’s green it’s biology and if it doesn’t work…it’s physics”.  The fact that that particular statement is my clearest memory from HSC Physics is not a reflection on his teaching ability!  In seriousness though, the advances in technology since then mean that that particular statement is no longer quite as applicable. 

I think that science teachers who are trying to integrate technology into their classes are particularly lucky as there are endless examples of relative advantage.  The NSW Syllabus is also very explicit in its requirements for the use of technology, incorporating it not only as a general capability but also in content and outcomes.  The science syllabus is organised into strands of Knowledge & Understanding (K&U), Values & Attitudes and Skills of Working Scientifically (WS).  Both the K&U and WS outcomes are rich with opportunities, and indeed requirements, for the use of technology for investigating, researching, collaborating, collecting, processing and analysing data, presenting and communicating. 

Although the opportunities and possibilities are seemingly endless, there are categories of technology or technology use that I believe are particularly relevant in science teaching.   These are simulations, spreadsheets, data collection systems and flipped learning.

Computer generated simulations are valuable teaching and learning tools (Smetana & Bell, 2012) that allow students to conduct hands on techniques in the virtual world that would be beyond budgetary, safety and/or time-frame constraints in a real classroom. A diversity of learners can also be catered for as, with many programs, teachers can vary the amount of scaffolding or teacher support provided. Simulations allow students to investigate, visualise and experience the concepts, rather than the teacher just providing definitions for students to memorise.  It is essential that students conduct investigations and practice as scientists as this assists them to ‘learn skills and understandings at the heart of scientific literacy” (Hackling, 2012). Simulations are also useful in promoting conceptual change (Windschitl & Andre, 1998) which is very valuable as students’ alternative conceptions are common in science and can present a real barrier to learning (Tytler, 2012).  There are lots of different laboratory simulation packages but a few examples are Labster (www.labster.com), PhET Simulations (https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations) , Gizmos (www.explorelearning.com); Algodoo (www.algodoo.com)

Spreadsheets.  I can hear Jackie groaning but spreadsheet skills are great for science classrooms, particularly when combined with data collection devices, Probeware, data loggers – whatever you want to call them.  These devices can collect data on a range of parameters and send it to appropriate software for analysis and presentation.  This is a truly authentic scientific practice and there is no limit to the type of investigations that can be conducted.  A simple Google search will bring up a range of different devices but one that stands out for me is a device called PocketLab which is seriously cool and is a terrific example of using technology for not only sound pedagogy but also for enhancing the fund and engagement factor.  PocketLab can be configured to measure acceleration, force, angular velocity, magnetic field, pressure, altitude, and temperature.  It can be attached to a rocket or a ball and sent flying through the air and will send data of its journey back to student computers.  All scientists record, analyse and present their data using spreadsheets.  Science class is a terrific opportunity to teach students real life skills with Excel or other spreadsheet software such as graphing, sorting, entering formulas and so on. In addition, this meets several of the Working Scientifically outcomes across all year levels.

A “flipped classroom” is an instructional method and a form of blended learning. In essence, students are given access to instructional material online and complete this as ‘homework’.  Thus, when they arrive in class, the theory has been covered and teachers use class time for group work, practical activities, discussion or hands on practice to clarify concepts and theories.  There have been a number of benefits described with this practice (Ng, 2014) and it can employ a range of different technologies for delivery of the learning material for example a Learning Management System, Google Classroom, and any of a range of content sharing, multimedia platforms such as Wikis, YouTube, TEDEd  etc.

And finally, there is a Working Scientifically outcome in the NSW Syllabus that requires students to communicate and present.  This opens up a range of opportunities for the presentation of ‘science ideas, findings and information to a given audience’ (NESA).  Communication and presentation of scientific investigations, findings and reports is an authentic scientific practice and there are a range of multimedia and digital platforms, technologies and applications available for students to explore.

  

References

Hackling, M. W. (2012). Assessment of and for learning in Science. In G. Venville & V. Dawson        (Eds.), The art of Teaching Science for middle and secondary school (p. 143 and p. 120). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin

(n.d.). Science K–10 (inc. Science and Technology K–6 ... - NSW Syllabus. Retrieved from https://syllabus.nesa.nsw.edu.au/science/science-k10/content/981/

Henderson, R., & Exley, B., (2012) Planning for Literacy Learning. in R. Henderson (Ed.), Teaching Literacy in the middle Years: Pedagogies and Diversity (pp. 18-56). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Ng, W. (2014). Flipping the Science Classroom: Exploring Merits, Issues and Pedagogy. Teaching Science, 60(3), 16-27. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1561471481/citation/48CA380DF7A64C41PQ/1?accountid=10344 

Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

Tytler, R. (2012). Constructivist and socio-cultural views of teaching and learning. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of Teaching Science for middle and secondary school (p. 23). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145-160. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2%3C145::AID-TEA5%3E3.0.CO;2-S