Module A – Framing Issues
Module A was an exploration for grounding and framing issues on Technology in the Mathematics and Science Classroom. Personal Assumptions underlying the use of digital technology for teaching and learning mathematics and science were explored. The exploration and discussions surrounded: personal experiences, questions and issues in interviews in authentic school contexts, and video cases of technology.
Auto-eography
The first point of exploration was creating an auto-eography through which personal experiences and developments with technology were tracked. This process revealed my changing relationship with technology and how the availability and use of digital tools influenced my development of and use of technology Auto e-ography
Unpacking Assumptions
From there I investigated personal assumptions regarding ‘good’ technology for the Mathematics and Science classroom and, through observation of video cases of authentic classroom settings, looked at the use of digital technology in real classrooms. This exploration enabled me to formulate a rubric of what I considered effective tools and learning environments and what that environment should look like/facilitate and how tools should be designed, used and what affordances they should allow such as:
i. Be Interactive – students would be able to enter formulas and be able to see and analyse results with opportunities for feedback
ii. Allow for self-direction and choice
iii. Provide support for self-directed inquiry (equipment/tools, background information, examples, simulations, testing procedures, feedback on results)
iv. Enable problem solving – allow for synthesizing and application. Students should be given real world problems and be able to use mathematical or scientific concepts to solve problems
This activity was significant as it set the basis for further investigation and for framing issues. When paralleling my Auto e-ography and my assumptions I see a natural progression for what I was enabled to because of technology and the resulting expectations of technology Unpacking Assumptions
Primary Research – The Interview
Through interviews with colleagues I got the opportunity to explore and contextualise questions and issues that arose from the viewing and analysis of the video cases as well as my assumptions of ‘good’ technology and ‘effective’ use in Mathematics and science classrooms. I focused on whiteboard technology and its affordances, and how it compared to my rubric in Unpacking Assumptions and Video Case Analysis.
The interview focused on themes such as the: motivations for using technology in the classroom; technology advantages and disadvantages; student experience using the technology; teaching experience using the technology; pedagogy/teaching methods (with and without technology and affordances of technology. Does technology make it better?), challenges with implementing the technology; reasons for innovation; and what the ideal classroom would look like.
Time, organization and classroom management were seen as great advantages alongside expected benefits of increased interactivity and engagement. Technology use in this context added to interactive elements in the class and students were shown to be more inclined to explore concepts for themselves. The technology offered increased practical ways in working through concepts and unclear areas. The technology also provided opportunities for the teacher to design solutions to limitations and capabilities and to access resources that enrich the experience. Interview excerpts and analysis
Reflection of Interview: Themes and further research
Strong pedagogy and teaching methods were recurring themes regarding ‘effective’ use of technology in the classroom. Other significant issues were: more time spent on generating questions and tasks; researching and incorporating technologies that can facilitate tasks and questioning processes while allowing students to interact with the problem in real and concrete ways; teacher proficiency with the technology; time to develop material/technology use; interactivity and independent learning; and affordances for visual representations and extrapolations.
Discussions within our module revealed differences within the perceived impact of technology on increasing students’ understanding, for example, level of teacher-centredness; technology enabling dependence rather than independence. One question that arose from the interview process was that: if it does not stretch or push the student then is it effective? Interview reflection
Framing Issues
The issues raised above framed my primary scholarly research investigating “How can specific technologies and activities be incorporated into design/learning environments for adult at risk groups to facilitate increased time on understanding?” . My focus was on the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs).
Over seven (7) weeks I explored personal assumptions regarding the concept of good technology and the effective[1] use of technology within Mathematics and Science classrooms. Readings and discussions showed the use of technology in the Mathematics classroom to address not only current relevance of teaching methods and instructional media but also to increase understanding for students and to create more meaningful experiences[2].
Essential themes emerged in follow up discussion threads with my research fellows: the benefits of pedagogy[3] and the technological process required to extend students limits of engagement and direction[4]. I wondered therefore how to create or inform technology use that enables processes inherent to Math and Science, such as inquiry, discovery learning, problem solving (my assumptions of inquiry, problem solving and discovery learning), and the application of concepts to real world problems and analysis of results among other tenet, particularly so in an adult learning context as that is my area of specialisation.
Framing Issues Conclusions
Jonassen recommends a model of design and instruction that “determines skills users have, scaffold and where needed include computational tools that assist learners in the cognitive process and that “extends learners’ cognitive functioning by engaging learners in thinking while constructing knowledge of which there would not otherwise have been capable” (Jonassen et al., 1999, p. 14).(Qing and Li, 2005, p.147). These were some of the benefits seen in the use of IWBs. The interactive element allows for increased opportunities to think while constructing knowledge and tracking processes/clearing ambiguities. The interactive and easily manipulated and management of data, with ease of extending and changing possibilities suggest a deeper interaction and increased level of understanding. These were presented in Kent (2006) and my own primary research and in keeping with the focus on how technology is used, presented in Lei (2010). More research design and use of interactive technologies with the Mathematics classroom is needed.
[1] Effective defined as not only do students understand content but were getting a sense of how to evoke and use all the tools, concepts and information they received and how to apply them practically.
[2] Meaningful Learning as described by Ausubel in which learning is structure and organized in logical, connected and relevant structures: (Ivie, 1998)
[3] “I quite liked that the Math teacher said that what you have to do is set a question to ‘get the Math out’ and the technology then assists the students in the process and pushes their limit beyond what they would have been able to do alone, until it becomes ‘second nature’. That’s the beauty of technology but without strong pedagogy we are nothing” (Source – excerpts of personal quotes from discussion thread in online exploration discourse in distributed cognition learning environment)
[4] “I also agree that there needs to be more emphasis on ‘ways to use the technology to learn content and skills’!!! This is a quest” (Source – excerpts of personal quotes from discussion thread in online exploration discourse in distributed cognition learning environment)
References
Kent, P. (2006). Using Interactive Whiteboards to Enhance Maths Teaching Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom – Journal of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, 11 (2)
Li, Q. & K.A. Edmonds. (2005). Infusing technology into a mathematics methods course: any
impact? Educational Research, 47(2), 217-233
Personal Primary research –
Video case Analysis 1 – Learning Environment 6 with Teacher G (Post-secondary Applied
Science) https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/ModuleA/Case6.html
Video case Analysis 2 – Learning Environment 1 with Teacher F (Mathematics Graphing Calculators). https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/ModuleA/Case1.htm