Year 10's Spurious Correlations

Inspired by the website "Spurious Correlations" our class has created our own spurious correlations.

Click on the comments to see the correlations we've discovered!

Survey forms in Comments

Add the link to your class Survey in the comments.

Make sure you click on the surveys of other groups and fill them in.

Google Maps Lesson

This post is for the class to comment and discuss on our Google Maps lesson for area and perimeter. If you haven't already completed the lesson, click here to go to the map and follow the instructions. Then come back here to post your answers to the following questions:

1) What was the area of the shape you created.

2) Have a look at the areas created by your classmates and Mrs Moss - is your area the smallest or the largest so far?

3) What do you think the smallest area with a perimeter of 2km could be?

4) What do you think the largest area with a perimeter of 2km could be?

5) Choose two classmates that have areas which are close to your attempt. Work with your classmates to try and change the areas to match each other. Post a screenshot of the areas before and after. To take a screen shot on your computer, press the Print Screen button, paste into Paint and save as a jpg file for uploading to the blog.

Evaluation of Lesson One (ESC413)

The Web based learning activity described in Lesson One consists of a combined approach of a Flipped Classroom for pre-learning, explicit instruction in the classroom for revision and consolidation and a self-paced web-based activity to engage learners in applying their knowledge. A whole class discussion supports the web-based activity and the lesson concludes with a web-based summative assessment task. This lesson is designed to be used towards the end of a sequence of learning on Non-Linear relationships and their representations.

The lesson has been designed and presented with TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) in mind. In particular, the teacher’s Technical Knowledge is supported by the availability of instructional videos for the lesson. A key to ensure the success of technology integration in the classroom is the teachers technical competence (Hao & Lee, 2017). The instructional videos have been specifically created for the lesson (under the “Teachers! Click here” link) in an attempt to reinforce teacher confidence with technology use, thus improving the efficacy of technology integration (Hao & Lee, 2017).

The activity begins outside of the classroom, normally as “homework” with students viewing a Khan Academy video which summarises the content being consolidated and revised from the sequence. The use of a “flipped classroom” approach has been shown to increase achievement in mathematics classrooms (Bhagat, Cheng-Nan, & Chun-Yen, 2016; Lai & Hwang, 2016), allowing for activities to construct or co-construct (Bower, 2017) their knowledge with the support and scaffolding of the classroom teacher. When supported with appropriate in class technology, which allows students to experiment and explore the flipped classroom approach promotes understanding (Muir & Geiger, 2016)
in line with the Syllabus goals for students to be creative and confident users of mathematics (Board of Studies NSW, 2012).

Desmos Marbleslides, used in the body of the lesson, encourages deep student understanding of the connections between algebraic and graphical representations, aligning with outcome MA5.2-10NA (Board of Studies NSW, 2012). The use of programs such as graphing calculators, which Marbleslides is based on, allows students to use higher level approaches that wouldn’t be possible without technology (Muir, Callingham, & Beswick, 2016). This activity reimagines the possibilities in teaching algebraic concepts and is a “Redefinition” of the task (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016) which would not be possible using traditional classroom resources. The ‘gamification’  and use of e-learning assists students to be motivated (Harandi, 2015; Kebritchi, Hirumi, & Bai, 2010) in completing the task which in turn leads to better academic achievement (Guo, Parker, Marsh, & Morin, 2015).  Students and teachers alike can experiment with the equation, seeing the immediate results displayed graphically in real time. 

When the teacher is demonstrating the lesson using the Interactive White Board (IWB), they are afforded the opportunity to prepare beforehand as well as the flexibility to skip material if required (Muir et al., 2016). At any point they can “reset” the problem to the starting state. Marbleslides also allows for some variation in answers, demonstrating to students that there isn’t always “one right answer” which can be a common misconception about mathematics (Goos, Stillman, & Vale, 2007, pp. 7-9). When students are allowed to be flexible in their approach, they are able to develop understanding of the connections between mathematical abstractions and real world situations (Goos et al., 2007, p. 17). This flexible approach also aligns with the aim of the mathematics syllabus for students to be “confident and creative users and communicators of mathematics” (Board of Studies NSW, 2012).

The conclusion of Lesson One incorporates a Kahoot! Quiz. The aim of the quiz from a teacher’s perspective is to test student knowledge as a summative assessment task to ensure learning outcomes have been met. Students however may have a different view point. Studies show that using Kahoot! in a classroom environment not only improved engagement and motivation (King, 2017) but also led to improved classroom dynamics and, importantly, improved learning outcomes (Licorish, Owen, Daniel, & George, 2018). The results of the Kahoot! quiz can be drawn upon not only to assess student achievement but to plan future lessons to ensure that students are not left with gaps in their foundations (Khan, 2015).

As an additional feature, the site incorporates a user forum which can be used as a medium for both teachers and students to ask questions or deliver feedback on the lesson plans available.

References

Bhagat, K. K., Cheng-Nan, C., & Chun-Yen, C. (2016). The impact of the flipped classroom on mathematics concept learning in high school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 134-142.

Board of Studies NSW. (2012). NSW K-10 Mathematics Syllabus. Sydney: Author.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-enhanced learning : Integrating research and practice. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Goos, M., Stillman, G., & Vale, C. (2007). Teaching secondary school mathematics : research and practice for the 21st century. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

Guo, J., Parker, P., Marsh, H., & Morin, A. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology, 51(8), 1163.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Hao, Y., & Lee, K. S. (2017). Inquiry of pre-service teachers’ concern about integrating Web 2.0 into instruction. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 191-209. doi:10.1080/02619768.2017.1285278

Harandi, S. R. (2015). Effects of e-learning on students’ motivation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 423-430. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.905

Kebritchi, M., Hirumi, A., & Bai, H. (2010). The effects of modern mathematics computer games on mathematics achievement and class motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 427-443. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.007

Khan, S. (2015). Sal Khan: Let's teach for mastery -- not test scores. [Video File] Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sal_khan_let_s_teach_for_mastery_not_test_scores

King, A. (2017). Using kahoot! Australian Mathematics Teacher, 73(4), 35-36.

Lai, C.-L., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126-140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.006

Licorish, S. A., Owen, H. E., Daniel, B., & George, J. L. (2018). Students’ perception of Kahoot!’s influence on teaching and learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 9. doi:10.1186/s41039-018-0078-8

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Muir, T., Callingham, R., & Beswick, K. (2016). Using the IWB in an early years mathematics classroom: An application of the TPACK framework. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(2), 63-72. doi:10.1080/21532974.2016.1138913

Muir, T., & Geiger, V. (2016). The affordances of using a flipped classroom approach in the teaching of mathematics: a case study of a grade 10 mathematics class. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28(1), 149-171. doi:10.1007/s13394-015-0165-8

All the little birdies...

… on Jaybird street, love to hear that Robin go tweet tweet tweet” (Lyrics quoted from "Rockin' Robin by Bobby Day)

Note: This post is in response to ESC407 Week 12 Module 10 Blog 1

Twitter. Pointless snippets or powerful collaboration tool? Like many technologies, it seems that once again it isn’t about what you implement necessarily but about HOW it is implemented. Twitter is a social media micro blogging platform which allows users to post “tweets” of information up to 140 characters long. The character limit originally came about through the limitations of a text message on a mobile phone (160 characters) – 20 characters are used for a unique ID. It could be thought that such a small amount of information is virtually useless in an information rich world, however Twitter has been incredibly successful and is used by an enormous range of people from your average person on the street to celebrities and politicians. News stories are sometimes first broken via the platform, going back to as early as the 2009 Hudson river crash (https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/44-twitter-stats-2016/).

So what use could it be in education? For teachers to start with, there are many active Twitter users who post about education and the latest research/trends. There are also groups denoted by the a hash symbol such as #aussieED who hold regular discussions. From a student perspective, a study showed that making it compulsory to use twitter for a course increased both student engagement and academic results. Key to this however was “Faculty engagement on the platform” (Junco, Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2013). 

Although the Junco et al (2013) study was in a university environment, I believe similar principles could be applied in a high school setting. Ultimately, like so many of the topics on this blog, the use of technology needs to be carefully designed such that it enhances outcomes and encourages the desired behaviour (in this case student engagement and collaboration). I would like to experiment with a group on a platform such as Twitter for engaging students both in and out of the classroom. The interactive nature would hopefully create many opportunities for both formal and informal collaboration amongst students and teachers alike.

References

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x

Distraction, Distraction, Distrac...

Note: This post is in response to ESC407 Week 11 Module 9 Blog 3

One of the biggest threats to the use of technology in the classroom is the belief that students will be distracted by their devices and learning outcomes will be affected. This results in the banning of devices in the classroom (Johnson, 2012). Is technology a distraction? I would certainly argue that it can be, and that there are certainly times when it is appropriate that its use be banned but I would most definitely argue against a blanket ban via a school policy or similar. And what counts as technology anyway? Should we ban the use of a pencil or pen as well? Again, there are times and places where we should. Would you allow a student to sit down in a sports lesson and write an essay?

When we teach, we use different tools in different ways for each lesson. We might ask students to open a textbook or a novel, take notes, watch a video or paint a picture. Technology can be thought of in the same way – just another tool (or indeed an incredible array of tools) for the teacher’s toolbelt. Just as you can say “pens down” you can say “close devices” for one lesson and ask students to use their devices to interact with each other during another. Johnson (2012) suggests that technology is not going to go away so rather than banning it, we use its potential to enhance lessons, even going so far as to say that we should not ban the use of the internet at school for non-academic purposes. We must still use classroom management skills to ensure that learning is taking place when it needs to which Johnson suggests may be as simple as walking around the classroom. I do think that, as teachers it is our job to manage the use of technology with our students. There is some evidence that at a university level, laptop use negatively affects results (Ravizza, Uitvlugt, & Fenn, 2016) so I feel it is important to teach students the skill of “switching off” when necessary and about the impacts technology could have on their lives.

Ultimately students have always had the potential to be distracted from what they’re supposed to be doing. As educators it is our job to engage students in lessons such that they want to be there and they’re keen to learn.

References

Johnson, D. (2012). Managing disruptive technologies in the classroom The classroom teacher's technology survival guide (pp. 137-148). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2016). Logged in and zoned out. Psychological Science, 28(2), 171-180. doi:10.1177/0956797616677314

TPACK revisited

Note: This post is in response to ESC407 Week 11 Module 9

In one of my first posts to this blog, I touched on the TPACK framework shown below:

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

This framework aims to give educators a picture of where technology and the associated knowledge of how to use it should fit into the classroom. As you can see, they've defined different types of knowledge - Pedagogical (how to teach), Content (what to teach) and Technological (familiarity with technology). Teachers can have any combination of these types of knowledge, with the ideal being in the centre where teachers have "TPACK". So where do you fit? Where do I fit? As a student teacher, I feel my Content knowledge is good, and my Technological knowledge is also quite good having worked in technology in my former career. So right now I probably sit in the TCK and I'm aiming to improve my pedagogy as I continue my degree and new career.

I quite like the TPACK framework as it doesn't place any type of knowledge above another - balance is the key to ensuring that you know your content, you teach it well and you integrate technology in a seamless way. By doing this technology enhances pedagogy and improves learning outcomes rather than distracting from the core aims of education.