Reflections on Week 2 Readings

I thought that the software described in Moyer, Niezgoda and Stanley's Young Children's Use of Virtual Manipulatives and Other Forms of Mathematical Representations seemed like really powerful tools for teaching mathematics. The software looked like it was easy to interact with, and as these students are technology natives there is no barrier for them to overcome before learning math concepts. The Virtual base-ten blocks software looked like it helped the students learn addition in a more concrete manner. It was interesting to read that when the students were asked to do similar addition problems on paper, they drew out blocks and drew arrows to move them around. The software had definitely influenced the way they approach addition problems. Hopefully the mental models the students have developed with this software will be carried forward to help them understand more difficult math topics.

Reflections on Week 1 Readings

Wilson's chapter titled The Impact of Technology on Science Preservice and In-service Professional Development has an interesting perspective on technology and science education. Almost all the studies I have read in this program has been about K-12 (mostly 7-12) students and whether they have learned the desired content and skills. I am a bit surprised to read that I, a preservice science teacher, am worthy of study. I am guessing that most researchers do study adolescent students and not teachers, which is why there were only twelve articles that could be reviewed. I agree with my fellow students that the importance of technology in math and science education is obvious, but it is good to study whether teachers are effectively taught and mentored on how to implement technology. It is good to read that in all of these studies technology had a positive impact on the teachers. Wilson calls for more technology instruction in preservice teacher programs, and I am grateful that we have 750 in our program. I am looking forward to learning about these different technologies, especially smartboard.

In theory I support the idea of an integrated curriculum as outlined by Czerniak et al in A Literature Review of Science and Mathematics Integration. When I was in chemistry graduate school I noticed that the most creative (and successful) researchers were the ones who bridged multiple traditional fields of science. Some professors would use a technique from a different discipline as a tool to further their line of research. Other professors who had a background in one area would then apply their knowledge to study a different field in a new way. In chemistry this was often biology or material science. Even though most students will not become science researchers, it is beneficial in any field to have people who can integrate different ideas and fields of study. I do agree though that integration must not come at the expense of learning the basic curriculum. Reading Roth's experience about forcing science content into a theme of 1492 made me think that integration can be too broad. It also depends on the time frame for integration. I think spending a week on what science was like in 1492 would be interesting, but a whole year on this theme would limit the amount of content the students would learn. I think in K-12 education integration should be used for a few weeks a year after students have a good grasp of some content. An example would be to have twelfth graders towards the end of the year apply calculus to study physics problems in more depth.