ETEC 533: Using Technology in Math & Science Class by Ronna Hoglund

Science teaching has been undergoing changes as technology and new teaching methods are being implemented in the classroom. Resnick & Wilensky (1999) suggest that incorporating the notion of levels into teaching will help to instill a greater, deeper understanding of the material in students. By levels they mean “the levels of description that can be used to characterize a system with lots of interacting parts” (p. 3). Resnick & Wilensky (1999) recognize the complexity of science and the difficulty that it presents for students in grasping the full, true meaning of it. Technology can help to create “levels” and to allow students to move back and forth between them.

Winn (2003) writes about embodied and embedded learning in artificial environments. Embodiment (of cognition), he describes, as the physical activity involved in learning. Embeddedness is the involvement of the student in the learning environment. The final component to Winn’s framework is the idea that the student and the environment are ever changing.

The pharmacology app that I investigated lacked either “levels” or embodiment and embeddedness, aside from a simple touch of an icon here and there. The environment did not change nor did I have to change anything to make it “work.” Maybe pharmacology is a science that cannot incorporate the ideas of Resnick & Wilensky or Winn? Perhaps it is destined to a life of rote-learning.

Not so, say Joshi &Trivedi (2010) who studied an undergraduate pharmacology course in which the learning environment was changed by incorporating active learning techniques. They assert that a deeper understanding of the material resulted.

It is going to take a lot of thinking to come up with an idea of how to use technology to incorporate the ideas above to teach pharmacology. At this point I think it will be something that involves “levels” where students must interact physically to change the environment. As they change the environment, they too will be changed. (It almost sounds like a video game…Angry Birds Spaced out on Drugs?) But I do know that it will result in more competent students who understand the material “better.”

References
Joshi, A., & Trivedi, M. (2010). Innovations in pharmacology teaching. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Research, 1(2), 62-64.

Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Image Retrieved from Google Images

I checked out a few sites like the WildCam in Africa, the Panama Canal Webcam, and the Panda Cam at the San Diego Zoo. Unfortunately, there was no wildlife to be found in Africa, the ships were not moving in the canal and the panda bear was super sleepy. I can understand that this may be a bit frustrating to some students – it was VERY frustrating to me! Some of the sites offered detailed maps of the area, varying amounts of background information and an area (forum) for discussion.

Virtual field trips (VFT) are a great idea if they are used in addition to real ones or instead of them when it is “not possible or safe to take students” (Spicer & Stratford, 2001 p.353). Spicer & Stratford (2001) discovered that students value VFT in preparing them for actual field work. Winn et al. (2006) give us some insight into why students may feel this way; they say “Authentic activity does not, on its own, teach general principles. Likewise, simulations that strive primarily to re-create real world experiences often do not directly help students discover general principles” (p. 2). Providing a simplified (not simplistic) virtual environment can help students to grasp the overall concept.

In addition to this, the collaborative nature of many of the websites allows students to pose questions to the actual researcher. This can provide a rich learning environment. However, we are reminded once again of the importance of professional development for teachers (Moss, 2003; Sugar & Bonk, 1998). Students must be guided or mentored in order to reach the “new social cognitive heights and possibilities” envisioned by Sugar & Bonk (1998, p. 152). And teachers could benefit greatly from guidance on how to get the most out of VFT – something that I felt was lacking in many of the sites.

References

Moss, D.M. (2003). A window on science: Exploring the JASON Project and student conceptions of science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(1), 21-30.

Spicer, J., & Stratford, J. (2001). Student perceptions of a virtual field trip to replace a real field trip. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 345-354.

Sugar, W. A., & Bonk, C.J. (1998). Student role play in the World Forum: Analyses of an Arctic adventure learning apprenticeship. In C.J. Bonk & K.S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship & discourse (pp. 131-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Winn, W., Stahr, F. Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y-L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25-42.

Geometer’s Sketchpad (a Dynamic Geometry Software) is available to download for a twenty-minute test period or to purchase for a fee.

This software can be used to create an active learning environment in which students can learn various math concepts involving geometry and algebra.

Dynamic Geometry Software (DGS) employs visualizations (images) to create an environment that “foster(s) engagement with a mathematical concept that is often explained superficially” in a traditional classroom (Knuth & Hartmann, 2005 p. 163). Knuth et al. (2005) describe this engagement as a “conceptual conversation” which allows for a deeper understanding of mathematical ideas. DGS allows for more frequent and thoughtful manipulations of the equations and graphs than the former paper and pencil methods. DGS also allows for multiple ways to view math concepts, for example geometrical shapes, charts, and graphs. In addition, the images created using the technology are more complex and detailed giving the student a better sense of how the numbers truly affect change in the image.

Laborde (2000) and Hadas et al. (2000) each support the claim that the constructive nature of DGS helps students to find the correct answer and then to verify its accuracy. Hadas et al. (2000) argue for the importance of students being able to engage in “true mathematical activity” which they describe as the ability to construct and evaluate proofs (p. 149). Geometer’s Sketchpad allows students to do just that. Students can use the tools available through the software to explore, practice, and create relatively easily and quickly. Attempts can be changed or altered at the click of a mouse or the input of new data.

We must be aware that the role of the teacher and the design of the activity are still very important when using DGS. Geometer’s Sketchpad does offer professional development at a price as well as a FREE online forum (Sketch Exchange) where educators can share their ideas.

References
Hadas, N., Schwarz, B., & Hershkowitz, R. (2000). The role of contradiction and uncertainty in promoting the need to prove in dynamic geometry environments. Educational Studies in Mathematics,44 (1-2), 127-150.

Knuth, E. J. & Hartmann, C.E. (2005). Using technology to foster students’ mathematical understandings and intuitions. In Masalaski, W.J, & Elliott, P.C. (Eds.). (2005). Technology-supported mathematics learning environments, (pp. 151-165). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Laborde, C. (2000). Dynamic geometry environments as a source of rich learning contexts for the complex activity of proving. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 44 (1-2), 151-61

Dilution is a concept that students have difficulty understanding and applying correctly when taken out of the math classroom and placed in a lab environment. Questions like “Which formula do we use for this one?” indicate to me that students only have a “shallow understanding” of the material (Edelson, 2001). Also, students perform better on the quiz associated with dilution (i.e. Chapter 5) than an exam involving a larger part of the course and therefore more chapters. Even though the same wording is used as in the practice and quiz questions, still students struggle. The goal of our program is to graduate students who have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do the job; they should be confident and “work-ready.” 

Instead, many of my students voice concerns about their ability (or lack of ability) to transfer their knowledge, of math in particular, to the workplace. I believe their motivation in learning the math in the first place was clearly achievement-based (“Whew, I passed the test”) versus content-focused that Edelson (2001) claims is needed to develop “robust” learning; the very learning that students need to take into a lab environment and perform well.

It turns out the “cookie-cutter” textbook is actually doing my students a disservice in some cases. Pellegrino et al (2008) says “(Undergraduates) must learn to deal with the ambiguity of dealing with novel situations and develop strategies and attributes for managing the dynamics of these situations” (p. 297). What my textbook does best is take away any ambiguity whatsoever. It says, in essence, “All of the practice questions at the end of this chapter will require you to use this formula”.  No wonder students have difficulty understanding the math needed in lab; the textbook is no longer the focus.

Using the T-GEM (Khan 2010) model to create a lesson on DILUTION, I would use WISE to create an exercise similar to those in ChemLand:

1. Introduce students to the concept by using a “real” example of a named medication solution (500 mL of a 25% solution with the addition of water makes 2500 mL of a 5% solution). Students would be asked much water was added? What happens to the concentration of the second solution with the addition of water?
2. Describe and practice with the various methods used (C1xV1 = C2xV2; multi-step proportional math). 
3. G –Ask students to predict what would happen to the Concentration (or Volume) of the second solution by manipulating the Concentration of the first (diagram).
4. E – Ask students to predict why adding water to a lower concentration solution cannot increase the concentration of the second solution. Create a simulation to demonstrate.
5. M – Ask students to summarize their understanding of the relationships in dilution and to create a new example using a different drug.

References

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

Khan, S. (2010). New pedagogies for teaching with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(3), 215-232.

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.

My World is an example of a Learning-For-Use (LfU) model which involves motivating students, having students construct their own knowledge, and allowing students to refine that knowledge. The goal of this inquiry-based, constructivist LfU model is to create a learning environment that recognizes that:

• Learning takes place through constructing and refining knowledge
• Knowledge construction is goal-directed
• The circumstances are important for knowledge construction and its future use
• The use of the knowledge must be understood before it is constructed and then applied

Edelson (2001) asserts that technology is important in “supporting knowledge application activities” (p. 380), particularly in the sciences. My World is an excellent example of a technology that allows and encourages students to learn the content (declarative knowledge) through the process of inquiry (procedural knowledge). Instead of inundating students with simple facts that lead to “inert knowledge” (Edelson, 2001, p. 356), they are presented with a scenario and questions (a meaningful task) to be answered through a semi-structured guided process and the use of My World.

My World allows students to visualize and analyze the data as they input it.

 Reference

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

WISE projects are designed in part to encourage students to become autonomous learners. Compared to the Jasper Series very little support in the form of “guided inquiry” is needed from the teacher. The design of the WISE projects is such that most students can navigate through a lesson or project almost entirely on their own. This is not so with the Jasper Series. Without careful guidance from the teacher, I think the information presented in the video format of Jasper could be overwhelming for a typical student. Another difference is WISE projects move along according to the preference of the student; the student is in control. Also, the WISE projects are built so that information is presented in a logical, incremental way to build on the knowledge that the student has acquired previously. Finally, different activities are used strategically in WISE “to create inquiry projects that help students to develop a more cohesive, coherent and thoughtful account of scientific phenomena” (Linn, Clark & Slotta, 2003, p. 521). In comparison, the Jasper Series makes use of SMART tools that require further explanation and guidance from the teacher.

Reference

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538

Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) is built on the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) framework. WISE offers a platform for curriculum designers to build a series of activities as well as a library of projects that can be taken and altered to suit the needs of the students or used as is. When it comes to scaffolding knowledge and creating a successful learning environment Linn et al. (2003) state that “If inquiry steps are too precise, resembling a recipe, then students will fail to engage in inquiry. If steps are too broad, then students will flounder and become distracted” (p. 522). The real concern then is finding the balance between the two. The benefit of WISE is that it is relatively flexible and adaptable and therefore it is possible to attain the right amount of “steps” given some time to practice in the classroom.

This might sound a bit too experimental for some but using any new approach in the classroom, be it technology or not, is a bit risky. Being open to refining something rather than throwing it out completely seems like a better idea. Professional development is a focus of WISE to ensure that teachers have the knowledge necessary to use the site and its tools effectively.

The goal of WISE, according to Linn et al. (2003), is to provide a learning environment that:

• Makes student thinking visible
• Makes science accessible
• Helps students learn from one another
• Promotes learning that continues throughout a student’s lifetime

WISE appears to be successful in achieving its goals and promoting “deep learning of subject-matter material” (Gobert, Snyder & Houghton, 2002, p. 17) through its constructivist design.

References

Gobert, J., Snyder, J., & Houghton, C. (2002, April). The influence of students’ understanding of models on model-based reasoning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana.

Linn, M., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. (2003). Wise design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538.

The Jasper Series is based on the theory of “Anchored Instruction” whereby students are immersed in a story in which they have to solve a problem. “Anchored Instruction” is defined as “an approach within which teaching and learning are focused around the solution of complex problems or anchors” (Pellegrino & Brophy, 2008, p. 181). Meaningful, problem-based learning claims to have a motivating impact on students. Although some math textbooks employ word problems, they have been criticized for actually only providing “computational practice” since they are often presented under Chapter headings, e.g. addition or multiplication, giving students obvious clues and thus really only testing their math abilities not their problem-solving skills (CTGV, 1992b, p. 298).  

 Instead the Jasper Series provides students with a complex problem via video technology.

In addition to this, students are given access to SMART tools, technologies designed specifically to help solve the problems presented in the videos.

Although the Jasper Series begins with students passively viewing the videos, it quickly becomes an active, collaborative learning experience when they are challenged to solve a specific problem together using the information given in the video.
 
An important component of the Jasper Series is the Professional Development that is provided to teachers to help them achieve the most out of the technology. The goal of the Jasper Series, according to Pellegrino et al. (2008), is to provide a learning environment that is:
Knowledge-Centred (learning with understanding)
Learner-Centred (building on students’ strengths and prior knowledge)
Assessment-Centred (making student thinking visible through frequent formative assessment)
Community-Centred (connecting students in the classroom and to the outside world)

References

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

Pellegrino, J.W. & Brophy, S. (2008). From cognitive theory to instructional practice: Technology and the evolution of anchored instruction. In Ifenthaler, Pirney-Dunner, & J.M. Spector (Eds.) Understanding models for learning and instruction, New York: Springer Science + Business Media, pp. 277-303.

No, I do not have the answer. Wish I did. But I do have some thoughts:

Let me explain. I think technology can be used to teach in many ways to promote different types of learning. Is a collaborative environment with students sharing multiple views the best way to teach new, absolute content? There are certain situations that require students to learn the basic “truths.” Teaching collaboratively could be time consuming and confusing.

Specifically in a math classroom (in my math classroom) I have experienced the failure of certain pedagogies (Behaviourism?) in making the link between content and application of that content. Here, I think, students could benefit from constructing their own knowledge and sharing their ideas once the very basics are understood.

In response to Kozma (2003) who suggests that classrooms should be reorganized into collaborative learning environments focused on knowledge building, I say sure. Students will benefit from this type of learning once the foundation of knowledge is laid. Disregarding what we already have that ‘works’ with regard to teaching methods could be a mistake.

Reference

Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), pp. 1-14.

There is still a lot of debate over using technology in the classroom. But first we need to come to some sort of agreement of what we understand Educational Technology to be. I tend to agree with Muffoletto’s definition that “Technology…is not a collection of machines and devices, but a way of acting” (Roblyer & Doering, 2010, p. 6). Of course the “machines and devices” are part of it but much more is necessary. Careful selection of the tools must be made. Attention must be paid to the way they are then used in the classroom. Technology can be used simply to transmit knowledge from teacher to learner but it affords much more than that. Teachers can, and should, use technology by incorporating teaching techniques that maximize or reach its full potential. This opens up a whole new debate. Do we need to create a new pedagogy for teaching with technology or will some of the already established ones work?

Reference

Roblyer, M.D. & Doerring, A. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching, (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.