Bells and whistles aplenty... but what is the impact?

Note: This post is in response to Week 3 Module 3 Blog 2

There are many ways of introducing a technology for use in the classroom. This can range from an interested teacher introducing a technology to a classroom simply because it is the latest “cool thing” they own (e.g. a 3D printer or Lego robot), the introduction of technology simply because it is more flexible (e.g. Interactive White Boards (IWBs) vs blackboards and overhead projectors) to adopting a technology school, state or nation-wide based on research.

Ultimately there is usually some sort of process involved. One concept to evaluate technology is to look at the “affordances” the technology offers. This simply means looking at what the technology can do based on its particular features. There have been attempts to make frameworks to make this somewhat of an objective process – breaking a system down into features such as read- or watch-ability, search-ability, integrate-ability, share-ability (too many to list here) as well as basic features such as ease of use, appear and reliability (Bower, 2008). Whilst this process may serve to highlight affordances not previously recognised, a problem is that the interactions between affordances and the details of how they work are not considered and this can ultimately change the learning experience (Bower, 2008). It is a little like the advent of nutrition-ism in food – we can break a food down into its components and identify the nutrients but the form of the food and the manner with which it is consumed makes a difference to the way our bodies process and react to it (Pollan, 2008).

So, if breaking down a technology into its affordances is potentially flawed then how do we decide which technologies to use? Certainly looking closely at the features offered is valuable. Another measure may be to look carefully at the impact of the technology. What changes (positive or negative) could it make to outcomes – for the student, the teacher, the school or even beyond? (Kozma, 2005). Interestingly, research backing is not always high on the list of priorities for teachers or schools in choosing technology, possibly due to the research cycle being outrun by technology development (Kennedy, 2017). How then do we determine impact?

References

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15. doi:10.1080/09523980701847115

Kennedy, M. (2017). Role of federal funding and research findings on adoption and implementation of technology-based products and tools. Paper presented at the Edtech efficacy research academic symposium, Washington D.C.

Kozma, R. B. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation of ICT for education impact: a review. Monitoring and Evaluation of ICT in Education Projects, 18.

Pollan, M. (2008). In defence of food : the myth of nutrition and the pleasures of eating. Camberwell, Vic.: Allen Lane.

Calculators - the future or the past?

Note: This post is in response to Week 3 Module 3 Blog 1

This week we’re looking at a variety of hardware and software technologies for use in the classroom. I’ve chosen a Texas Instruments TX-Nspire CX-CAS calculator which I’m learning to use for my own studies. 

Image from https://education.ti.com/en/products/calculators/graphing-calculators/ti-nspire-cx-cas

CAS stands for Computer Algebra Software which allows programming of complex operations with the calculator. There are many resources available for the classroom use of this calculator, including class sets, networking hardware, teacher software and charging stations (see https://education.ti.com/en/products?category=ti-nspire-technology ), not to mention online teaching resources, some specifically for Australia (e.g. http://compasstech.com.au/nsw/index.html ).

One of the limits of using such hardware are the rules around their use for assessments. The current NSW HSC does not allow this type of calculator, although I note that the Victorian VCE does. The Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], n.d.) does not yet specify approved calculators, however it does indicate in the ICT capabilities that CAS can engage students and promote understanding (ACARA, n.d.). These rules mean that although the average smartphone has more processing power, memory and storage than the calculator, calculators are still developed specifically for use in mathematics classrooms (alongside software and apps which have similar capabilities).

The use of CAS in the classroom can enable students to solve problems outside of their pen and paper skills and to be more willing to attempt unfamiliar problems (Cameron & Ball, 2015). To really take advantage of this though, we need to shift the focus to teaching competencies which complement the work of computers rather than compete with it (Gravemeijer, Stephan, Julie, Lin, & Ohtani, 2017). 

I wonder whether we will reach a point where the use of smartphones/internet/computers becomes a non-issue and the curriculum is truly adjusted to cater for this? I know from my own experience that simply having a calculator which can do complex calculations is not enough – in the end we need a level of conceptual understanding to be able to ask the right question, enter the right calculations, analyse and break down the problem (Gravemeijer et al., 2017). Will students lose the capability of doing these calculations manually, or with a “standard” scientific calculator? Perhaps, but is that a problem? Could stand alone calculators ultimately go the way of the abacus or the slide rule?

References

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. (n.d.). Australian Curriculum.   Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au

Cameron, S., & Ball, L. (2015). CAS or pen-and-paper: Factors that influence students' choices. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 105-123. doi:10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6

When in Rome... native or immigrant?

Note: This post is in response to Week 2, Module 2 Blog 4

“When in Rome, do as the Romans do”

This old saying (attributed to Saint Ambrose) implies that if you are visiting a place you should generally try to follow the lead of the native population. How is this relevant to technology? There has been a lot of debate over the years since the terms were coined about “Digital Natives” (those who have grown up with technology) vs “Digital Immigrants” (those people who grew into adulthood before digital technology was widely accessible) (Prensky, 2001a). 

Prensky (2001b) argues that digital natives think fundamentally differently to digital immigrants and that, as a result, they need to be taught in ways which take advantage of these changed thinking patterns. Many teachers are Digital Immigrants, visiting the world of students who are Digital Natives and it is imperative that we are open to doing as they do and learning from them, as well as them from us.

In a later article, Prensky talks about the concept of “Digital Wisdom” (Prensky, 2009) which I found to be an interesting concept. The idea is that we’re extending human thought and capability via digital technology and that by embracing this extension in an active, prudent and positive way we can both acquire and teach digital wisdom. Digital wisdom includes the use of technology to delve into areas of thought not previously accessible by humans alone, as well as positive interaction of the human mind and digital technology to enhance knowledge or broaden capabilities. Prensky suggests that educators should put themselves in the “role of guides, context providers, and quality controllers”, allowing students to take advantage of the technology which is embedded in and critical to their world.

By age, I’m certainly a digital immigrant, though I would say that I have learned the language of technology reasonably well and have used it heavily in both my work and social life. Is this enough though? Just like “getting fit” via exercising isn’t a once off thing (who knew?!?) neither is technology use. We need to actively engage with and embrace new technologies as they develop, and be aware of both the pitfalls and the advantages they can bring.

References

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424843

Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: journal of online education, 5(3), 1.

Deep imact - Technology in schools

Note: This post is in response to Week 2 Module 2 Blog 1

Teachers can resist change (Zimmerman, 2006) and the introduction of technology into schools could be seen as a major force trying to change to the way we teach. In some ways it is, and, as a result, many technologies have been limited or banned in educational settings throughout history. We're often not allowed to take textbooks into exams, we limit the types of calculators permitted and there are precious few examples of students being allowed free access to the internet for assessments (an example is given in this news story http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8341886.stm ). 

In fact, research shows that the more popular a technology is with students, the more likely it is to be banned (Bigum, 2012). This is despite other research which shows the technologies most likely to be taken up in education and used for sustained periods are those that are actually used in the world outside of education (Cox, 2013).

Part of the reason for resisting technology appears to be in the attempts to justify and validate its use in the classroom as improving learning outcomes. Cox (2013) and Bigum (2012) both write of the complexity of IT as a concept and the resulting difficulties in measuring its impact via research. Alan November (n.d.) proposes that we need a global change of the education system – to rethink the way that we teach and learn in order to truly take advantage of technology.

For technology to be integrated into our education system, the development of changes to what we teach (curriculum), how we teach (pedagogy), and how we measure (assessment) are needed (Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, & Brummelhuis, 2013). In my opinion, technology is not a “what if” or a “one day”. It is already embedded firmly in the lives of our students and we need to understand its impact and adjust our teaching to work with technology rather than alongside or against it.

References

Bigum, C. (2012). Schools and Computers: Tales of a digital romance. In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds.), Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms : Future proofing education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Cox, M. J. (2013). Formal to informal learning with IT: research challenges and issues for e‐learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 85-105. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00483.x

November, A. (Producer). (n.d.). Myths and opportunities: Technology in the classroom. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/3930740

Voogt, J., Knezek, G., Cox, M., Knezek, D., & Brummelhuis, A. t. (2013). Under which conditions does ICT have a positive effect on teaching and learning? A Call to Action. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 4-14. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00453.x

Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249. doi:10.1177/0192636506291521

Is educational technology a waste of time?

Note: This post is in response to ESC407 Week 1 Module 1

To quote Antony Funnell in a podcast on 21^st Century Education:

"technology doesn't educate people, people educate people" (Funnell, 2012)

I agree with this statement, and whilst this - along with the quotation on this blog from David Thornburg - could be construed as my being against technology in education, this certainly isn’t the case. I certainly believe technology has a place in education, and depending on your definition of technology, it has been with us for centuries. In the same podcast, Greg Whitby is quoted as saying educational technology is a “waste of time” (Funnell, 2012). It is important to note however that Whitby is aiming that opinion at the discussion around which device/s we should be using rather than the use of technology itself. 

Whitby's point, and I agree with him, is that the device itself doesn’t matter – is the use of the device which is key. Punya Mishra in his keynote speech from the 21C learning conference (21CLI, 2012) supports this view, noting that most technologies are not designed for education but rather, we redesign the use of technology to suit our own purposes, just as we do in everyday life. Mishra argues that there is no such thing as “educational” technology – teachers repurpose existing technology to suit the classroom.

With this in mind, rather than a “waste of time”, technology can be viewed as “just another tool” in the teaching toolbox. Just as we use text books as sources of both information and practice, technology can be incorporated judiciously into classrooms. Technology can often be used to engage students but we must be cautious in understanding that engagement can be a poor proxy for learning (Coe, 2014) – students can be very engaged in a lesson that has poor content or pedagogical techniques. My initial research on the TPACK framework shown below:

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

developed by Mishra and Koehler (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) shows that the framework could be used to ensure technology is integrated into the classroom alongside both content and pedagogical knowledge rather than being the driving force behind or an afterthought to a lesson. It has been applied successfully in mathematics classrooms in both a secondary (Guerrero, 2010) and primary (Muir, Callingham, & Beswick, 2016) setting. Has anyone had experience with TPACK? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

References

21CLI (Producer). (2012, March 26). Punya Mishra - Keynote Speaker @ 21st Century Learning Conference - Hong Kong 2012. [Video File] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bwXYa91fvQ

Coe, R. (2014). Evidence informing practice. Retrieved from http://www.ascl.org.uk/download.71B0B25B-177A-4D21-81103676167E2CCE.html

A. Davies (Producer). (2012, August 19). Future Tense [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/21st-century-education/4197700

Guerrero, S. (2010). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(4), 132-139. doi:10.1080/10402454.2010.10784646

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Muir, T., Callingham, R., & Beswick, K. (2016). Using the IWB in an early years mathematics classroom: An application of the TPACK framework. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 32(2), 63-72. doi:10.1080/21532974.2016.1138913

Welcome

Welcome to MissgeeveousTech - a blog created for ESC407 Classroom Technologies. I'm Michelle, living in Sydney, and I'm currently studying to be a secondary Mathematics teacher through CSU. I've got fairly extensive experience in technology having studied Computer Engineering and worked in Telecommunications. I grew up in the age before the internet and first studied at uni in the nineties where it was beginning to be used by everyday people (though dial up was quite limiting!). I went on to help design and test software for telephone systems, ADSL, VoIP and various other every day technologies in my working life. At home I dabble in everything from social media to setting up computers to access our music and movies.

In terms of education and technology, I have a relatively long history - I was submitting my computer science assignments via the university network in the early nineties. As a teacher though, I only have theoretical experience, not having taught yet. My children's school uses technology across the board - class sets of iPads, robotics equipment, IWB, 3D printers and so on. I have investigated a variety of technologies in my studies so far and look forward to encountering more.