Integrating Technology into Math and Science

Course Description

Integrating Technology into Math and Science explores the technologies available for use in secondary classrooms. Students evaluate technology resources and expectations and determine appropriate use in 6–12 mathematics and science classrooms.

Within the SCNS taxonomy, EME is the Educational Media and Instructional Technology prefix. Daytona State publishes this at 3 credits, prerequisite EDF4430, offered fall, giving approximately 45 contact hours — matching the published EME2040C and EDF4430 at the same college and credit value.

The prerequisite is the most informative thing about this course. Requiring classroom assessment first signals that the course is about instructional decisions rather than about software — the question is not what a tool does but whether it improves learning, how you would know, and what it costs in time and attention. That framing is what distinguishes a useful technology course from a tour of applications that will be obsolete before the candidates finish their first year of teaching.

Learning Outcomes

Required Outcomes

• Describe frameworks for technology integration, including TPACK and SAMR, and apply them critically.
• Evaluate a technology resource against instructional objectives rather than novelty.
• Align technology use to state standards for mathematics and science.
• Select technology appropriate to a specific learning objective and grade band.
• Use dynamic geometry and graphing software to develop mathematical understanding.
• Use computer algebra systems appropriately and describe their instructional risks.
• Use graphing calculators and describe their role on state and national assessments.
• Use spreadsheets for modelling, data analysis, and mathematical reasoning.
• Use simulations and virtual laboratories and describe what they can and cannot replace.
• Use probeware and digital data collection in science instruction.
• Use data analysis and visualization tools with authentic scientific data.
• Locate and evaluate scientific and mathematical data sources for classroom use.
• Design instruction that uses technology to make thinking visible.
• Use technology for formative assessment and to inform instructional decisions.
• Apply universal design for learning and select accessible technology.
• Address equity of access, including connectivity and device availability.
• Apply student data privacy requirements and describe teacher obligations.
• Apply digital citizenship, safety, and academic integrity expectations.
• Apply copyright and fair use to classroom materials.
• Plan for technology failure and maintain instruction when it occurs.
• Evaluate claims of instructional effectiveness against evidence.
• Reflect on and revise technology-integrated lessons based on student outcomes.

Optional Outcomes

• Use computational thinking and introductory programming in mathematics and science.
• Describe generative AI tools and their classroom implications.
• Use engineering design and making tools, including 3D printing and microcontrollers.
• Use geospatial tools in science instruction.
• Describe learning management systems and blended instruction.
• Develop a professional portfolio of technology-integrated lessons.

Major Topics

Required Topics

• Technology integration frameworks: TPACK, SAMR
• Evaluating resources against objectives
• Standards alignment in mathematics and science
• Selecting technology for a purpose
• Dynamic geometry and graphing software
• Computer algebra systems
• Graphing calculators and assessment policy
• Spreadsheets and mathematical modelling
• Simulations and virtual laboratories
• Probeware and digital data collection
• Data analysis and visualization
• Authentic data sources
• Making student thinking visible
• Technology for formative assessment
• Universal design for learning and accessibility
• Equity of access
• Student data privacy
• Digital citizenship, safety, and integrity
• Copyright and fair use
• Contingency planning for failure
• Evaluating effectiveness claims
• Reflection and revision

Optional Topics

• Computational thinking and programming
• Generative AI in the classroom
• Making, 3D printing, and microcontrollers
• Geospatial tools
• Learning management systems and blended instruction
• Professional portfolio development

Resources & Tools

• GeoGebra and Desmos — free, and the two most important mathematics tools in secondary classrooms. Desmos Classroom activities are free and unusually well designed pedagogically.
• PhET Interactive Simulations (University of Colorado) — free, research-based science and mathematics simulations; the single best free science resource for this course.
• Vernier and PASCO probeware — the standard science data-collection systems; know how they work even if your placement school has neither.
• Google Sheets or Excel — free or school-provided, and the most transferable data tool students will use after school.
• NASA, NOAA, USGS, and Florida DEP open data — free authentic datasets; using real data is what separates a science lesson from a worksheet.
• ISTE Standards for Educators and Students (iste.org) — the reference framework for educational technology.
• NCTM and NSTA position statements on technology — free, and directly relevant to the evaluation content.
• Florida Department of Education — state academic standards for mathematics and science, and the technology permitted on state assessments. Verify current standards directly.
• What Works Clearinghouse (ies.ed.gov) — free, and the right place to check whether an intervention has evidence behind it.
• Common Sense Education — free digital citizenship curriculum and independent tool reviews including privacy assessments.
• Scratch, Python, and micro:bit — free or inexpensive entry points to computational thinking.

Career Pathways

• Secondary mathematics teacher (6–12) — SOC 25-2031; Florida has a persistent shortage.
• Secondary science teacher (6–12) — physics and chemistry are among the hardest positions in the state to fill.
• Middle grades mathematics and science teacher.
• District instructional technology specialist or coach — a common progression for teachers with this preparation.
• STEM coordinator or curriculum specialist.
• Instructional designer — in K–12, higher education, or corporate training; the design skills transfer and the pay is often better.
• Educational technology sales, training, and support — vendors hire former teachers specifically.
• Informal science education — museums, science centres, and Florida's substantial marine and space education sector.
• Educational content and assessment development.
• School leadership, with additional qualifications.
• Florida certification runs through the Department of Education and requires subject area and professional examinations. Rule 11 applies — certification requirements, examinations, and approved programme rules change; verify with FLDOE directly.

Special Information

⚠ Evidence over novelty — the disposition this course should build

• Technology does not improve learning by being present. The research record on educational technology is decidedly mixed, and the variable that matters is instructional design, not the device.
• Ask what the technology lets students do that they could not do otherwise. If a digital worksheet replaces a paper worksheet, nothing has changed except the cost — that is the substitution level in SAMR, and it is where most classroom technology use actually sits.
• The best uses are the ones that are impossible on paper: dragging a construction and watching what stays invariant, running a simulation a hundred times to see a distribution emerge, graphing a real dataset too large to plot by hand, collecting data at a sampling rate no student could achieve manually.
• Be sceptical of vendor claims. "Research-based" and "proven to raise scores" are marketing phrases unless attached to an actual study with a control group. Check the What Works Clearinghouse, and notice who funded the research.
• Cognitive load is a real cost. Time spent learning an interface is time not spent learning mathematics, and a tool that takes three class periods to teach must earn that back.
• Frameworks are useful and are not evidence. TPACK usefully names the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge; SAMR usefully prompts you to ask whether you are transforming or substituting. Neither tells you whether a specific lesson worked — your assessment data does, which is exactly why EDF4430 is the prerequisite.
• Simulations complement laboratory work; they do not replace it. Students need to handle real equipment, get messy data, and confront the difference between the model and the world. A virtual titration that always works teaches the wrong lesson about science.
• Plan for failure every time. The network will go down, the projector bulb will die, and half the class will have forgotten their charger. Have the non-technology version of the lesson ready — this is a mark of professionalism, not pessimism, and evaluators notice it.

⚠ Calculator and tool policy on assessments — know the rules before you teach the tool

• State assessments specify what technology is permitted, and it varies by test, by grade, and by section. Teaching a method that depends on a tool students cannot use on the assessment sets them up to fail.
• Computer algebra systems are frequently restricted on standardized assessments even where graphing calculators are allowed, and the distinction matters instructionally.
• Florida uses an embedded calculator on some computer-based assessments rather than the handheld students practise with, so students must have practised with the actual assessment tool. Check the current FLDOE assessment guidance.
• The pedagogical question is separate from the policy question. There is a real debate about when a tool should do the computation and when the student should — and the honest answer is that it depends on the objective. If the objective is fluency in a procedure, the tool undermines it; if the objective is modelling or interpretation, the tool removes an irrelevant obstacle.
• Be explicit with students about which mode they are in. "Today the calculator does the arithmetic because we are studying the pattern" is a legitimate and clarifying instruction.
• AP, IB, SAT, and ACT each have their own technology policies, and they differ from the state's. Rule 11 applies — verify current policies with each testing organization.

⚠ Student data privacy is a legal obligation, not an IT concern

• FERPA governs education records, and student work, grades, and identifying information in a third-party application are education records.
• You generally may not sign a classroom app up for your students on your own initiative. Districts vet and approve tools, and using an unapproved application that collects student data can violate district policy and federal law regardless of good intentions.
• COPPA restricts collection of personal information from children under 13, which covers most middle school students, and shifts obligations onto the operator and the school.
• Florida has its own student data privacy provisions in statute and rule. Rule 11 applies — verify current requirements with FLDOE and your district.
• Free is not free. Ad-supported and data-collecting applications monetize student information, and "free for teachers" often means the students are the product. Common Sense Education publishes free privacy evaluations — use them.
• Do not post identifiable student work or images publicly without documented permission, and know your district's media release status for each student.
• Ask before you adopt. The correct sequence is to check the district's approved tool list first, and to route a request through the proper channel if what you want is not on it.

⚠ Equity of access, and accessibility as a design requirement

• Do not assume home connectivity or a working device. Homework that requires reliable internet disadvantages students who lack it, and in Florida that includes both rural and low-income urban households.
• Ask what students actually have. A phone with a limited data plan is not equivalent to a laptop with broadband, and designing as though it is quietly excludes people.
• Provide an alternative path for anything assigned outside class, and make it equivalent rather than a lesser version.
• Accessibility is a legal requirement and a design discipline. Materials must work with screen readers, provide captions, use sufficient contrast, and not depend on colour alone to convey information.
• Check the tool, not just your own materials. Many popular educational applications are poorly accessible, and adopting one can exclude a student in your class.
• Universal design for learning — multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression — is the framework, and technology is genuinely good at delivering it when used deliberately.
• Students with IEPs and 504 plans have specified accommodations, and technology choices must support rather than obstruct them.
• Multilingual learners benefit from specific supports — translation, visual representation, and audio — and Florida's classrooms make this a routine consideration rather than an exception.

⚠ Generative AI arrived faster than policy — teach judgement

• Students are already using it. Pretending otherwise is not a strategy, and mathematics and science homework are among the most affected areas.
• It is confidently wrong at mathematics with some regularity, and it fabricates citations and data. That failure mode is genuinely useful pedagogically: having students evaluate and correct AI output teaches verification, which is a durable scientific habit.
• AI detection tools are unreliable and produce false accusations, with documented bias against multilingual writers. Do not build an integrity process on them.
• Design assessment that is robust to it — in-class work, oral explanation, process and revision evidence, and tasks tied to a specific class dataset or context.
• Be explicit about what is permitted for each task, in writing. Ambiguity is unfair to students who want to do the right thing.
• Student data privacy applies to AI tools too, and entering student work or identifying information into a public system may violate policy.
• Your district and state will have policies, and they are changing. Rule 11 applies with force — verify current guidance rather than relying on any course material, including this one.
• The teacher's own use is a live question — lesson planning and drafting assistance are common, and the same verification obligation applies to you.

How Florida course levels affect transfer

The first digit of an SCNS number denotes the year of offering, not transferability. Courses at the 1000 and 2000 levels transfer transparently between Florida public institutions, and 3000 to 4000 is unproblematic since both are upper division. The boundary that actually matters is 2000 to 3000, where lower-division credit generally cannot satisfy an upper-division requirement.

EME3434 is 3 credits and approximately 45 contact hours, offered fall with prerequisite EDF4430. Expect lesson design, tool evaluation, and reflective writing rather than examinations, and expect to produce artefacts you can use. Build a portfolio of technology-integrated lessons — with the standards alignment, the rationale, and the assessment evidence attached. It is directly usable in a job interview and in your first year of teaching.

As a 3000-level course it belongs to an upper-division education programme, and lower-division educational technology credit such as EME2040C will not substitute for it. Education degrees leading to certification are state approved programmes; confirm that any programme you enter is approved for Florida certification in your intended subject before enrolling.