Tools for secondary education majors

Tools for Secondary Education majors to consider

Because I teach General Secondary Methods in my college, I am always searching for tech tools (and the appropriate pedagogical frameworks to guide the incorporation of those tools) to teach to the mixture of preservice high school teachers in my class. With my background in Language Arts education, I am particularly interested in tools to engage, enhance and extend students in this area. Tools that work for Language Arts will apply across various subject areas, fortunately, so what I can present to my class will likely be useful to most of them.

Tools that address classroom learning overall include Socratic, Socrative and Quizlet. For Language Arts specifically, I know one English teacher in the Lincoln Public Schools that relies on NoRedInk (NRI) for her vocabulary and grammar usage training. Because I already know Quizlet, I will focus on Socratic and Socrative. Since I do not know NRI at all, I will include that tool in this collection of three tech options for secondary education majors to consider.

First, Socratic is a free tool that uses artificial intelligence and info from educational sites like Khan Academy and Crash course to offer explanations for homework problems, including videos and step-by-step instructions. It offers support material for subjects across the curriculum. Students can be taught to reach out to this resource before they reach out to teachers or even peers. In this way, students learn to take control of and responsibility for their learning.

Enhancing teacher learning from guided video analysis

Hong, C. E., & Van Riper, I. (2016).  Enhancing teacher learning from guided video analysis of literacy instruction:  An interdisciplinary and collaborative approach.

Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 7(2), 94-110.

Using videos in education is a prominent practice and has been for many decades already.  Using them for promoting growth in pre-service teachers for the understanding of teaching techniques is a newer field.  Many studies now “document the use of videos for teacher development, [but] teachers’ analysis of their own videos or others is not considered a routinized practice in teacher education programs” (Hong & Van Riper, 2016, p. 94).  The edTPA program has affected views on that.  Because the students’ videos are critiqued by nationally trained specialists, the scores are valid.  Teacher colleges ought, then, to teach their candidates to evaluate themselves on video, and then collaborate with peers and instructors to check their own analyses (Hong & Van Riper, 2016). The studies that have been done on this process “are consistent, suggesting that video-recorded lessons facilitate teacher learning, challenge teachers’ existing knowledge and skills, and enable teachers to reflect on their instruction in order to make changes and positively impact the learning of their students” (p. 96).

This article described a study where instructors and students from two different fields worked together to use video to train pre-service and veteran teachers.  They watched videos of teachers working with students who struggled with reading issues.  Those who watched it learned not only about teaching literacy, but about teaching those with disabilities.  Both the language arts and special education departments collaborated to provide videos, to watch said videos, and then, as groups, to discuss what was learned.  One result the authors gleaned was to provide better training for those viewing videos.  Observers need guiding questions and then time to reflect individually and collectively.  Results showed that 92 percent of the participants learned important skills to improve their own teaching, though the veteran teachers went deeper in their reflections than novice teachers, which was understandable (Hong & VanRiper, 2016).

A study such as this took the research in the field a new and valuable direction, from just watching videos and writing a reflection, to being trained to analyze more effectively, to sharing knowledge collectively, and to applying the knowledge to their own varied classrooms.  No research had been done that focused on all three aspects:  viewing one’s own teaching, viewing published authentic classrooms on video, and viewing other teachers’ at work, and then doing analysis with guidance and collaboration (Hong & VanRiper, 2016).

While the authors were excited to be taking research in this field to new places, they admitted that other questions need to be asked:  “Did the teacher candidates try the techniques they observed?  Were they able to modify and adapt the strategies they liked easily?…Was their application practical within the classroom setting?” (Hong & VanRiper, 2016, p. 106).  The need to look beyond college into the first job is the call here.  I would like to do that in my own research project.  I want to look at the use of training videos and their effects in practicum experiences, in the student teaching semester, and into the first job opportunity.  Teacher colleges such as the one I work for already collect data on this.  The data just need to be strengthened somewhat, organized, compared, and analyzed better to find results to these questions.

Using skilled analysis of videos of authentic classrooms to train pre-service teachers — five articles

Blomberg, G., Renkl, A., Gamoran Sherin, M., Borko, H., & Seidel, T. (2013).  Five

research-based heuristics for using video in pre-service teacher education.

        Journal for Educational Research Online, 5(1), 90-114.


Fadde, P., & Sullivan, P. (2013).  Using interactive video to develop preservice teachers’

classroom awareness.  Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,

13(2).  Retrieved from



Hernandez-Ramos, P., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2004). Situating Teacher Education: From the

University Classroom to the “Real” Classroom. Journal Of Computing In Teacher

        Education, 20(3), 121-128.


Hong, C. E., & Van Riper, I. (2016).  Enhancing teacher learning from guided video

analysis of literacy instruction:  An interdisciplinary and collaborative approach.

Journal of Inquiry & Action in Education, 7(2), 94-110.


Xiong, W. (2013).  A potential approach to support pre-service teachers’ professional

learning: The video analysis of the authentic classroom.  US-China Education

        Review, March, 3(3), 149-161.


Video games and digital literacy

Steinkuehler, C. (2015).  Video games and digital literacies.  Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 54(1) (September 2010), 61-63.

Steinkuehler (2015) described a novel approach to studying the effect of video games on students and concluded that video games are “important literary practices” (63), much to the disagreement of parents and teachers who see video games as distasteful distractions.  Period.  Quite by accident, during her afterschool lab time created to study boys and gaming and the disconnect from school, Steinkuehler met “Julio.” Through that acquaintance, she learned that when a boy is allowed “to choose what to read, he [may] read four grades above his diagnosed reading level, not three grades below,” as was happening to Julio in his English class.  His English teacher decided he was troubling for her and sent him for testing in special education.  Steinkuehler concluded that the English classroom had become a female domain and that students were being forced to love only what the teacher loved —  a demand that Julio and others like him were not going to meet.

Even though the article offered no compromise with parents, teachers and especially English teachers, the point was well made that boys, in particular, may do well in school only when they have choice in their content.  Technology that could be used to engage boys and hopefully open the way to academic development should be encouraged.  Studies that highlighted just such a practice would be supportive of the stance taken in this article.

As an English teacher, I stand guilty as charged (by Steinkuehler, anyway).  I have given very few choices to students as to what they would prefer to read, considering that an option for their spare time.  The classroom curriculum was outlined for me and I complied.  I did not include video games or other more creative technology to engage disinterested boys, for example.  Looking back, I wish I had.  There were more unengaged boys in my classes than otherwise.  I knew they weren’t reading, and their grades reflected their choices.  The opportunity to reach them is lost now, but I can encourage my teacher candidates to be more open to how technology (namely video games, for the sake of this discussion) could enhance their future classroom curricula.

Developing a research agenda

Dede, C. (2011).  Developing a research agenda for educational games and simulations.


In his 2011 blog entry listed above, Dede outlined the five fundamental assumptions that he felt were important in the field of research about technology, especially regarding educational games and simulations.  1)  Research should focus on usable knowledge; 2) it should be collectively done; 3) it should reveal “what works, when, and for whom”; 4) it should do more than compare digital pedagogies with traditional ones; and 5) it should hopefully “focus on innovations that can be implemented at scale.”   Dede felt that research questions began incorrectly unless they focused on a “persistent problem in practice and policy, rather than with intellectual curiosity.”  For example, he felt that “too often, educational games and simulations are developed because they are ‘cool’ or ‘fun’ —  they are solutions looking for problems.”  This type of research activity causes other scholars to disrespect the inquiries in educational technology.

Every paragraph and every piece of advice offered in the blog had clarity and, if followed, would guide educational researchers well.  First, we all need to know “how games and simulations can aid in resolving perennial educational problems and issues.”  Then he said that everyone should study in areas of their expertise.  But then “a single large study with complex treatment [would be] of greater value [next because it would have ] the statistical power to determine the nuanced interaction effects” that large studies can offer (Dede, 2011).  He complained that “theories of learning and philosophies about how to use interactive media for education tend to treat learning” as simple activities, but they are not.  There is no “silver bullet,” as Dede said, to apply one pedagogy for all technology to all teaching.  Technologies do not exude knowledge in the way a fire gives off warmth.  People learn differently, so different methods using different technology must be the solution.  And because it is difficult to “prove” that using a particular technology will produce educational advancement to all people in all situations, researchers must guide practitioners to rethink their ideologies and options.

The strongest message I gleaned from this article that will guide my own research is the idea that research should focus on usable knowledge that speaks to a problem at hand.  Every teacher could list multiple problems in education with little thought.  To start there, and then seek technology to solve the problem, is what Dede (2011) suggested, and where I would like to start for my own research.  I see a problem with the juniors in our teacher education program who are heading into short bursts of practicum teaching and all they have is theory, textbook knowledge, much observation time, but no classroom to call their own.  They have read about techniques, but may or may not have ever seen them in practice.  To see is to understand.  I believe my teacher candidates need to see a host of teaching techniques, performed by master teachers, and then reflect on those video viewings in writing and aloud.  I would be very interested to see if their cooperating teachers have even better things to report about the junior year practicum experiences.  Technology, in the form of video clips, just might enhance the experience of my students and help to solve a problem.


Let’s Not (Use Social Media in School)

Yeo, M. L. (2014). Social Media and Social Networking Applications for Teaching and

Learning.  European Journal Of Science And Mathematics Education, 2(1), 53-62.

Yeo (2014) attempted to persuade the reader that using Facebook and YouTube videos for learning has benefits such as the ability to create and share videos, social networking, peer feedback, and reflective thinking.  Because using these two forms of social media is popular, and because it supports constructivist theory, Yeo supports including the technologies into a regular face-to-face classroom.  “The necessity of face-to-face-lessons for communication and for the facilitation of academic and formal learning” (Yeo, 2014, p. 53) exists, but “it is no longer sufficient” (p. 53).  It is unfortunate that Yeo (2014) is so convinced of this inclusion, because students themselves do not want Facebook and YouTube to be used for formal, academic endeavors planned by the school.  As shared in the article, they want to be able to use these tools informally (Yeo, 2014).

This frustrating article never did change the tone or purpose, in spite of evidence from student quotations that yes, it is interesting to be in contact with a professor through Facebook, but they would rather just use their social media for informal interactions.  The students enjoyed learning from Facebook and YouTube, but they felt that the distractions inherent in those tools make the tools inappropriate for formal academic learning.

I enjoyed the topic because I have a teen who uses these tools for exactly that.  I have not seen her school try to incorporate these exact tools into any lessons. I have seen schools incorporate Twitter and that seemed adequate for brief discussions on a topic.  There aren’t any tools from social media that I would seek to research.  I think that just because something supports constructivist theory, it should not necessarily become part of the curriculum.  Perhaps research will continue to offer directives.