Examining the attributes associated with technology-mediated learning in the science and mathematics classroom to create a framework for educator training
In a push to provide more consistent access to technology in the classrooms, our school will be implementing a one-to-one laptop program in September 2012, and teachers will be expected to incorporate technology into the learning process. In response to this initiative I have been asked to take on the newly created position as director of educational technology. This means that my primary functions will be to facilitate teacher training and technology-mediated lesson design. I am looking forward to this task, as a common theme from the interview discussion forum of ETEC-533 and also several other courses in the MET program has been technology training for teachers. I have a training approach (peer-mentorship) in mind, but one of my interviewee’s response to using technology,“…they need to be able to put it on paper, but as a supplemental, go for it…” has stuck in my mind. I feel that this perception of technology as limited to only a remedial tool will act as an impediment to helping her incorporate technology into the learning process. With this view in mind, I intend to investigate the attributes associated with technology and then use these to create a framework for teacher development.
Personal experience, a scan of the literature, and discussions within ETEC-533 have revealed that one of the major problem facing science and mathematics education today is a disconnect between the content, authentic practice and learning, and the ways students are regularly accessing and using information. An understanding of the attributes is necessary because the world in which today’s youth live is significantly different from the world we educators grew up in, and they expect to participate actively with media in their learning (Beyers, 2009). These youths are digital natives, but they exist on a spectrum affected by skill, quality of access, and social supports (Eynon, 2009). If we simply implement a one-to-one laptop model, but the teachers have not changed their approaches or practices, then an opportunity will be missed and the trend of disconnect will continue. However, if the advantages, in the form of attributes associated with technology, can be conveyed then teachers can see a reason for the extra work that will be required to effectively include technology in their teaching practices. Mentoring and training will then be meaningful.
Selecting and finding articles
To identify attributes associated with the use of technology, I purposely selected articles that studied a number of different technologies and their use in mathematics and science. Technologies investigated included interactive whiteboards (IWB), digital cameras, web-based inquiry science environment (WISE), and the Technology-Enhanced Secondary Science Instruction project (TESSI), which while a general approach, provides student context in regards to attributes associated with technology in the science learning environment.
These article were obtained from a search of the ETEC-533 library hosted on CiteULike, ACM digital library, and the ERIC (EBSCO interface) via UBC library. I discovered two articles on ERIC during readings and research for previously completed courses in the MET program. Search terms included:
- Technology
- Student achievement and technology
- Technology and assessment
- Interactive whiteboards and achievement
These articles are relevant as they identify technologies and attributes from their investigation of how particular technological tools impact learning, engagement, and achievement; generally considered to be the goal of any learning approach.
Annotated Bibliography
Beeland, W.J. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Trinity College, Dublin.
Educational technology holds the potential to deliver subject content in a variety of ways, and promote novel interactions between students and the materials. IWBs are one piece of hardware with attributes for multi-modal instruction, interactivity, and engagement. In his action research study, Beeland collected survey data from 197 student participants and questionnaire data from 20 students. They represented the students of ten teachers who had signed up to use the limited number of IWBs. The purpose was to ascertain whether or not IWBs engaged students during the learning process. Teachers in the classes selected students who enjoyed using technology and those who did not to complete the follow-up questionnaire. To garner more information, Beeland also collected data on which modalities were being addressed with the teachers’ methods of IWB usage. The survey questions were scored on a 1 to 4 scale and both an average rating and a standard deviation were obtained.
From this study, he concluded that the use of IWBs could indeed lead to increased interactivity and student engagement in the classroom. However, he noted that this was dependent on how the teacher used the IWB in the teaching process. These findings are limited because the study was carried out in self-identified teachers’ classrooms, making it more difficult to ascertain the degree of impact in a randomly selected classroom. Beeland did however use numerous assessment tools, which allowed him to triangulate the findings and thereby increase the validity of the results (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). So, increased student engagement and interactivity stand as two strong attributes to capitalize on with the inclusion of technology. An indirect attribute for IWBs in the classroom is the novelty effect, which can increase student engagement initially, but then requires more work thereafter.
Tatar, D. and Robinson, M. (2003). Use of the digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 12(2): 89-95.
The novelty effect is only a temporary attribute, which can also be seen in classrooms where students are provided with a new piece of hardware to use, whether it is a Bunsen burner, a graphing calculator or a digital camera as in this study by Tatar and Robinson. The authors aimed to elucidate if the use of digital cameras in the laboratory activities increased students’ learning of scientific processes and motivated students to take a greater interest in laboratory work. They selected two biology classes with a total of 31 students from a culturally diverse school with 1300 students. The classes were of a vertical design with students from each of the four grades, but all were generally considered to be upper-level students. They used post-lab quizzes administered three days after the laboratory exercise, and qualitative observations. The questions on the post-lab quizzes were similar to the questions, which students had answered on the data analysis and conclusion component of the laboratory exercise.
Tatar and Robinson data found that there were statistically significant differences between the control group and the experimental group during the analysis of the post-lab quiz, their written reports, and recall several months later. The authors noted that students in the experimental group showed up earlier to set up the lab, and had no errors in their laboratory reports, as they were able to refer back to the images they had collected. It was noted that students were often concerned with getting the correct shot, but this also meant more time was spent checking procedures. Tatar and Robinson did make use of an experimental treatment and a control treatment for this study and collected data both quantitatively and qualitatively. However, issues arise due to the fact that the sample size was small, and that the two classes identified as upper-level students. Therefore the generalizability to other settings is once again difficult (Gay, et al., 2009). That being said, increased accuracy, improved data collection, stronger connection to content, and stronger process skills are particularly important attributes for technology in the sciences and mathematics.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., and De Wever, B. (2010). The impact of web-based collaborative inquiry for science learning in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences – Volume 1, ICLS ’10, pages 736–741. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Technology in education is not limited to hardware such as the IWB or digital cameras, but can also include software and the Internet. To that end, Raes, Schellens, and De Wever investigated the impact of WISE on student understanding of science principles, inquiry skills, and attitudes and engagement with science. This was in response to their review of the literature, which found that the happenings in the science classroom were not appealing to students. This resulted in the students’ lack of interest in sciences and therefore career paths in applied sciences. They collected data from 375 students across 19 secondary science classes and 17 classes using pre- and post-test analysis of students’ reflection notes during the lessons, and also from the reports made by the masters students assisting with the project. Raes et al. also collected data from semi-structured interviews with classroom teachers after the project was complete. To determine the impact of WISE the authors used paired sample t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and analysis of variance.
Interestingly, Raes et al. found that although they had intended for the masters students to act as “leaders from within,” they generally functioned as “guides on the side” and only prompted students when difficulties were noticed. They did find significant improvement with science knowledge and explanation especially when the students were asked to generate hypotheses and identify underlying research questions in a research article. The results for changes in attitudes and engagement were less consistent; in support for science it was initially high and didn’t change much in post-test, but there was increased interest in science and a sense of responsibility towards environmental surroundings. Although only a small component of their research project, the authors also found that gender differences did exist and that the girls benefited more from the WISE intervention than the boys. From their results, the authors concluded that WISE’s innovative approach is effective in making science more accessible and interesting, and also providing an approach to cover imbalances in learning sciences between the genders. They also concluded that this approach lead to significant gains in students’ understanding of scientific concepts. Raes et al. pointed out that mastery in the WISE environment required support because students did not naturally master the skills of information problem solving. Advantages to this study include a larger sample size drawn from a diverse populace, comparisons of pre- and post-test results, and inclusion of qualitative data in the form of observations, which increases validity (Gay, et al., 2009). Attributes associated here to capitalize on include increased student independence, increased accessibility to science, and the development of collaborative skills.
Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., and Woodrow, J. (1998). Technology, text, and talk: Students’ perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology-enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82(5): 569–589.
While it is beneficial to examine the outcomes of specific technologies in terms of achievements and engagement, too often we do not take into account the attributes that students perceive. Since they are in fact the end users of education Pedretti, Mayer-Smith and Woodrow investigated the third component of the TESSI project: students’ attitudes and perspectives regarding the use of technology in teaching. They selected 147 students from four Science 10 and three Physics 11 classes. Pedretti et al. used a case study approach and collected data via surveys, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. They also frequented and video recorded the classes for further data recovery. All data was coded and categorized.
Pedretti et al. found that the majority of students preferred learning in an environment where technology was fully integrated and there was an increased option for self-pacing. They also found that for some students the use of computers acted as an interface between students’ thoughts and written words, a particularly useful attribute for students with dysgraphia. Pedretti et al. also found that students were more likely to move between both the use of lab resources and technology to build a better understanding of a concept. They further concluded that the TESSI project led to many of the students focusing on how the learning process had changed rather than on a particular technology or aspect of technology, and that there was increased meta-cognition in regards to learning. A negative outcome identified by the authors was that some students felt scared and intimidated by the use of technology because it was unfamiliar. Given that this article is more than a decade old, the familiarity with technology has increased, but as noted early the digital natives still exist on a spectrum and some students will still be apprehensive about using technology in the classroom. While the TESSI project was a longitudinal study, the authors only collected data for a few months, and thus only grabbed a snapshot of the outcomes. Additionally, interview subjects were selected by the teachers running the project, which while intended to provide a representative cross-section, instead created bias (Gay, et al., 2009).
Conclusion
In an effort to elucidate attributes associated with technology that could be used to create a framework for teacher development, each article was selected to represent a different technology, approach, or philosophy. The following two undercurrents prevailed throughout all four articles:
- That the mere presence of technology in the classroom did not result in increased learning or achievement.
- There was a need for a change in pedagogy from the “sage on stage” teacher to the “designer and facilitator” educator.
Though, one attribute that stands out the most when technology is incorporated is the increased levels of student engagement. One portion of that is due to novelty, another is providing students with an active role in learning sciences and mathematics, and a third is how the educator uses the technology, which relates back to the first undercurrent. Both WISE and the digital cameras facilitated opportunities for students to build a more in-depth understanding of scientific processes, while an interactive inquiry model like WISE provided authentic learning tasks. IWBs, WISE, and digital cameras all provided opportunities for collaboration and interactivity, and in response to the problem of teacher centered education, they enabled the teacher to step out of the spotlight and take on different roles. A framework for teachers building on the capitalization on these attributes will make the design and effort of changing their practices worthwhile and result in science and mathematics being more meaningful to today’s digital learners. Though fear and hesitancy are negative attributes, having an awareness of them will help teachers to be better prepared to address student concerns and to build scaffolds so that students will actively participate in lessons and the learning experience. Questions still remain around assessment practices for the inclusion of technology in the learning process, selection and development of technology-based assessments, and effective approaches to building authentic problems in science and mathematics.
References:
Beeland, W.J. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can interactive whiteboards help? Annual Conference of the Association of Information Technology for Teaching Education, Trinity College, Dublin.
Beyers, R.N. (2009). A five dimensional model for educating the net generation. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 218-227.
Enyon, R. (2009). Mapping the digital divide in Britain: Implications for learning and education. Learning Media and Technology, 34,(4), 277-290.
Gay, L.R., Millis, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2009) Educational research: Compentencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Pedretti, E., Mayer-Smith, J., and Woodrow, J. (1998). Technology, text, and talk: Students’ perspectives on teaching and learning in a technology-enhanced secondary science classroom. Science Education, 82(5):569–589.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., and De Wever, B. (2010). The impact of web-based collaborative inquiry for science learning in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences – Volume 1, ICLS ’10, pages 736–741. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Tatar, D. and Robinson, M. (2003). Use of the digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 12(2): 89-95.