Dedal, Mateo D. BEED-IV Educ. 125 (The Teaching Profession) Reaction Paper October 2, 2014 Educational Technology and Innovative Teaching
I. Discussion In recent years, many education systems have introduced educational technology into the schools for teaching, learning, and management purposes (Cunningham, 2009; De Freitas & Oliver, 2005; Fullan & Smith, 1999; Halverson & Smith 2010; Selwyn, 2010 as cited in Avidov – Ungar, Ungar, 2010). Educational technology tools such as computers, probeware, data collection and analysis software, digital microscopes, hypermedia/multimedia, student response systems, and interactive white boards can help students actively engage in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and development of the nature of science and inquiry. When educational technology tools are used appropriately and effectively in science classrooms, students actively engage in their knowledge construction and improve their thinking and problem solving skills (Trowbridge, Bybee, & Powell, 2008 as cited in Guzey & Roehrig, 2009). Effective use of educational technology is vital to solving many of our current educational challenges (Culatta, 2011). One of the persistent persistent challenges has been how to encourage, support and sustain these innovative practices which rest largely on the individual lecturer (Cox, 2010). Bringing up educational technology programme for teaching, learning and school administration is one form of technological innovation. There are two forms of embracing innovation: one is the comprehensive innovation which involves most of the organization – organization – and and islands of innovation which is limited only to specific groups within it (Avidov – (Avidov – Ungar, Ungar, 2010).
“There is no substitute for good teaching. This is as true with digital learning technologies as it is with digital learning technologies of chalk and board or paper and pen. This is the view of students, parents and educators. However, in the digital age, the teacher is a navigator or facilitator fostering in students the ability to search competently, safely and efficiently through the wealth of information and human resources available to them. The teacher nurtures effective approaches, the use of appropriate tools, capacity to synthesize the results of research and the skills to create new knowledge. Emerging digital learning technologies allow teachers not only to encourage students to pursue self – self – directed directed learning but to collaborate with them as co – co – learners learners on a local or global scale. In a blended learning environment, technology allows for a greater share of class time to be used for one – on – one support, collaboration and consolidation of learning” (OPSBA: A Vision for Learning and Teaching in the Digital Age. Retrieved on September 25, 2014 from http://www.opsba.org/files/OPSBA_AVisionForLearning.pdf) http://www.opsba.org/files/OPSBA_AVisionForLearning.pdf).. II.
As a prospective movement practitioner, how may knowledge of the content improve the teaching/learning process?
At one level, concern about the knowledge base focuses on improving the respect and status accorded teaching, thereby making it a more rewarding career (Shulman, 1987 as cited in Strom, 1991). In this regard, the professionalization of teaching depends on showing that teaching, like other learned professions, requires mastery of a specialized body of knowledge that is applied with wisdom and ethical concern (Strom, 1991). To teach all students according to today’s today’s standards, teachers need to understand subject matter deeply and flexibly so they can help students create useful cognitive maps, relate one idea to another, and address misconceptions. Teachers need to see how ideas connect across fields
and to everyday life. This kind of understanding provides a foundation for pedagogical content knowledge that enables teachers to make ideas accessible to others (Shulman, 1987 as cited in Teachers
in
Depth
Content
Knowledge.
Retrieved
on
September
24,
2014
from
http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/teacher/teac2summary.html).. http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/teacher/teac2summary.html) Indeed, the teacher content knowledge is crucially important to the improvement of teaching and learning. Shulman identified a special domain of teacher knowledge, which he referred to to as pedagogical content knowledge. knowledge. He distinguished between content as it is studied and learned in disciplinary settings and the “special amalgam of content and pedagogy” needed for teaching the subject. These ideas had a major impact on the research community, immediately focusing attention on the foundational importance of content knowledge in teaching and on pedagogical content knowledge in particular. The content knowledge as technical knowledge is a key to the establishment of teaching as a profession. Shulman and his colleagues argued that high quality instruction requires a sophisticated professional knowledge that goes beyond simple rules such as how long to wait for students to respond.
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching: An Example
Our analyses of teachers’ practice reveal that the mathematical demands of teaching are substantial. In fact, knowledge for teaching must be detailed in ways unnecessary for everyday functioning. To better understand what we mean by this, we offer an example based on a simple subtraction computation: 307 – 307 – 168. 168. Most readers will know an algorithm to produce the answer 139, such as:
307 -168 139
Teachers must be able to themselves perform this calculation. This is mathematical knowledge we would expect a well-educated adult to know, and we refer to it as common content knowledge (CCK). It is closely related to the content of the curriculum, but not to a particular curriculum. It includes knowing when students have answers wrong, recognizing when the textbook gives an inaccurate definition, and being able to use terms and notation correctly when speaking and writing at the board. In short, it is the knowledge teachers need in order to be able to do the work that they are assigning their students. In analyzing video of teaching, it became obvious, especially when teachers lacked common content knowledge, that such knowledge is essential. When a teacher mispronounced terms, made calculation errors, or got stuck trying to solve a problem, instruction suffered and valuable time was lost. In mapping out the mathematical knowledge needed by teachers, it is important not to lose sight of the critical role that a basic understanding of the mathematics in the student curriculum plays in planning and carrying out instruction. Returning to our subtraction problem, however, we see that being able to carry out the procedure is necessary, but not sufficient, for teaching it. Many third graders struggle with this algorithm, often making errors. One common error is: 307 - 168 261 A teacher needs to be able to spot that 261 is incorrect. However, a teacher who can see only that this is not the correct answer is not well equipped to help a student learn to get it right. Skillful teaching requires being able to size up the source of a mathematical error. Further, this is work that teachers often must do very quickly, since, in a classroom, students cannot wait as a teacher puzzles over the mathematics. Here, for example, a student has, in each column, calculated the difference between the two digits, or subtracted the smaller digit from the larger one. A teacher
who is mystified about what could have produced 261 as an answer will arguably move more slowly and with less precision to help correct the student’s problem. Consider another error that teachers may see with this subtraction problem.
307 - 168 169 What line of thinking would produce this error? In this case, the student has “borrowed” one from the hundreds column, “carried the one” to the ones place, and subtracted 8 from 17, yielding 9. The thinking might continue by “bringing down” the 6 and subtracting 2 – 1 = 1. Teachers need to be able to perform this kind of mathematical error analysis efficiently and fluently. These two errors stem from different difficulties with the algorithm for subtracting multidigit numbers. In the first, the student considered the difference between digits with no thought to the relationships among columns. In the second, the student attempts to regroup the number, but without careful consideration of the value of the places and the conservation of the value of the number. Seeing both answers as simply “wrong” does not equip a teacher with the detailed mathematical understanding required for a skillful treatment of the problems these students face. Analysis such as this are characteristic of the distinctive work teachers do and they require a kind of mathematical reasoning that most adults do not need to do on a regular basis. And although mathematicians engage in analyses of error, often of failed proofs, the analysis used to uncover a student error appears to be related to, but not the same as, other error analysis
in the discipline. Further, there is no demand on mathematicians to conduct their work quickly as students wait for guidance. It is also common in instruction for students to come up with non-standard approaches that are unfamiliar to the teacher. For instance, what mathematical issues confront a teacher if a student asserts that she would “take 8 away from both the top and the bottom,” yielding the easier problem:
299 -160
Is it okay to do this? Why? Would it work in general? Is it easier for some numbers and harder for others? How might you describe the method the student is using and how would you justify it mathematically? Being able to engage in this sort of mathematical inner dialogue, and to provide mathematically sound answers to these questions, is a crucial foundation for determining what to do in teaching this mathematics.
Physical Education: Content Knowledge
Teaching physical education needs content knowledge in order to determine whether concepts regarding it will be conveyed and taught effectively to students. A physical education teacher cannot teach anything without a sufficient content or professional knowledge about the different areas of physical education. According to Solis (n. d.), the content sand specific pedagogy are key ingredient in teaching quality.
IV. Bibliographical Information
Avidov – Avidov – Ungar, Ungar, O. 2010. Islands of innovation or comprehensive innovation. Assimilating educational technology in teaching, learning, and management: a case study of school networks in Israel. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects. Volume 6, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ijello.org/Volume6/IJELLOv6p259from http://www.ijello.org/Volume6/IJELLOv6p259280Avidov704.pdf Cox, G. 2010. Sustaining innovations in educational technology: views of innovators at the university of cape town. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Cox-concise.pdf Culatta, R. 2011. Instructional technology. Retrieved from http://innovativelearning.com/instructional_technology/ Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. n d. Content knowledge for Teaching: what makes it Special. Retrieved from http://conferences.illinoisstate.edu/nsa/papers/thamesphelps.pdf Duffey,D. & Fox, C.(2012).National EducationalTechnology Trends: 2012: State Leadership Empowers Educators,Transforms Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). Retrieved from http://www.setda.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/SETDANational_Trends_2012_June20_Final.pdf Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content
knowledge.Contemporary knowledge.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, Education, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss1/science/article1.cfm 1/science/article1.cfm OPSBA: A Vision for learning and Teaching in Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.opsba.org/files/OPSBA_AVisionForLearning.pdf Williamson, B. & Payton, S. 2009. Curriculum and teaching innovation transforming classroom practice and personalisation. A Futurelab Handbook. Retrieved from http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/handbooks/curriculum_and_teaching _innovation2.pdf Teacher’s In – Depth Depth Content Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.intime.uni.edu/model/teacher/teac2summary.html Weimer, M. 2008. Effective Teaching Strategies: The Importance of Marrying Content and Process. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-str ategies/effective-teachingategies/effective-teachingstrategies-the-importance-of-marrying-content-and-process/ Weimer, M. 2007.Content Knowledge: a Barier to teacher development. Retrieved from http://www.biz.colostate.edu/mti/tips/pages/ContentKnowledge.aspx
Solis, A. Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.idra.org/IDRA_Newsletter/August_2009_Actionable_Knowledge/Pedagogic al_Content_Knowledge/
Strom, S. 1991. The Knowledge Base for Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/base.htm
Physical Education Content Knowledge (0091). Retrieved from http://www.uwosh.edu/hperclub/pdf/0091.pdf
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/materials/tchlrnmd.html
