Seeking Sincerity and Serenity In Science (+Math)

The Jasper Series, from Vanderbilt University’s Cognition and Technology Group (CTGV) is an excellent example of problem based learning. CTGV put together Jasper to test if a technology based program would “motivate students and help them learn to think and reason about complex problems” (CTGV, 1992, pg. 1). They designed the program, which consists of short video narratives about particular situations, each which end in a problem being posed, to be purposefully complex and challenging for students to solve, and to have multiple solutions, although one solution is optimal. I think the program is effective at doing what it set out to do: center, or anchor, to use their term, learning around real world problems that are complicated and complex, and force students who work to solve the problems to learn about mathematics and the problem solving process. The Jasper series is now a bit dated, but has been revised several times, adding software to allow students to collect data and plan and then test possible solutions, adding extensions to the original problems, and posing what-of scenarios to test student’s transference of their newly built knowledge.

I think the Jasper Series is an excellent example of using available technology (originally the video disk) in a unique manner (allowing students to repeatedly play sections of a video to gather data) to foster learning in a way that otherwise would possible have been less motivating to students. The uniqueness of the technology combined with the uniqueness of the tasks (in depth, real world problem solving) created a technology space and learning environment that fostered deep learning for students, learning which was much more than learning the facts, or learning about the mathematics and arithmetic involved, learning which involved solving problems that required discovering and solving multiple sub-problems.

I think we need to look to this particular project and the rich technology enhanced learning it provides as an exemplar for creation of technology enhanced learning spaces and environments using current technology. Constructivist principles, problem based learning, and technology can go hand in hand to create a richer and more meaningful learning experience for students, and the Jasper Series is evidence to support this.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program, description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.

For me, the ideal learning environment is one that is ergonomic, technological and collaborative in nature. This means there is good natural lighting, there is separate control over lighting in various areas, there are height adjustable chairs for table and computer use, there are comfortable spaces for students (and the teacher) to sit and work together in small groups. As well, technology is ubiquitous, with a robust wireless network connected to wired desktops, printers and other devices. There are handheld devices of various kinds (such as tablets and smart devices like the iPod), and there are specialized electronic devices to take and record a variety of data. There would be ample well proven pedagogical software available for things like concept mapping and access to collaborative groups spaces such as GLOBE and not just the standard office suite, browser and video/image manipulation software along with specialized software to interface with the data collection hardware. Additionally there would be “pods”, areas dedicated to experimental work, which would be stocked according to the current unit of study. A couple of large displays (big screen TV or projector) for presentations and collaboration would complete the room. These requirements are based on the pedagogical assumption of a constructivist approach involving cooperative groups involved in project based learning. The learning space needs to be comfortable, dynamic, and afford cooperative group learning, yet foster an excellent work ethic amongst the students.

My definition of Educational Technology is grounded by AECT’s definition that “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewshi & Molenda, 2008). I like this definition because 1) it encompasses both the practice of teaching and learning and the study of the same, and 2) it includes improving performance, a pivotal and central reason why we use technology as well as facilitating learning, which would include learning aids of various kinds. What I think it is missing is an acknowledgement that learning is a social activity, and therefore a definition of educational technology needs a social viewpoint to be complete (Luppicini, 2005). Therefore my definition of educational technology is that it is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources in the social context of schools and education.

Resources

Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Erlbaum. New York.

Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103-109.

There were two issues which came to the forefront during the analysis of my interview and through reading and reflecting on the shared interviews. The first is a question of support for teachers wanting to use technology in the classroom, and the second is a question of whether or not we can actually measure the effectiveness of the use of technology in the classroom.

Support for teachers

Supporting teachers and students in their use of technology is part of my job. I am allocated time to do this, it is not just something expected on top of my teaching load. This makes the question of support for teachers wanting to use technology quite important to me. When I hear that teachers feel unsupported in training, pro-d and funding, I nod my head in agreement, because I feel the same way: unsupported in training, pro-d and funding. What was surprising was even the experienced, tech-savvy teachers feel this way, but maybe not in all three areas. My interviewee said he felt he kept up to day through what he was doing on his own, yet he felt he was limited in what he could do because of the lack of funding for new technology and the lack of time committed to maintaining the existing technology. As, one reader commented, “if the tech savvy teacher feels they need support, where does that leave us?” I am not alone in seeing this as an issue; TW also saw a trend in poor support hampering technology use by teachers.

When I see Conrad Wolfram (2010) talk about turning the math curriculum inside out, that we should be teaching math using computational tools I agree with him and then go but where is the support networks, where are the technologically competent math teachers, where is the time to get the math teachers techno-confidence up to a point where they will be comfortable in a classroom where the computerized device is the main tool being used, not paper and pencils. In my mind schools and school districts, education as a whole, do poor jobs of supporting the technological needs of the teachers. When talking about supporting technology, schools, school districts, education as a whole, tend to talk about how much is spent on computers and software. They do not talk about constant collegial sharing sessions for teachers; they do not talk about built in time during the day for all teachers to keep current in the latest technologies. They sometimes talk about teams they create to support teachers, but with very few exceptions these teams are made up of full time teachers who are expected to support other teachers on top of teaching a full complement of students.

This issue is, of course, not unique to Science and Math, but, as it seems Science and Math tend to use more specialized equipment and applications, the issue of not having suitable support is greater here than in the other subject areas. As well, it is our scientists and mathematicians in the real world that are seen as the heavy duty technology users. As such we need to work to ensure our students are experiencing the best possible education in science and math, that they are not just learning “computation by hand” as Wolfam put it.

Can we measure effectiveness of technology

Can we measure the effectiveness of using technology in the classroom is a question that has come into my mind as I reflect on the interview and the other shared interviews. Teachers do not have time to conduct their own original research into whether their teaching benefits from the use of technology. So how can they tell their students learning is improved by using technology? This is a good question, and one that I may pursue further. One thing does come to mind – technology use should change the learning experience of the learner, make it more dynamic, more collegial, less mundane and remove repetitive rote learning.

Another question arose as well – should we even be trying to measure the effectiveness of technology? If we are exposing students to 21st century learning we should be having them use 21st tools. I wonder if debates raged when ball point pens were first introduced? I experienced a situation where I was required to write using a fountain pen even though ball point pens were already well established (and the only people buying fountain pens were parents, for their children). When our family moved to a different province I never wrote with my blotchy old fashioned fountain pen again. Are we holding on to teaching with familiar, well established tools because they are familiar and well established? When people talk about advantages to reading from paper over reading from a screen do they have years and years of reading one way as a bias? This is another question that I may pursue further.

Wolfram (2010). Teaching kids real math with computers. TEDGlobal. Retrieved from www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers.html

“Fred” has been teaching for only 3-4 years. He teaches Math and Science both in a traditional classroom and as part of the student directed learning team. He was interviewed in his classroom during his preparation time the week before end of semester exams.

As I was watching some video case studies of technology use in some instructional settings a couple of things struck me as interesting. The first was the amount of background noise present in many of the videos. Some of the noise was PA announcements, some was equipment noise and some was noise by the learners.

This made me think about the learning environment and how noise can be a distraction or it can be seen as a regular part of the working and learning environment. As I work at a location where announcements are kept to a minimum (email and a phone in every room helps reduce the need for announcements), constant announcements would be very distracting to me. However, I work in a room full of computers, with fans whirring, keyboards rattling and mice clicking, all which I pretty much do not even hear. During an “electronic” exam session in June, a student was unable to get past the first page of questions because the sound of the fans, keyboards and mice made it impossible for the student to comprehend what was being read. We did find a solution for that student (ear plugs) but I was left wondering about the effects of the unplanned and unexpected technological side effect on the student’s performance on the exam.

Technology often has unexpected side effects, one we do not think about because the teachers, the technology implementers, the course designers did not think about things like the noise level from 30 cooling fans, or 30 keyboards clicking. This is not to say ergonomic concerns are ignored, but that we do not always extrapolate from one piece of equipment to 10 or 20 or 30.

As well as ensuring technology is appropriate for the task, is financially efficient, and integrates with existing equipment, we must also put in some due diligence into examining potential side effects of the technology before we finalize purchasing it.

maurice

The question “what is good use of technology in the math and science classroom?” makes me first ask the question what is meant by “good use”? The use of a word like “good” means, to me at least, that a judgment is being made, that there is no empirical way to evaluate the real question, which should be “In your view, what is effective or efficient use of technology in the math and science classroom?” Effective use would mean learning is enhanced, that learning happened that would not be possible without the technology. Efficient use would technology caused more learning in a given amount of time occurs than without the technology. So, to me at least, good use of technology in the math and science classroom is technology that makes learning math and science more effective or more efficient.

What would effective or efficient technology use in math or science look like? It would be students working cooperatively in groups to solve real problems. Students would be actively engaged in their learning, and the technology would be used to measure or record data, to test scenarios, to produce results, to present findings, to communicate and to

What would be the characteristics of effective or efficient technology use in math or science look like?

• Integrated, not special “high tech time”
• Seamless, easy to move between non-tech and tech work
• Natural, just like using a pencil or a calculator (hey those are technologies too)
• Appropriate to the age and ability of the student
• Appropriate to the task, not trivial, (like using Excel to just add together a few numbers)
• Specialized, if real world mathematicians and scientists use specialized tools for the particular situations being investigated
• Hands on, not just a demo, not just a video
• Involve problem solving, not just following a recipe or a tutorial (although a tutorial may be used to teach how to use the technology
• Student centered and hands on.

I do not think this is just a vision; a vision it may be, but I see it as a possible vision, albeit a challenge, but possible. This is also generic, and is not necessarily specific to the science or the math classroom.

maurice

I consider myself to be very tech savvy. I know how all the parts work, how to run all the equipment and how to use all the software. I consider myself a digital pioneer. I was here first, before the immigrants and definitely before the so called digital-natives. I have always been fascinated by technology, in particular digital devices. My educational use of technology often fails to be as effective as it should be, perhaps because I am too fascinated by the technology itself.

One defining moment for me came a few years ago. Our school acquired a number of digital projectors, and, as one of the tech savvy people, I had one at my disposal. I thought the change in my teaching was profound – in Science 9 I used PowerPoint slideshows instead of writing on the board; I accessed web pages in class; I showed videos! I was wonderful – or so I thought. Then a student asked me – “is this all we are going to do – watch your slideshows?”

This was a defining moment for me because I realized I was making a profound mistake in the use of technology in my classroom. The technology was making my classroom more teacher-centered and less student-centered. Yes, I could do and show things I could not with a white board and pens, but I was not taking advantage of the power of the technology to increase the effectiveness or the efficiency of the learning. I thought I was becoming a more efficient teacher, and maybe I was, but the important measurement is the amount of learning that is happening, not how often a slideshow can be shown, or how many different animations illustrate a concept. I realized that just knowing how to make a great PowerPoint slideshow, no matter how many interesting images and sound effects, does not make for a great learning experience. I realized knowing how to use all the technology made no difference if you did not know how to effectively use it in the classroom for the benefit of student’s learning. I realized I needed to put more thought into how I was using technology.

About the same time period ICT, at least for my school, consisted of units in programming and web page design. One of my ICT students came to me and asked if he could learn more about computer hardware. He had acquired a course book from somewhere (it may have been from an A+ course) but needed 3 things – credit for a course for graduation, a space to work, and a guide. It was then I realized 3 things – I don’t always know what the students want or what they need, I don’t need to construct and develop material for every student I have, and flexibility meets the needs of the students.

The two events mesh together, because technology allows us to be more flexible with what we ask of individual students, it allows time and space distribution of the learning, it makes the learning student centered, and it allows us to guide students in areas of self-interest. Technology can also become a gee-whiz kind of thing; it may be “cool”, but it may not increase the effectiveness or efficiency of teaching. The choice of which technology to use is important and so is the choice of how to use that technology. Care must be taken that the cool factor does not take precedence over solid educational rationales for using technology. Back in Science 9 the cool factor of my PowerPoint show was negated by my poor usage of the technology, not because PowerPoint is ineffective or inefficient in education.

Another new year and another new course. As others have already reflected, learning never ends – and that is why we are trying to install a love of learning and good life long learning habits in our students.

Looking forward, I see an opportunity to once again enlarge my borders and gain insight and understanding in teaching and learning and how technology can leverage those activities.

maurice