Maths Tech

Note: This post is in response to Week 5 Module 5 Blog 1

As a teaching area, mathematics is one that lends itself strongly to the use of technology in the classroom. Mathematics is at the basis of digital technology and its development, and technology gives students opportunities to build their mathematical understanding beyond theoretical concepts and into everyday life (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 334).

Given the mathematical basis for technology then, it is unsurprising that an endless number of technological tools exist to enhance or alter mathematics education. These range from apps which teach young children counting and basic addition and subtraction (e.g. Endless Numbers or Springbird Maths), times table apps and videos (Steve Storm and the Tables of Doom, Maths Rockx) right through to sites such as Wolfram Alpha and higher end products such as Maple which are used by university students and in industry.

A couple of favourites, which are useful both for teaching and for my own studies of Mathematics are the free web based products from Geogebra and Desmos. I like the ease of plotting a function with Geogebra and the quick updates as you alter values. There are also many free resources created by fellow users. Desmos offers similar functionality and also has an application called Polygraph which is a great teaching tool for stimulating classroom conversation and encouraging students in their ability to communicate with mathematical terminology.

Do you have a favourite tool for teaching mathematics? I'm looking forward to hearing some new ideas.

References

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2014). Integrating educational technology into teaching (Sixth international ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

BYO... Device or Demise?

Note: This post is in response to Week 4 Module 4 Blog 3

We live in an age where technology is ubiquitous. Two thirds of the world’s population now own a mobile phone. In Australia the majority of secondary schools have some form of "BYOD" policy and it is becoming increasingly difficult to function in society without the regular use of technology in some form. Although it may seem then, that the ship has sailed in terms of whether we have BYOD programs for students, it is important to consider how the devices are used and the impacts, both positive and negative, that BYOD programs may have on learning.

Should a laptop or tablet be "just another tool" in the classroom? Would we restrict the use of pens? Paper? Books? In the context of a classroom, we do in fact restrict these tools at various times, in order to control distraction. A student would not generally be allowed to read a novel or write a letter rather than participating in a lesson and neither should they necessarily be given unrestricted access to digital devices. It could be argued in fact that given that technology can be addictive and the prevalence of “Internet Addiction” has led to it being a clinical diagnosis (Kuss, Griffiths, & Binder, 2013), that we should in fact be protecting our students from the trappings of being constantly connected, in the same way we might educate them about avoiding addictive drugs. In a university context, laptop use has been shown to be inversely related to academic performance, even when factors such as student motivation, intelligence and interest were taken into account (Ravizza, Uitvlugt, & Fenn, 2016).

What do we do though, when a potential source of problems is critical to modern life? Like many things, it comes back to how we use it. We need to ensure that lessons are well planned and not “technocentric” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) as well as teaching students skills in critical literacy, safety and effective use of technology (Swan & Park, 2012) – including knowing when to “Log out”.

References

Kuss, D. J., Griffiths, M. D., & Binder, J. F. (2013). Internet addiction in students: Prevalence and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 959-966. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.024

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

Ravizza, S. M., Uitvlugt, M. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2016). Logged in and zoned out. Psychological Science, 28(2), 171-180. doi:10.1177/0956797616677314

Swan, G., & Park, M. (2012, 2012/12//). Students need a digital driver's license before they start their engines. Learning & Leading with Technology, 40, 26+.

Making the connections

Note: This post is in response to Week 4 Module 4 Blog 1

How do we learn in the 21^st Century? Indeed, what do we need to learn in an age where information is both readily available and changing rapidly? Siemens proposed addressing the requirements of a digital age with a new learning theory of Connectivism (Siemens, 2005). This theory proposes that “connections” are the primary objective of learning and in order to teach, we need to understand how to build, influence and strengthen connections. Connections are the process via which we link information sources. Knowledge is considered to be distributed and the concepts of “know-how” and “know-what” are being supplemented with “know-where” (Siemens, 2005). Students are learning how to access information and connect with appropriate sources.

Connectivism appears to have been designed to replace previous learning theories such as Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism though some authors regard it has more of a phenomenon (Bell, 2011) or an instructional theory (Duke, Harper, & Johnston, 2013) than a learning theory. In general I feel that being a staunch proponent of any one learning theory can be problematic – even when learning foundational skills a combination of strategies is used – e.g. children will usually learn to recite the alphabet or count to 10 before they truly understand the meaning of letters and numbers and construct their own views and uses. Learning theories do not need to be exclusive – they can be merged and, based on research, cherry picked, depending on the task at hand. Robyler and Doering (2014) suggest this merging, advocating for teachers to make a conscious effort to match technology resources to problems which are better or more easily addressed with the use of technology (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 62) rather than attempting to align with a particular learning theory.

Does technology need to change pedagogy? Whilst Siemens (2005) would seem to have made this assumption in saying that many processes previously handled by learning theories can now be offloaded to technology, I would have to disagree with this. The introduction of technology on its own does not necessarily change the way we teach (Wright, 2015). Ultimately, unless a wholesale change is made to curriculum and assessment, we still need to teach the same skills, albeit supplemented with the ability to use technology appropriately. The Technology Integration Model (TIP) for teachers (Roblyer & Doering, 2014, p. 67) offers a model which, whilst ensuring that technology is appropriately considered, also ensures that the pedagogy and content outcomes are also addressed. Importantly TIP also includes an analysis and revision phase which will help to determine the impact of the technology integration and improvements for future lessons. By measuring our impact we can ensure that technology is used in a way which positively influences outcomes.

 References

Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: Its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. 2011, 12(3), 21. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.902

Duke, B., Harper, G., & Johnston, M. (2013). Connectivism as a digital age learning theory. The International HETL Review, 2013(Special Issue), 4-13.

Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2014). Integrating educational technology into teaching (Sixth international ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Wright, N. (2015). Vignettes of pedagogical practices with ipads: Reinforcing pedagogy, not transforming it. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD), 3(5), 62-73. doi:10.4018/ijopcd.2015070105