Unpacking Assumptions part 2: Video Analysis of authentic learning settings
Video 1 – Learning Environment 6 with Teacher G (Post-secondary Applied Science)
Observation
• Personal Response systems through the use of Clickers (each person had their own). Anonymous response.
• Very large class with only one teacher
• Technology use on three levels: to deliver content, to enable interactivity and participation and to evaluate learning (provide information on students’ level of understanding).
• Collaboration
Questions
I wondered why anonymity, because although reducing fear limits the opportunity for personal remediation.
Good technology and good technology use?
Good:
i) interactive and
ii) allowed individual choice.
iii) Provide feedback on results.
Questions
Process did not allow for divergent options and further investigations. However, this was supplemented with post discussions with the lecturer when reviewing student choices and also through collaboration with peers during problem solving. Is this enough?
Issues
Large classes with decreased ability to measure students’ level of understanding – The technology was chosen and used to address this specific issue as well as to increase interactivity and participation at the individual level. It was therefore well chosen.
However, I would increase the opportunity created here by assigning anonymous ids that could still give them a feeling of protection but enable me to also offer increased individual feedback or remediation design.
Students responded that the technology increased interest, concentration and active thinking, as well as participation. However, I wondered how to incorporate more technology in allowing students to act work through actual processes that were more inherent of the subject: exploration, problem-solving, divergent options, analysis, testing and real world applications.
The latter was more evident in the second video, Learning Environment 1 with Teacher F (Mathematics Graphing Calculators)
Observations
• Technology was used in: i) delivering content ii) enabling interactivity and participation and iii) presenting students’ work for discussion and feedback.
• Open ended questions were given that created the need for the technology and choosing tools.
• Students worked on individual projects that they designed.
• The technology gave them a comfort level and support that empowered them to take the course and/or activity to other levels.
• Some students used the calculator as a last step, saying it was better to start on paper because it increases understanding of the process and what they were doing,
• Others opted for the calculator right away. Those students commented on the fact that they missed out on the ‘mathematical part’ and kept having to start over. This in itself was a valuable lesson. Emphasis being on the process and not just the technology which they would not have had were it not for this personal exploration and choice.
• Students also commented that they were able to spend a longer time with the material, which became second nature, having a better knowledge of what to do rather than if they were just given a few questions to complete. The graphing calculator will not graph the image if a mistake is made.
Good technology or good technology use?
Good:
i) was interactive
ii) allowed for self-direction and choice
iii) provided support for self-directed activities
iv) enabled problem solving, particularly synthesizing and application with a real world problem
v) Created conditions of use or for use of technologies, and was
vi) open ended – allowing for divergent options and/or further investigation.
vii) The technology use also allowed for an experience inherent of Mathematics, namely: exploration, problem-solving, divergent options, analysis, testing and real world applications.
Question
I wonder if there could be any way to increase the real-world nature of the problem or its applicability or link to personal, societal and global situations/experiences
Issues
Limited access to computer labs that were overwhelmed with demand was an issue. Graphing calculators gave students the ability to have individual access to technology. This was also cited as a good financial choice within the reference of alternative models, as the cost of two hand held computers equates to the cost of a desktop device.
The lecturer noted that one issue was asking appropriate level questions that get the ‘Math out’ and not just the calculations. This also meant knowing the technology and its opportunities and/or limitations within the question and how to address that.
Gender issues also came up. Boys played more with the technology at home rather than completing assignments whereas girls complete homework assignments more diligently. In this case I would place a lot more emphasis on in-class assignments and presentations along with assignments that are geared more towards design. The assignment chosen for this class had a strong design element that I think would appeal to boys.
Commonalities (across videos):
i) The need for questions/activities that lead to the use of the technology to support processes rather than just calculations
ii) Technology increases capabilities and increases options that would not have been explored by the student had they not interacted with the technology
iii) The use of the technology increased interactivity and engagement, which increased interest and individual work.
iv) The focus is still on strong pedagogy and not just technology use