Nadine Stringham

March 26, 2018

EdTech 592

Reflection/Research Paper

My Three Years of MET Summed Up in Ten Pages

Introduction

I had zero interest in getting a master’s degree. I did my four years as an undergrad and

moved on to the workforce. First, in my state, having a master’s degree is not required to teach

and the monetary increase is not drastically significant. Second, the only paths open to

teachers, that I knew of, were curriculum (I can’t do any more collegiate math) or

administration (no thanks). So why bother? Then, two weeks after school got out in July 2017,

the math teachers in our district were meeting for standards development and a math teacher

from another high school mentioned this program in educational technology. Technology has

been an interest of mine since 5th grade when I was in the tech kids club, so I was immediately

intrigued. I asked her all the questions I could think of and then went home that night and

applied for the program. I have never looked back.

Lesson One: Reflections on Learning

The research that was the most influential on my understanding of learning was those

focused on the constructivist learning theory. Clements said, “At its core, constructivism is a

philosophy of learning that offers a perspective on how people – all people – learn, all the time”

(1997, p. 198). This idea that we are constantly constructing knowledge as we interact with the

world around us is so powerful. Learning is not something that only happens when there is an
instructor. We learn as toddlers that falling hurts or that ice cream tastes good. We learn the

characteristics and indicators of people we can trust, and people we can’t. There are things we

learn dependent on where and how we live in the world – how to find shelter from bombs in a

war zone, how to grow and harvest your food, how to shop online to get the best deals.

Learning is constant.

Learning is most often associated with the classroom because the learning that takes

place here does need to be facilitated by an instructor. The quadratic formula is probably not

something you’d pick up in your regular interactions with the world. You likely would not figure

out how to research and write proper papers on your own. The key with the constructivist

learning theory, that I feel sets it apart from previous theories, is that it acknowledges and

accounts for the other learning taking place outside the classroom.

As educators, we cannot ignore what students already know or don’t know. In math,

this is especially apparent, but it applies to all subjects. If students are already comfortable

solving one-step equations (e.g. 2𝑥 = 8) coming into Algebra I, why spend a whole unit on it?

Knowing that our students are comfortable at this level, we can build off that and help them

expand their knowledge to multi-step equations (e.g. 3(4𝑥 − 5) = 5) or equations with

variables on both sides (e.g. 2(𝑥 + 9) − 3 = 7𝑥 + 4 − 2𝑥).

This is something that the math department at my current school is pretty good at

doing. The district provides one hour each Wednesday before school for teachers to meet and

collaborate, usually within content/grade-level departments. Our math department talks a lot

about the pacing of our curriculum and how long to spend on various concepts. Part of this

discussion includes consulting with the teachers of the lower courses to see what prior
knowledge the students should have, and with the teachers of the upper courses to see what

the students need to know to move forward. We also talk about where we see gaps in student

learning and how we can bridge those gaps, in our own classrooms or by working with the

middle school teachers.

In my own practice, I have made an effort to acknowledge the work and activities and

learning that students participate in outside of schoolwork. I have used tech resources like

Microsoft Forms to conduct check-ins with my 170 students to see how things are going for

them. I have also started closing out my class periods with something different each day of the

week that is not necessarily math-related but helps students build other skills that will help

them outside of school. For example, on Mondays, we do guided meditations. On Tuesdays, we

practice gratitude by each saying one thing we’re thankful for, or writing thank you notes to

someone important in our lives. On Fridays, we do things that make us feel good, like sharing

spring break plans or having a 3-minute dance party.

Constructivism was something that I think I kind of intuitively understood, so it was not

a hard theory for me to accept. But in actually reading the research and making those

connections to my teaching practice, I have been able to better serve my students as I better

understand how and when they are learning – which is always.

Lesson Two: The Art & Science of Teaching

My biggest research/theory take away from the MET program is the connection

between connectivism and math education and math pedagogy. Math pedagogy is the one

subject area that has its roots dug deepest into the “traditional” pedagogy of lecture-based

lessons, teacher transferring knowledge, repetitive practice, etc. Researchers have suggested,
and teachers have tried, various ways to move beyond this traditional style of teaching towards

a more constructivist pedagogy.

Constructivism is defined as a theory where “we construct our knowledge of our world

from our perceptions and experiences, which are themselves mediated through our previous

knowledge” (Simon, 1995, p. 115). The constructivism theory has typically manifested itself in

the classroom in the form of problem-based or discovery learning (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark,

2006, p. 75), and this is where the main problem lies.

In science, for example, it’s easy enough to have students conduct an experiment and

conclude that objects of different masses dropped from the same height will hit the ground at

the same time. Through this experiment, students have discovered that mass has no impact on

gravity. The teacher can then explain in more detail the theory of gravity, formulas, history, etc.

In the science experiment, the conditions are still controlled by the teacher. Students would be

given specific objects to test dropping. They would know that they need to time the falls of

each object. They might be allowed to discover on their own the idea of dropping two objects

at the same time to compare the falls.

But in the math classroom, it’s harder to know what kind of and how much support to

give to students during these discoveries. It’s not so easy to ask students to solve multiple

quadratic equations and expect them to figure out some form of the quadratic formula on their

own. Most often, constructivist discovery-based learning in the math classroom has been

implemented as minimal-guidance instruction, where the teacher becomes completely hands

off and almost irrelevant during the discovery. As Simon put it, so perfectly, “It is overly

simplistic and not useful to connect constructivism to teaching with the romantic notion, ‘Leave
students alone and they will construct mathematical understandings.’ Likewise, ‘Put students in

groups and solve problems,’ is not much more helpful” (1995, pp. 117-118).

This is where the art of teaching comes into play. We as teachers need to find the

balance between the research, which suggestions students learn best through experiences and

building on previous knowledge and our knowledge that students will not learn if we drop them

off at a concept and leave them alone with it for 90 minutes. So how do we facilitate students

as they work their way through constructing new knowledge without it becoming completely

hands-off? Simon suggests that a major component of successful constructivism practice in the

math classroom is that “students must accept the problem as their problem” (1995, p. 120).

Here teachers can use their creativity to find, modify, or develop activities and tasks in such a

way that students will connect to the problem and accept it as their own.

Now, to add another caveat to this whole mess, teachers already have way more to

accomplish than they have time for. How can we possibly expect them to now make lessons

that are even more engaging, more relatable? Through online communities and personal

learning networks. We talk all the time about how learning is changing with the rapid

advancement of the digital age. If this is changing the way our students learn, it should also

change the way we (teachers) learn. We are no longer restricted to collaborating with the

professionals in our building, our district, maybe attending a conference every other year.

Today “it is possible to have large professional development networks, taking advantage of the

collective wisdom and experiences of people from around the world” (Bauer, 2010, p. 38).

There are so many communities and resources available to teachers through blogs, Twitter,

Facebook, even Instagram. It is impossible to successfully navigate these changes in education

in isolation. We need the collective experience and wisdom of those in our communities as we

work to lift up some of those traditional roots and plant new ones (the right way) in

connectivism learning.

Lesson Three: The Design and Evaluation of Instruction

Before this program, I put very minimal thought into the design and evaluation of my

instruction. I would reflect on my lessons and make notes about things to change. But usually

those changes weren’t implemented until the next year and by that time, I’d forgotten what the

notes meant. Because of this program, I now see the importance of taking the time to plan the

design of activities before implementing them and conducting meaningful evaluations after.

Summerville and Reid-Griffin explain that “the premise of instructional design is to make

learning more efficient” (2008, p. 45). This focus on making sure learning is happening in the

best possible way is important as we focus on student-centered instruction and learning. I also

learned the value of evaluating instructional programs to determine the extent to which they

are accomplishing their original goals.

In my EdTech 505 course, I conducted an evaluation of a pilot program implemented in

my school district of big-screen TVs as display technology in the classroom. Conducting this

evaluation solidified for me the importance of taking time to test and evaluate instructional

programs, especially when they relate to educational technologies. When making decisions

about new hardware and software to disseminate throughout a school or an entire district,

careful evaluations need to take place to ensure they are worthy investments of both money

and time.
 It’s also important that instructional activities are carefully designed, implemented, and

evaluated. In my EdTech 503 course, I worked with a fellow math teacher to design, implement,

and evaluate a learning activity for high school seniors to explore the costs of buying and

owning a car. We took time to analyze our targeted audience, including conducting a brief

survey to determine prior knowledge which then helped guide the detail we included in the

activity. After the learning activity was implemented in the classroom, we consulted with the

teacher who used it to determine areas that could be changed or improved for future use. The

formal nature of this process was powerful in impressing the importance of the process for me.

Harvey pointed out that “[instructional design] methodologies can be applied at many levels,

from the development of entire curricula, to that of the activities for a single lesson” (2005, 2).

As a general classroom teacher, I don’t see myself conducting this formal of an instructional

design process, but the methodologies are important to utilize.

Another aspect of evaluating instruction that I learned from this program is making sure

that technology is being implemented in a meaningful way that actually enhances instruction

for the learners, rather than just throwing in some online activity so you can say you used

technology. Nanjappa and Grant said that “by focusing on the learner, the role of technology

can support new understandings and capabilities, thus, offering a cognitive tool to support

cognitive and metacognitive processes” (2003). This is something I have made a focused effort

on because of this program. When I design and plan instructional activities for my students, I

make sure that any technology used makes learning more meaningful. One way that I have

been regularly implementing technology in my classes is by administering our daily warmups on

Microsoft Forms. This gives students instant feedback on their work to help them self-evaluate

their level of understanding of the previous day’s material.

Lesson Four: Networking and Collaboration

If I had to pick one takeaway from this MET program, it would be the changes to my

understandings of networking and collaboration. Prior to this program, I always thought of

networking as logging into LinkedIn or a bunch of business people in a room with nametags and

free food making connections.

During Spring 2018, I took EdTech 554 Managing Tech Integration in Schools. I was

taking this class during the hardest year of my teaching career. I was feeling really discouraged

about teaching, and I thought many times about leaving the profession. One of my assignments

for this 554 class was to record three podcast episodes. As I recorded these episodes, that spark

was reignited, just a little bit. I felt like I had good ideas that I could share with other teachers

and they want to listen. So, I started a teacher Instagram account and built a community

around myself, virtually, of people that I could learn from, that I could share with, that had

similar struggles to mine and ideas for overcoming them. I recorded a few YouTube videos in

connection with my Instagram account to share my ideas in a different way. Through all this, I

was remembering why I wanted to be a teacher again.

Then in Summer 2018, I took EdTech 543 Social Network Learning. During this course,

we studied communities of practice and personal learning networks and I just had this massive

lightbulb moment that this was giving formal definitions to what I had been seeking out on my

own. That personal learning networks are “informal networks of teachers who interact online

for professional purposes” (Tour, 2017, p. 11). And communities of practice “emerge from a
common desire among its members to achieve change, it provides regular opportunities for

collaborative reflection and inquiry through dialogue” (Wesley & Buysse, 2001, p. 118). Not

only did these definitions give meaning to what I was doing, but they also helped change how I

approached collaboration. Up to this point in my career, collaboration was something that

happened every Wednesday before school with my fellow math teachers. And maybe

occasionally other times during the week, but only ever within my math department.

This research expanded my understanding that collaboration can happen anywhere,

anytime. I realized that I was actually collaborating with my friends on Instagram. I am

collaborating with teachers in Australia! I have expanded my network beyond my math

department to teachers around the world, and I collaborate whenever I need or want it.

Lesson Five: The Research-Practice Connection

I was not interested in research prior to this program. It’s still not my cup of tea, but I

have a better understanding and appreciation for its place in education. I mentioned this above

in Lesson Two, but the disconnect between the connectivism learning theory and minimal-

guidance instruction is one example of where the research does not align with what’s being put

into practice. Simon defines constructivism that “we construct our knowledge of our world

from our perceptions and experiences, which are themselves mediated through our previous

knowledge” (1995, p. 115). Constructivism does not define how we should be teaching. This is

where we have tripped ourselves up. Constructing our knowledge “from our perceptions and

experiences” (Simon, 1995, p. 115) has been interpreted as ‘you have to learn it all on your

own.’ But if we take the time to look at the research, we find that this doesn’t work and was
not the original intent of constructivism, nor is it our goal in teaching students. Kirschner,

Sweller & Clark state:

The goal of instruction is rarely simply to search for or discover information. The goal is

to give learners specific guidance about how to cognitively manipulate information in

ways that are consistent with a learning goal, and store the result in long-term memory

(2006, p. 77).

This disconnect between the research and what’s being put into practice highlights the need for

us as teachers to be involved in seeking out research relevant to our fields. In speaking

specifically about math education, Magidson pointed out that, “Most American mathematics

educators devote their professional lives to one of these categories: they teach students or they

develop materials or they do research” (2005, p. 136). Ultimately, we the teachers are the ones

who implement these things in the classroom. Curriculum developers can make things shiny

and cute and low-prep, instructional coaches can offer suggestions and resources and

assistance. But we make the final decision about how we implement all of this in the classroom.

If we are not consuming this research on our own, we are at the mercy of others to tell us the

best practices of teaching.

Closing Thoughts

This program has breathed new life into my career. I wasn’t planning on being a

classroom teacher forever, but I didn’t know what I wanted to do after. This program has

opened up a trajectory that I didn’t know existed, but it so perfect for me. My long-term career

goal is now to become the Administrator of Digital Integration at the district level. I am thrilled

by the opportunities available to me because of this program. The lessons I have learned
throughout this program will major support to me as I work towards this new goal. Keeping in

mind the importance of research and evaluation in integrating technology, the numerous ways

to network and collaborate with other educators and working to always remember the ways

students learn as I eventually transition out of the classroom.

 References

Bauer, W. (2010). Your personal learning network: Professional development on demand. Music

Educators Journal,97(2), pp. 37-42. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40960201.

Clements, D. (1997). (Mis?)Constructing Constructivism. Teaching Children Mathematics,4(4),

pp. 198-200. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41196925.

Harvey, B. (2005). Learning Objects and Instructional Design. International Review of Research

in Open and Distance Learning,6(2), pp. 1-7. Retrieved from

http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/docview/61878933?accountid=9649.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not

work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential,

and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist,41(2), pp. 75-86.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

Magidson, S. (2005). Building bridges within mathematics education: Teaching, research, and

instructional design. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,24, pp. 135-169.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2005.03.004.

Nanjappa, A., & Grant, M. M., Ph.D. (2003). Constructing on Constructivism: The Role of

Technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education,2(1).

Retrieved from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.htm.

Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,26(2), pp. 114-145.

https://doi.org/10.2307/749205.

Summerville, J., & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008). Technology Integration and Instructional Design.

TechTrends,52(5), pp. 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0196-z.

Tour, E. (2017). Teachers’ personal learning networks (PLNs): Exploring the nature of self-

initiated professional learning online. Literacy,51(1), pp. 11-18.

https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12101.

Wesley, P., & Buysse, V. (2001). Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to

promote reflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education,21(2), pp. 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112140102100205.