Technology use in the classroom largely depends on how teachers choose to incorporate it, but that’s not all. One of the biggest takeaways from my first two weeks of practicum was reflecting on the purpose behind integrating technology in the classroom. On thought, I came to ask myself, why is it possible that one could walk into two different classrooms using the same tech tools, but see different results in terms of student engagement?
Having the fortunate opportunity to be able to observe how an experienced teacher capitalizes on their benefits allowed me to highlight the difference and dig deeper into thought about what makes their success vary from one classroom to the other.
From my personal observation and reflection, the key factor that stood out for me was the reason behind choosing to integrate technology –the one beyond learning that “special” skill. It’s first and foremost about taking the time to define the purpose I want it to serve in my classroom. Asking myself as a designer/facilitator the most important question when lesson planning—why? Why is this important for my students? Is it just about being tech-savvy, or can I further define its purpose and allow it to help me create a more meaningful and enjoyable learning experience? If my goal is to improve student engagement in the learning process, then how will they be able to engage in conversations with their peers, showcase their thoughts, share different strategies, and collectively engage in group discussions as they use this technology?
Walking into my placement two weeks ago, I was already curious to learn how technology can be integrated into a Grade 10 Math class. From previous experiences, I still had the idea in my head that when it came to technology vs. group-based activities, student engagement wouldn’t be as high.
Having that expectation and the imbedded image of students sitting on separate devices totally disengaged from the environment around them (only talking to their peers or teacher when they have a question or answer) definitely paved the way for one of my favourite experiences so far. For the first time I had the chance to experience what it truly felt like to be a facilitator/designer in the classroom. Albeit I was just an observer and active participant, but having that opportunity to experience the deep meaning of the former mentioned terms was truly inspiring.
For the entire 75-minutes students were leaders of their own learning. From the design of different activities that triggered curiosity, to the use of Visibly Random Groups (VRGs) and Vertical Non-Permanent Surfaces (VNPS), and the idea of showcasing and extending the learning with Pear Deck and Desmos, students were engaged and stimulated throughout the entire process. What struck me the most was that at no point was the technology isolated from the hands-on activities students were working on. They both served the purpose of complimenting each other. More specifically, the tools selected:
- Created a safe space for students to communicate their individual thoughts, collectively;
- Provided an extension to the hands-on learning with the added feature of personal/group reflection;
- Provided students with a platform to analyze and present their own learning;
- Offered room for feedback vs. direct teaching
- Instead of highlighting key ideas by writing them on the board or reading them off a slide developed by the teacher, key concepts were conveyed through feedback on student work/thoughts projected through Pear Deck or displayed across the room (VNPS). The content of the “teaching” material was derived directly from student work.
Overall, more than just a tool to help students learn a new skill, technology served a much bigger purpose of creating an interactive community of thoughts.