Summative Analysis: Mobile Learning’s Impact on Science and Math
Mobile Learning’s Impact on Science and Math: A Summative Analysis
This final, summative analysis, efolio entry can best be described as how mobile technology can impact learning in the science and math classrooms. ETEC 533’s journey caused me to reflect upon what constitutes good and effective use of technology and to take a survey of both the types of technology available and the widespread variety of implementations of those types. This analysis first examines both the changes in my thinking and the technologies encountered during ETEC 533, and then seeks to describe factors of mobile learning which impact the science and math classroom.
Upon reflecting on my learning during this course, the most profound changes in my thinking can be categorized into three areas: mobile learning, misconceptions in science and scaffolding. While the first is obviously dealing with technology, it is the unique affordances of many technologies that had me refine my thinking on misconceptions and scaffolding.
Mobile Learning
Back in January I described effective and efficient technology use as being integrated, seamless, natural, appropriate for age and task, hands on, student centered and involve problem solving (Last, 2012a). The journey through ETEC 533 has not changed my feeling of those basic requirements, but I would add one more requirement: mobile if possible. Mobile devices have the unique affordance of being in the physical space teachers and students occupy (Rochelle, 2003) so the social interactions which are important for learning can occur in an integrated and seamless fashion, without students needing to leave their normal place of work and, decidedly, without having to leave the classroom to go to a specialized computer lab. Mobile devices allow “Winn’s (2002) notions of embeddedness, embodiment and adaptation” (Last, 2012 c, para 3). As well mobile devices and their software are affordable, and since they are mobile, allow learners to take their devices out of the classroom into the field (Henry, 2012). Milne (2007) posits informal activities create superior opportunities for concept developing and idea generation. The informal communication modes mobile devices support can aid in creating that informal atmosphere.
To summarize, I now think mobile learning is important for science and math teachers because they have unique affordances of being in the same learning space as regular classroom activities and allow users to move from that regular space to other spaces, even outdoors, they have embeddedness and adaptation, and they encourage discussion and social interaction in unique ways. They can be integrated, seamless, natural, hands-on, student centered, engage students’ problem solving skills and appropriate for age and task.
Misconceptions in Science
There is a direct conflict with dealing with misconceptions of canonical knowledge and students developing their own sense and understanding of the world, and this conflict is likely more important in the science classroom than elsewhere in school. As teachers are commonly focused on content and not on process, dealing with misconceptions is important to them. Science teachers need to be concerned with students’ prior conceptions as poorly formed knowledge makes building new knowledge in those areas challenging (Edelson et al., 2002). Constructed knowledge needs to be in a form which supports re-use of the knowledge (Edelson et al., 2002; Edelson, 2001), and so must be as close to the accepted version of reality as possible. This concern has never been a priority for me; I always understood students would enter the science class with some poorly formed conceptual understandings that I would have to deal with. Models help students and teachers identify misconceptions and then allow students to refine their knowledge. Used in a GEM cycle (Khan, 2007) technological models can be excellent in helping students build their knowledge in a way which is re-usable. Some tools like Model-it do not double check students misconceptions; they implement students understanding as it is. This is challenging for many teachers as they are concerned with students building canonically correct knowledge. Scaffolding and frequent, timely formative assessments by teachers, peer discussions and evaluations help in dealing with misconceptions.
To summarize, I now think dealing with misconceptions is more important than ever because technology has so many opportunities to build upon students misconceptions, and that teachers must not depend upon the technology to deal with misconceptions for them.
Scaffolding
Scaffolding of learning is not new for technology, rather the power and affordances of technology has created the need for teachers to be more cognoscente around the need to scaffold learners. Virtual field trips like The Exploratorium, information visualization tools like Chemland, inquiry learning situations like Jasper and WISE all require the teacher to support the learner in various ways. As I said in my blog “As with all digital technology that purports to improve student learning, Model-It must be embedded with solid pedagogy that actively involves the learner and it should be used in authentic learning situations with the teacher guiding and scaffolding the learner” (Last, 2012b). There are many examples in the literature of scaffolding in science: the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt (1992) on Anchored Instruction, Linn, Clark & Slotta’s (2003) article on WISE, Edelson’s (2002) explanation of L4U and Khan’s (2009) describing t-GEM. Each of these technologies or technological learning environment and their application to learning requires a teacher to aid, fill in gaps, assist in making logical connections, guide towards goals and prevent misconceptions developing, as well as ensure underlying concepts, ideas and facts are clear in the minds of students.
Land et al.( 2002) speak about infomate vs automate, that technology used needs to be complementing the first and not the second, and that this is within Vygotsky’s views of higher order functions. To me, mobile learning makes this more apparent than ever. I mentioned in my blog the high percentage of (Last, 2012c) of apps that are informational and based on rote learning. I first I viewed this negatively, looking for more from the apps, but then realized many apps are alternate sources of information, supporting my view of the teacher as a guide and not the source of all knowledge. However, in fulfilling this role of being the guide, a teacher needs to ensure there are sources of information available, they must ensure the sources of information are reliable (or ensure the students have the skills to make reliability judgments themselves). And so, once again the importance of scaffolding is illuminated.
To summarize, I know think scaffolding the learners is more important than ever because technology offers so many information rich opportunities for students, opportunities which would be overwhelming to learners without well developed understandings of the knowledge needing to be built upon.
Technologies Encountered
I would summarize the types of educational technologies encountered during ETEC 533 as learning environments, learning tools or learning experiences. These differentiations are somewhat arbitrary, and somewhat subtle. To me, a learning environment is an environment in which technology helps to mediate the learning by providing (at least) communication tools and a repository for lessons, and perhaps some structure. Environments encountered consisted of technologies such as Jasper, WISE and Second Life. To me a learning tool is a technology that aids learning by providing information, organizing information or allow the creation of learning artifacts. Tools encountered consisted of technologies such as Myworld, Distant Suns (iOS app) and graphing calculators. To me a learning experience is an opportunity for less formal learning or more exploratory learning, but a technology that provides information in a structured environment. Learning experiences consisted of virtual field trips such as the Exploratorium, simulations such as Chemland, and Globe.
Mobile Learning and Science and Math
Mobile devices have impacted each of the three types of educational technologies described above. The most obvious is in the area of learning tools, where clickers, graphing calculators and the myriad of apps for tablets and smart devices are being used in many different fashions. Learning experiences are also impacted by mobile devices because the device allows the student to move outside the traditional classroom and, for example, explore The Exploratorium on their mobile device while “in the field”, enhancing their hands on experience. Additionally live field trips are enhanced by mobile devices, with many locations supplying handhelds with additional information when they are on-site. Perhaps least obvious is how mobile devices impact learning environments, but here the devices again allow freedom of movement of the learner – they are not tied down to the location of the desktop computer for their structured and mediated lessons and communications.
Particularly for science and math, smart devices such as the iPod/iPad/iPhone have numerous affordances which make them suitable for use. Apps for conversion, graphing and formula building for math, and apps for chemical bonding, astronomical orbits and biomes for science illustrate the range and diversity of specialized learning tools available. As well learning experience such as Globe and The Exploratorium are accessible from numerous smart devices. As well some learning environments are available to students with smart devices, but more importantly, all learning environments could be adapted or modified so they are available to smart device users. Additionally, “classroom clickers” can be emulated by smart devices.
Mobile learning may be the future of education. As more and more students bring their own mobile devices to school, as the power and flexibility of the mobile devices increase, educators must pay more attention to accessing these technologies and putting them to work in their classroom. However, the social nature of learning, and the social structures of learning are not changed because of the use of mobile devices (Rochelle, 2003), meaning the teacher must still scaffold the learning, and students must still be given opportunities to discuss their learning and collaborate with their peers for effective and efficient learning.
References
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.
Edelson, D.C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Edelson, D. C., Salierno, C., Matese, G., Pitts, V., & Sherin, B. (2002). (Draft) Learning-for-Use in earth science: Kids as climate modelers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. retrieved from www.worldwatcher.northwestern.edu/userdownloads/pdf/LFU_PF_NARST02.v3.doc.
Henry, K.L. (2012) Mobiles – Customising for exploration, interactivity and independent learning. Etec 533 Discussion Forum.
Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Land, M., Redmon, R., Hartzler, S., Burger, M., Bailey, B. & Coe, M.A. (2002). A Vygotskian Viewpoint: Technology and Constructivism. In D. Willis et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 1288-1289). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Last, M. (2012a, January 9). Unpacking assumptions [web log message]. Retrieved from blogs.ubc.ca/mlastefolio/2012/01/09/unpacking-assumptions/
Last, M. (2012b, March 15). Knowledge representation and information visualization [web log message]. Retrieved from blogs.ubc.ca/mlastefolio/2012/03/15/knowledge-representation-and-information-visualization/
Last, M. (2012c, March 30). Mobile apps for science [web log message]. Retrieved from blogs.ubc.ca/mlastefolio/2012/03/30/mobile-apps-for-science/
Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87(4), 517-538.
Milne, A. (2007). Entering the Interaction Age Today. Educause January/February 2007. Vol. 42, 1, 12-31.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), pp. 260-272
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.
