Kevin Knodl

Hello

 
 

 Hello, and welcome to my webpage.

My name is Kevin Knodl, and I’m a pre-service science teacher. I’m currently in the Initial Teaching Licensure and M.Ed. program at the University of Minnesota in the College of Education and Human Development. This semester, I was student teaching at a small charter middle school in St Paul, and next semester, I’ll be in a high school in the northern suburbs. Next year, I will be a licensed Physics Teacher in Minnesota. I used to have a lovely career in the arts, and you can click the arts tab above for more info about that. To see more of my work around technology integration in teaching, you can click that above too. To see my teaching philosophy or plans around intergrating technology into my teaching just scroll down.

I live in Maple Grove with my wife and daughter. We are all life learners and makers. My favorite media includes steel, wood, and electronics. You can check me out more at the social media links or contact me with the email below.

 

My Teaching Philosophy


At the heart of education is the teacher-student relationship.  My philosophy of teaching begins there.  Building a relationship with a student allows them to trust you and ultimately leads them to better understand the world around them.  I want students to know I will be open and honest with them. I will give them tools to learn new subjects in class and continue learning long after our time together.  These tools are centered around a culture of inquiry by encouraging students to ask tough questions (even ones I cannot quickly answer) and showing them how to use inquiry to solve new and more significant problems themselves.  In my classes, students will be presented with examples of inquiry to follow and countless opportunities to create their methods of inquiry.

 

I believe that students should be met where they are developmentally by using effective evidence-based teaching methods.  In addition, one should remember that students are individuals, not a stereotype or a monolith.  They should be observed and collaborated with to see what best works for their learning, including students with disabilities.

 

To achieve these primary goals, the classroom needs to be a safe, inclusive, and welcoming space, and the teacher needs to maintain the elements that make the classroom safe for all students.  This can be done through various means; modeling and encouraging respect for all students, actively stopping disrespect or micro-aggressions, and working to improve relationships with all students and among students.  It requires going beyond the old "color-blind" model to one that is knowledgeable of issues my students face beyond academics to their social and cultural challenges and understanding the context of these issues to offer empathy and compassion when needed.  Teaching science does not mean you turn your heart off.

 

Science education should be rigorous and meet the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS).  Its three-dimensional model (Practices / Core Ideas / Crosscutting Concepts) provides an excellent evidence-based framework for learning, understanding, and teaching science in K-12 schools.  Its wide acceptance across the country gives it an authority that makes it more resistant to less biased criticism while providing a method for revision as science continues to develop.

 

At the same time, science education must be relevant, engaging, and at times fun for students.  Teaching subjects with such a high level of abstraction requires taking the time to connect the material to students’ day-to-day lives as much as possible to aid in their understanding.  The use of discrepants to keep things exciting and fun while helping them question their prior knowledge on the way to constructing new knowledge will be a frequently used technique for my classes as well.

 

As a beginning teacher, I must continue to be cognizant of the fact that more experience will continue to shape my philosophy, but I believe the core elements (all students deserve equal respect regardless of race / class / age / gender / disability / etc. meet them where they’re at, and give them the best evidence-based teaching possible.) will stay the same much like the core tenets of science have stayed the same.  

Technology Plan

Technology’s  Place in Science Education

We are almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and the debate over what our location in time has to do with education continues.  Regardless of the debate, teachers need to decide what the state of their communities and schools means to how they either teach about and/or incorporate technology into their classrooms.  I resonate with Karen Cator’s view that one of the most important things we teach students is how to learn.    

“Success in the 21st century requires knowing how to learn…[Students] must develop strong critical thinking and interpersonal communication skills in order to be successful in an increasingly fluid, interconnected, and complex world. . . Technology should be used to re-imagine 21st-century education focusing on preparing students to be learners for life.” (Cator 2010)

Mixing science and technology is a great way to accomplish it.  My philosophy is that technology should be incorporated into science classrooms.  It provides more support in helping students construct new scientific knowledge than it diminishes their attention.  It can level the playing field for schools that can’t afford elaborate lab equipment by allowing students to do labs in simulated environments at much less cost.  Being able to visualize things that human vision and/or  words alone fail is a great tool for teaching many aspects of science.  Also, technology provides better access to culturally relevant information and views with global perspectives.

Regarding 21st-century tech/skills that aren’t directly related to teaching science content, there is room for science teachers to share teaching some of those skills (As listed in the ISTE profiles for technology-literate students). Other content areas could pick up others and hopefully coordinate amongst themselves, so overlap is consciously planned and/or avoided.  For instance, one of the most important skills to teach students (and is ideal for science teachers) is how to engage with/ utilize Google.  As more and more content exists online (over five exabytes every two days)  students must be savvy to distinguish biased results. 

Choosing the Best Technology

I began my journey to be a physics teacher many years ago in a high school classroom that didn’t have any digital technology except perhaps scientific calculators.  In the not-too-distant past, I worked in a college lab using computers for equipment control and data acquisition.  So, I’ve seen the past as well as the present.  The biggest thing I’ve learned is that technology resources vary significantly from school to school, so any plan I create needs a great deal of flexibility.

I look forward to using technology in the classroom to aid in my teaching of Physics and to continue students' exposure to technology.  This will help them in any future science learning and life in general. A positive growth mindset around technology is an important quality to promote in students.

Examining the multiple frameworks was very helpful in thinking about my future teaching and how I could use or modify one to assist me in my unit/lesson planning.  I would say that my inclination is toward both Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (Churches) and what I would consider one of the most ill-named frameworks ever, the PICRAT framework.  I think both are well thought out and have helpful visualizations (pyramid and matrix) as part of the framework.  Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (much like its analog predecessor) is very helpful for helping determine which technologies can help your students reach those higher levels of thinking and learning, and PICRAT is helpful for determining the level of student interaction with the technology (which is extremely helpful if there isn’t enough resource available for a 1 to 1 student to technology ratio)

My technology plan will include aspects from both frameworks.

  • PICRAT

    • For Lab Equipment and processes

    • In class visualizations 

    • Simulations

    • Other technology (who knows what the future holds)

  • Blooms Digital taxonomy

    • For Creating both formative and summative performance assessments.

Utilizing the frameworks as I learn about the resources of my district and school will be essential to get moving quickly in any new position.  Additionally, I would look for support from my colleagues in the science department (and possibly IT if they have one) to provide school-specific resources.  Lastly, I continue to research new and developing technology alongside my grad school cohort, sharing our collaborative finds for the greater good of all our students.  

Additional Factors for Choosing Technology for the Classroom

Using Technology to Practice Universal Design for Learning. 

A quote was displayed on the screen in Dr. Terrence Brady's TED talk Universal Design for Learning, A Paradigm for Maximum Inclusion,  probably from a student. “If I don’t learn the way you teach, then teach the way I learn.”  I don’t think that a better statement drives home the ideals of both personalized learning AND UDL.  Both intend to meet the students where they are, and both certainly work within the approaches of the Framework (NGSS.)  How they achieve success is where they differ.

The Framework introduced 3D instruction around the three dimensions of science learning: Science and Engineering Practices, Disciplinary Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts.  Phenomena-based learning uses real-world phenomena as the starting point for exploration in science teaching.  Both approaches can be used separately or as part of a robust inquiry-based science education.  Nothing inherent in these approaches gives them a preference for personalized learning or UDL.  The choice then moves to either the teacher's philosophy or the school they teach at.              

Having spent some time in the world of universal building design, I quickly see its positives and reluctantly admit its occasional shortcomings (these show up more or less dependent on the initial design.)   While UDL can not solve every problem or eliminate every barrier, I chose it as my first path for designing lessons/curriculum.  Dr Brady described Ronald Mace’s view of UDL; “UDL views difference as an everyday occurrence, and we should celebrate that difference, and at the same time, we should conduct impact research and design for it [the difference.]  Starting every student at the best point possible gives them all a greater chance of success and typically provides additional unintended positive results.  Watching for any possible unfair advantages would be one of the more critical shortcomings to be vigilant for, and the other requires that teachers either remain well informed on current pedagogy or partner with others who do (perhaps skill sharing.) 

My final analysis will come down to the students I’m teaching.  Their talents, resources, experiences, and other assets will help inform what approach to use and how to design and/or differentiate it for them.  This element of technology integration leads one back to the heart of my teaching philosophy - the student-teacher relationship.  Knowing my students will be vital to helping them learn.

Meeting NGSS or MN State Science Standards.

Both the MN State Science Standards and the NGSS framework they're based on are designed to illustrate the interconnected nature of science as it is practiced and experienced in the real world.  Technology is at the heart of real-world science practiced today and thus aligns with the three dimensional teaching of the NGSS.  These three dimensions (Science and Engineering Practices (SEP), Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI), and Crosscutting Concepts (CCC.)  provide another framework when choosing technology integration for the classroom (either above or side by side PICRAT and Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy.)  In addition to standards that specifically suggest integration (e.g. include writing programs for data analysis or simulations), technology can be used to facilitate the Science and Engineering Practices.  For example, online tools can help construct scientific models or collect and analyze data.  The use of technology is vital to the NGSS.  And the NGSS is specifically designed to help teachers create a multitude of possible integrations.

Considering Digital Literacy

Back in the day, along with my BA in theater, I received a minor in computer science.  My colleagues in Comp Sci and I often discussed that many arguments over which programming language was best were pointless.  Typically, the arguments were based on personal preferences, and the only significant difference between programming languages was simply syntax.  Under the different names for commands, the major mechanisms worked the same.  My view of digital literacy is a combination of that point about syntax and Karen Cator’s point that one of the most important things we teach students is how to learn.

Once you learn the basics of digital technology, you are on your way to being self-sufficient.  I love the following quote from John Dewey, who said it 55 years before the first personal computer was invented. “If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow” (Dewey, 1916).

So, we need to teach students digital literacy (how to navigate technology, find the resources to learn more, and not be scared). As we work on that core aspect, we can approach the ITSE and Science Practices.  ITSE is an excellent start to approach these deeper levels of digital literacy.  As a physics teacher, I see myself helping students engage in multiple sections.  I would focus on Empowered Learners / Knowledge Constructors / Innovative Designers and Computational thinkers.  These can all be utilized in a physics class.  To what breadth and depth, time will tell, mainly based on the needs of my district/school but keeping digital literacy as a priority in my teaching will add another conscious level to the hierarchy of my Technology Plan.

Technology for Assessments 

 Assessment is an integral part of teaching.  Formative assessments help teachers understand student’s current knowledge, identify areas for improvement, and adjust instructional strategies.  Summative assessments can evaluate student mastery of concepts and standards.  Both can be practiced in traditional and performance-based methods. In the digital age, technology can be leveraged in many ways to assess student learning.  Traditional methods of assessment (Quick quizzes, exit tickets, polls, end of unit exams, etc) can all be transferred to digital. Digital assessments offer some advantages, such as immediate feedback, automated grading, and the ability to track and analyze student performance data.  The use of these tools is balanced by ease of student use, the resourcing of students with 1 to 1 devices, and home access to the internet.  As with any use of technology, these assessment tools can increase student access, but could also become a barrier. It is critical that teachers actively watch to ensure they don’t create barriers.  Additionally, in a school with more flexibility such as project based learning schools, more research is probably needed to find the best tools to match the school’s pedagogical mission.  I think that the key is to ensure that the technology always helps the student show their knowledge.  My technology plan will use technology primarily for formative assessment so that I can provide my students with multiple modalities in summative assessments.  As such, a tool such as Formative.com would be a vital tool in my plan. It is web/app-based tool and allows students to respond on any device.  It has organization tools to allow teachers to prepare assessments for multiple classes and has integration tools for Google Classroom (and some others). The creation of a “formative” can be effortless for short multiple-choice or short-answer questions.  It provides reports on individual students to understand their progress as well as full class reports to assess my teaching strategies.  They illustrate multiple tools to use in science “formatives” such as resequence questions / categorize questions / drawing questions.  All so much more than a multiple-choice quiz.  They also have the ability to embed other science teaching tools such as PhET, Gizmos, Khan Academy, YouTube, etc.  I could see myself using this tool for quick short formative assessments at the end of class as a type of exit ticket. 

This is a good tool for science teaching.  It can connect formatives and tracking with current science standards in your state. Creating formatives from imported images easily and allowing students to respond in multiple ways is a bonus. This allows for application for grades from K-12 (just requiring different technology scaffolding).  

Formative.com provides what I would consider the most important pedagogical tool, the ability for teachers to provide almost immediate feedback.  Understanding where students are and providing them the information to progress is well worth the cost of the tool. Lastly, Formative.com has prioritized the student experience.  Their objective appears to be ease of student use at all times.  Making it quick and “painless” for students to demonstrate knowledge (and/or mastery if desired).  Anything that works to eliminate barriers to engagement is worthwhile to me.

Possible Challenges

Technology integration is not without challenges.  The severity of these challenges depends on the district/school one teaches at, but they are all important to remain vigilant against.

The most critical challenge is Equity.  We must ensure that all students have equal access to technology, and that students have equal access to appropriate supports.  Not all students have the same initial digital literacy. The first part is typically dealt with before students enter the classroom but should be considered when classes include homework or group work.  The second part requires teachers to assess their student's digital literacy before utilizing any digital tool.  The next challenge is technical issues.  Teachers should be prepared for days with no electricity or no wifi.  This requires teachers to prepare more to shift class topics for a day.  Lack of appropriate resources is a constant challenge in schools but is amplified with technology integration.  Online tools have costs that funds not be available for, they may require teacher training that exceeds a teacher's current agreement, or they have too steep a learning curve so student time is the missing resource, lastly they may not work with district/school infrastructure and are prohibited.  All of these are possible barriers and probably require seeking alternatives; thankfully, the world of educational technology is both broad and deep and continues to expand.    The last significant challenges involve student privacy which teachers must remember but hopefully are assisted with by their school technology partners, and sustainability.  Online tools sometimes come and go, so teachers must do their best to keep up with technology; this is often resolved with close connections to colleagues teaching in the field.  

Plans for success.

Successful technology integration requires careful planning, ongoing support, and a willingness to adapt to evolving needs. By addressing challenges in advance, I plan to create an inclusive and equitable classroom environment.  Technology will be strategically planned to support the current research-based science teaching pedagogy to ensure positive student outcomes.