Piaget once said, Our real problem is what is the goal of education?

Are we forming children

who are only capable of learning what is already known? Or should we try to develop creative
and innovative minds, capable of discovery from the preschool age on, throughout life?
(Davidson Films, time stamp: 0:41).

While I am nearing the end of the MET program, I must admit that at the beginning of the ETEC
533 course, I continued to carry a hindering bias toward the use of technology in the classroom.
In addition to this, as a teacher originally trained for secondary English, I have found science and
math to be the two courses that I struggle most with myself which, of course, has the potential to
carry over into my teaching as well. ETEC 533 has been an incredibly valuable and meaningful
course, allowing me to shift my perspective from digital technology as a distraction to digital
technology as a supportive learning tool or environment, in relation to its ability to promote
engagement, motivation, and inquiry-based learning, allow for embodied learning, and make
learning visual for learners. Daniel Edelson (2001) addresses the fact that educators have
traditionally seen content and process as competing priorities (p. 355) as opposed to being
perceived as intersecting domains, along with knowledge, as introduced by Mishra and Koehler
(2006). The more I reflect on my teaching experiences up to the start of this course, the more I
realize that I have not put sincere consideration into whether or how I am integrating content and
process as they relate to science and math, and I recognize that my use of digital technology has
generally been a competing priority rather than being effectively incorporated into existing
curriculum content to support student understanding and learning. My initial post in ETEC 533
clearly demonstrated the bias and uncertainty that guided my thinking and approach toward
digital technology-based learning, Based on the upbringing I had, I think I tend to shy away
from using much digital technology in the classroom because of the amount of screen time I
automatically assume students have at home (Module A, Lesson 1.1, Auto E-ography) and in
the video interviews lesson as I again admitted I have tended to shy away from using
technology much in the past because I felt that students were receiving enough screen time
(yes, I generalized and assumed screen time was screen time), and for many of the reasons that
were given in the videos (i.e., time constraints, feeling ill-equipped, and so on) (Module A,
Lesson 2.2: Video Analysis Case 5, Case 6 and Case 8). As I began ETEC 533, my initial
questions revolved around effectively implementing technology into the classroom and how that
implementation may impact other areas of student development, showing an uncertainty,
hesitation, and lack of confidence in my own use of technology and understanding of how to
integrate it effectively into my own practice.

As Xiang and Passmore (2015) discuss, the focus of science education has shifted from
typical classroom practice that emphasizes the acquisition of content to a classroom in which
students are active participants in making sense of the science they are learning (p. 311). In the
process of reflecting back on my learning experiences in ETEC 533, three concepts stood out
above the rest: the concept of misconceptions that students both carry and develop, the concept
that inquiry-based and embodied learning allow students to construct their own knowledge based
on their personal observations and experiences, and the concept of virtual laboratories or
simulated learning environments and their impact on learning in todays classrooms. To support
these concepts, I now appreciate that digital technology must be incorporated in order to allow
students to develop the skills needed to truly be 21st century learners. William Winn (2003)
points out, successful students are anything but passive (p. 13) and in order to design a
curriculum for my current and future students that is engaging and motivating, I have realized
through this course that I must focus on how to design inquiry-based, student-centred, and
collaborative learning environments, supported through the use of digital technology.

In his Conceptual Challenges post, Lawrence Liang (2017) wrote, Misconceptions are rife in
student minds because misconceptions are common in educator minds. Misconceptions are, as
Confrey wrote, ideas and meanings about their world that they formulate to explain how or why
things occur (Confrey, 1990)What results may be a blend of the ideas, both accurate and
inaccurate, as students attempt to come to terms with a topic. For me, the two most significant
points learned, in terms of misconceptions, are that educators often assume that students have
learned and understood certain concepts and, even more importantly, that misconceptions are
common in educator minds. The concept of misconceptions is one that I realize I have
unintentionally addressed in my classroom through some of the activities I do with my students;
however, I have not specifically targeted misconceptions in the past, and it would be more
accurate to say that I have perhaps stumbled upon them up to this point, especially in the
science classroom. The topic of student misconceptions has had a significant impact on my own
learning and perceptions from the very beginning of ETEC 533 when it was originally
introduced and I began to identify personal learning gaps, recognizing that if my students do not
share their misconceptions with me, I may never realize they have misconceptions or
preconceived notions about concepts we are learning. In A Private Universe teacher, Marlene
LaBossiere, draws attention to the fact that, You just assume that they know certain thingsI
just assumed that they had the basic ideas, and they dont (A Private Universe, 1987, time
stamp: 8:55). As I continued to learn more about misconceptions, I began to understand that
children approach science with ideas and interpretations despite not having received instruction,
depending on their prior knowledge and experiences (with reference to Driver, Guesne and
Tiberghien, 1985) and students enter the classroom with their own understandings of the
worldoften at odds with the scientifically accepted view of the world (Henriques, 2000, p. 1)
(Module A, Lesson 1.2: Children, Science, and Conceptual Challenges). As ETEC 533
progressed, I realized the potential that digital technology provided for significantly more
interactive, engaging, and motivating learning environments for students in todays classrooms,
which could, in turn, help students understand and challenge their misconceptions, especially
through the interactive approach afforded by simulated and virtual learning environments.

It was during Module B and Module C that my interest in and understanding of the importance
of inquiry-based learning really began to develop, expanding to incorporate students
construction of knowledge and embodied learning, as opposed to a transfer of knowledge from
teacher to student. In his post, TELE Synthesis, Darren Low (2017) commented, First and
foremost, all of the theories are rooted in the theory of constructivism the notion that learning
occurs through an active process, not a passive one. Students construct their own learning
through specific, active and repeated experience and activity, not by simply being told the
information (Fosnot, 2013). It is upon reflection of these novel concepts that prior
understandings and ideas are consolidated into a single, new understanding. The role of the
educator is primarily as a guide, assisting students along their path through the exploration of
these exercise and activities and not as a conveyer of information, dispelling information through
lecture and notes. Through these process, students are able to acquire a deeper understanding,
typically, through inquiry. To encourage an inquiry-based, constructivist approach to learning,
students must be given the opportunity to explore concepts more independently and through their
own observations and experiences, rather than having knowledge simply transferred to them
through lectures and textbooks. Information and data must be delivered in a variety of ways,
allowing students to engage with materials and concepts using multiple senses and a range of
learning experiences. As Hasselbring et al. (2006) highlight, students need to acquire the
knowledge and skills that will enable them to figure out math-related problems that they
encounter daily at home and in future work situations (no page number available). Project-
based learning, in turn, allows for increased emphasis to be put on student-centred learning,
rather than on the teacher simply imparting knowledge through memorization and recitation that
the learner is then often unable to access when needed (Edelson, 2001) (Lesson 3 (LfU):
Including and Motivating Students of Today). Adding to this, the incorporation of processes like
GEM (or T-GEM) allow for skill development in a cyclical pattern around the learning process
of generating, evaluating, and modifying ideas (Khan, 2007 & 2010). It was during the
exploration of the GEM/T-GEM model that I recognized a significant weakness within my own
teaching practice that could be improved through the integration of GEM into the design of my
own classroom lessons and projects. I realized that I often struggle with what I perceive as time
constraints and because of this, I often do not allow students adequate time to complete an
exploratory process like GEM. By incorporating GEM into my own lessons, students will be
given the opportunity to generate ideas, both independently and collaboratively with their peers,
form their own hypotheses, evaluate both new and existing data, then re-evaluate hypotheses and
ideas generated based on what they have learned. T-GEM, along with the TELEs explored
throughout ETEC 533, will allow me to design an inquiry-based and collaborative learning
environment for current and future students.

In the diverse classrooms of today, one significant concern for me has been how to create an
inclusive and accessible environment for all learners. In exploring technology-enhanced and
virtual or simulated learning environments, the extent to which digital technology promotes the
inclusion of all students in diverse classrooms, collaboration between peers, an engaged
exploration and evaluation of data, and the individual and shared generation of ideas, has become
increasingly clear. Bodzin et al. (2014) emphasize the importance of including design features
in instructional materials so that low-level readers and low-ability students can understand
scientific concepts and processes in addition to learners whose cognitive abilities are at or above
the intended grade level (pp. 13-14). Similarly, Radinsky et al. (2006) address differentiated
assessment, allowing educators to assess students knowledge and comprehension from a variety
of perspectives, and for students to show their learning in a variety of ways. In addition to this,
processes like Anchored Instruction, WISE, LfU, and using virtual or simulated learning
environments, provide students with an opportunity to engage in interactive learning activities
that connect their learning to reality outside the classroom, bringing classroom learning to life
and making it authentic and applicable for learners. In her post, Learning in Artificial
Environments, Anne Winch acknowledges, Winn notes that cognition is embodied in physical
activity, that is embedded in the learning environment, and that learning is the result of the
adaptation of the learner to the environment and the environment to the learner (Winn,
2002) A students engagement and identity as a learner is shaped by his or her collaborative
participation in communities and groups, as well as the practices and beliefs of these
communities (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell) (Wincherella, 2017). As I came to understand in
Module B, Students learn through a process of constructing new knowledge through personal
experience and communication, rather than having knowledge transferred to them; through goal-
directed learning initiated by the learner; through the creation, elaboration and accessibility
(storage) of knowledge; and through the understanding of and ability to use factual knowledge
and then transform that knowledge into procedural knowledge (Edelson, 2001; Radinsky et al.,
2006) (Lesson 3 (LfU): Including and Motivating Students of Today).

With my Framing Issues paper, I began to examine The Effect of Virtual Laboratories on
Student Achievement and Success in Chemistry. From here, I was able to extend my
questioning to achievement and success in science and math more generally. When I began
ETEC 533, I felt that a traditional hands-on laboratory experience was most successful and
educationally sound in terms of student understanding, interaction with materials, and learning;
however, it became clear relatively quickly that this assumption was incorrect. While traditional
laboratories provide students with important and interactive learning opportunities, the
knowledge I have gained through ETEC 533 has demonstrated that virtual laboratories and other
simulated learning environments promote student engagement and motivation, are often more
economically feasible, allow for the repetition of experiments to build comprehension and
confidence, allow for experiments that may be considered too dangerous to be attempted
otherwise, and decrease the time taken to prepare for and clean up after traditional laboratory
work (Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Tysz, 2010; Martnez-Jimnez, Pontes-Pedrajas, Polo, & Climent-
Bellido, 2003; Robinson, n.d.). As Tyler Kolpin (2017) commented in response to an energy
forms and transfer lesson I created using a PhET interactive simulation (titled Energy Forms
and Changes), This kind of visualization is so valuable due to the high cost of actually going
through the motions of creating this experiment. Kolpins point prompted me to reflect on the
fact that this experiment, among many others offered through PhET and other simulation
platforms, allows students at even a relatively young age, to engage in interactive laboratories
and simulation work that they would not otherwise have been exposed to due to the cost of
materials, time and equipment/space constraints, and so on. By providing students with the
opportunity to engage in simulated or virtual laboratory environments, students are again
engaged and motivated as they interact within an authentic and accessible learning environment
that allows students to transfer and apply their knowledge to the real world. As I discovered in
Module C, Lesson 3, Finkelstein, Perkins, Adams, Kohl, & Podolefsky (2005) found that when
the right learning environment was created, simulations could be equally effective, if not more
effective, learning tools than traditional laboratory equipment both in developing student
facility with real equipment and at fostering student conceptual understanding (p. 1-2)
(Module C, Lesson 3 [Information Visualization]: Energy Forms and Transfer in Science 4).
As I complete my ETEC 533 journey, I am no longer left with a lingering question of whether
digital technology could help support learners in my classroom, but am instead optimistic about
the integration of many TELEs, simulations, and virtual learning environments into my
curriculum content and process. Rather than treating technology as a separate entity, I
understand the need to actually incorporate it into everyday learning for students, and my
lingering questions revolve now around how to integrate students own devices to support a
digital-technology enhanced environment in the classroom. Finally, I have a solid understanding
of, and research to support, the incredible importance of project-based learning within todays
classrooms. To allow for inquiry, collaboration, and construction of knowledge, students must
be allowed to explore and generate their own ideas, which means stepping away from the board
and the textbook, and presenting students with time and freedom to discover learning for
themselves.

References:

Bodzin, A. M., Anastasio, D., & Kulo, V. (2014). Designing Google Earth activities for learning
earth and environmental science. In MaKinster, Trautmann, & Barnett (Eds.) Teaching science
and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology (pp. 213-232). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://www.ei.lehigh.edu/eli/research/Bodzin_GE.pdf

Davidson Films, Inc. (uploaded 2010). Piagets developmental theory: an overview [online
video]. Retrieved from: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QX6JxLwMJeQ
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Childrens ideas and the learning of science.
Childrens Ideas in Science (pp. 1-9). Milton Keynes [Buckinghamshire]; Philadelphia: Open
University Press.

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.

Energy forms and changes. (n.d.). Phet Interactive Simulations, University of Colorado.
Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/legacy/energy-forms-and-changes
Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning
about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for
laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research, 1(1), 1-8.
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Producer). (1987). A Private Universe [online
video]. Retrieved 6 January, 2017, from: http://learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=9
Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2006). Technology-supported math instruction
for students with disabilities: Two decades of research and development. Washington, DC:
CITEd, Center for Implementing Technology in Education (www.cited.org). Retrieved from:
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6291/
Henriques, L. (2000, April). Children's misconceptions about weather: A review of the literature.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science
Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved 7 January, 2017, from:
http://web.csulb.edu/~lhenriqu/NARST2000.htm

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Khan, S. (2007). Model-based inquiries in chemistry. Science Education, 91(6), 877-890

Kolpin, T. (2017, April 5). Comment to Energy forms and transfer in science 4 (Sikkes).
Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from http://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/03/31/energy-forms-and-
transfer-in-science-4/#comments

Liang, L. (2017, Jan. 11). Is it worth constructing incorrect knowledge? [STEM: Conceptual
Challenges]. Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from http://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/01/11/is-it-worth-
constructing-incorrect-knowledge/

Low, D. (2017, Mar. 8). Tele Synthesis [STEM: Synthesis Forum]. Retrieved 6 April, 2017,
from http://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/03/08/tele-synthesis/

Martnez-Jimnez, P., Pontes-Pedrajas, A., Polo, J. and Climent-Bellido, M.S. (2003). Learning
in chemistry with virtual laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(3), 346-352.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Radinsky, J., Sacay, R., Singer, M., Oliva, S., Allende-Pellot, F., & Liceaga, I. (2006, April).
Emerging conceptual understandings in GIS investigations. Paper about forms of assessment
presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua_Radinsky/publication/242390299_Emerging_conce
ptual_understandings_in_GIS_investigations/links/54eb39670cf27a6de11763ab.pdf

Robinson, J. (n.d.). Virtual laboratories as a teaching environment: A tangible solution or a

passing novelty? Southampton University. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=528C202CA72A6A6252236F5898182
4B1?doi=10.1.1.11.6522&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Tatli, Z. and Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students
achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170.

Tysz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students achievement and attitude in
chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37-53.

Wincherella. (2017, Mar. 16). Learning in artificial environments [STEM: Embodied Learning].
Retrieved 6 April, 2017, from http://blogs.ubc.ca/stem2017/2017/03/16/learning-in-artificial-
environments/
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic
adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 1-28. Retrieved from:
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1028641.files/Winn2003.pdf
Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based
programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 311-329.