In the last 20 years, computer technology has revolutionized student learning. From pre-kindergarten through graduate school, educators use computers for everything from registering and admitting students, keeping class and degree records, accessing library materials, creating instructional materials and enhancing classroom instruction (Ely, 2002). In addition, educators use technology for scholarly research and communication, classroom management, student and administrative services as well as to deliver distance-learning programs. Do you think this revolution has had a positive affect on student learning? More importantly, how has education theory informed these revolutionary applications? We know educators continuously adopt emerging technological applications but are they addressing student needs and meeting learning objectives (New Media Consortium, 2008, Ely 2002, Smerdon et al., 2000)? The National Center for Education Statistics implemented the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS) and found that teachers most frequently asked students to use these technologies for word processing or creating spreadsheets, practicing drills, solving problems and analyzing data (Smerdon et al., 2000). In this paper, I focus on how learning theories inform teachers’ use of technology for mathematics and writing instruction, and how these teacher practices affect student learning.
Memories of my fifth grade math class allude to the continued dire straights of mathematics education in the United States. Each day I would come to class, retrieve my skills card from a large cardboard box, work the problems, select the next skills card, work the problems, and turn in my work. The teacher spent most of his time grading the skills sheets and administering assessments. A competitive child, I loved math and always tried to be the first to finish. Until I began my archaeological career, I had no idea math was the language of science and had any relevance in everyday life. I just thought it was an individual competition with points as rewards.
Has learning theory informed us about effective instructional mathematics teaching practice in the last 30 years? My fifth grade class reflects the common behaviorist tradition prevalent among instructional designers who worked during the late seventies and early eighties. My teacher executed Mastery Learning instructional methods by setting high student expectations, clearly stating learning objectives, using diagnostic testing to determine skill levels, recognizing mastery when students achieve 75% to 80% proficiency and awarding points when students exhibit mastery. The curriculum typically represented “programmed instruction in which the material to be taught was broken down into small steps, and each step was taught, exercised, and reinforced” (Cates, 1993). Behaviorists focus on student performance objectives and immediate individualized feedback.
With the advent of computer technology, what does Mastery Learning look like 30 years later? Many elementary and middle schools across the country have adopted a progress monitoring and instructional management software system called Accelerated Math created by Renaissance Learning. Students undergo a similar mastery learning experience when compared to my fifth grade math class.
Research results (Ysseldyke & Tardrew, 2007) found that teachers who implemented the Accelerated Math program witnessed a significant increase in student performance objectives as well as an overall improvement in students’ attitudes towards mathematics (Ysseldyke & Tardrew, 2007).
Does this study suggest that mathematics educational technologies have truly metamorphosed how teachers teach and how students learn? Unfortunately, in the case of mathematics education, the answer is a definite “No.” The state of mathematics education has become a national challenge. We recognize the relationship between the mathematical literacy of our students and the ability of our country to compete globally. However, this concern is often contradicted by an ambiguous cultural attitude. Teachers frequently view math as an “abstract, difficult, even esoteric endeavor ultimately reserved for a select few” (Allen, 2003, p. 1). As a result of this cultural barrier, U.S. teachers often reduce mathematical concepts to a series of procedures to solve a problem (Allen, 2003). In higher achieving countries, teaching practice involves more time to puzzle through a complex math activity (Becker, 1999; Cogan & Schmidt, 1999; Kawanaka, Stigler, & Hiebert, 1999). The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS, 2003), deems this practice as the American way of teaching mathematics. TIMSS paid close attention to how the relationship between curriculum and teaching methods helped to determine what we learn. One of the most important results of the TIMSS is that curriculum materials alone do not ensure success for our students. Rather, teaching practice in conjunction with curriculum materials determine student success. Consequently, the current teaching methods occurring in our classrooms are an artifact of the ways our teachers were taught. As a result, the problem is not necessarily a product of having inadequate teachers. Rather, the culturally imbued teaching practices need a radical change versus the creation of progress monitoring and instructional management systems such as Accelerated Math.
What impact has technology contributed to mathematic education? Again, the answer to this question is, “Not much.” Studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education found that in year 2004-2005 while students had access to computers, “only about 10 percent of fourth- and eighth-graders were in classrooms in which teachers used technology once a week” (USDOE, 2007). The USDOE report suggests the lack of computer use could be due to many reasons including lack of resources, teacher professional development, classroom practice, advanced technology training, and time to try new technologies that might prove ineffective on first use. I suspect the pressure resulting from the need to succeed on standardizing testing limits our teachers’ abilities to experiment with new instructional design and delivery methods resulting in the continuation of the culturally imbued American way of teaching mathematics.
Interestingly, the United States Federal government has put millions of dollars into education telecommunication infrastructure, mathematics, and science, engineering, and technology education in an effort to prepare our students for the 21st Century. Moreover, Reading First programs are prevalent across the country. Yet in President Bush’s 2009 Proposed Budget, he cut the National Writing Project’s budget from only $23,581 to $0 for the only writing grant currently receiving national funding (US Department of Education Federal Budget, 2009). I would argue that in the last 10 years, written communication represents one of the most important learning transformations occurring across the globe. Writing not only forms the basis for communication in all the above stated fields but it is also the singular most important artifact of cultural communication and technological literacy. Nevertheless, it is left out of the Preparing our Students for the 21st Century equation (Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, 1999).
Writing, a fundamental skill for preserving culture, has always been an important component of the PK-16 curricula. Due to an increased focus on standardized testing, many writing programs emphasize the six-trait writing process, organization, and grammar and spelling within a framework that addresses a variety of purposes and audiences. The National Assessment for Educational Progress in Writing (NAEP, 2007) assesses students’ ability to perform individual writing tasks focusing on narrative, informative, and persuasive contexts, to engage in the writing process, and to respond to writing stimulus (NAEP, 2007). Consequently, Arizona’s AIMS tests also assess writing adopting much of the NAEP framework. As a result, educators typically teach these individualized writing skills in isolation from their social contexts. Innovative writing instruction does occur; however, not all students receive high quality writing opportunities and feedback.
Not surprisingly, word processing is the most common educational technology used to support writing in the classroom (Smerdon et al., 2000). No longer is the word processor a glorified typewriter. Rather, it plays a significant role in how students engage in the writing process. Software programs such as Microsoft Word or Inspiration make it easier for students to write. For example, Inspiration is a wonderful tool for brainstorming and outlining ideas whereas Microsoft Word is a fantastic tool for composing and writing papers. The program will automatically check and correct spelling and grammar errors. Moreover, most word processors have a built in dictionary; however, students also have numerous online dictionaries and style guides available at their fingertips. Microsoft Word is also an essential editing tool. Students can edit their peer’s work by adding comments and tracking any changes they make to their papers. Word processors in conjunction with other more sophisticated HTML editors, like Adobe Dreamweaver, help students construct, publish, and disseminate their written works. Armed with a word processor, a student is now capable of producing a professional publication free of spelling and grammar errors for global internet distribution.
Returning to the NAEP (2007) writing framework, we find Objective 6 that states students need to value writing as a communicative activity. In addition, the NAEP (2007) framework suggests, “students should be engaged in their writing tasks, understand the importance of writing, write often, value their own efforts, and recognize good writing by others.” Yet they admit the difficulty in assessing student values towards writing as a communicative activity. Perhaps, NAEP and other standardized testing centers need to recognize and assess student value as it occurs within the collaborative project-based learning experience firmly grounded in a highly communicative social context (Bransford et al., 2000, Marzano et al., 2001). Moreover, learning value increases as students create and recreate their knowledge through themselves, the learner, and the learning experience. This is central to the constructivist learning approach. Writing instructors need to give learners the opportunity to gain an improved personal understanding, to work in a groups, and to use the right tools for constructing an effective learning environment. Jenkins (2008) recognizes this distinction:
Most of us are not in the habit of thinking about writing nonfoundationally as a collaborative process, a distanced or displaced conversation among peers in which we construct knowledge. We tend to think of writing foundationally as a private, solitary, ‘expressive’ act in which language is a conduit from solitary mind to solitary mind…
Jenkins (2008) suggests educators assess writing as a collaborative endeavor versus a personal undertaking consisting of individual isolated skills.
Many educators already take advantage of the deluge of educational technologies that support collaborative writing instruction. Let us look at some of the most prevalent applications such as email, discussion lists, wikis, and blogs.
Email is one of the most popular educational technologies that support peer-to-peer learning. No longer solely text-based, an email message can be a hypertext document linked to or embedded within video, audio, graphics, and interactive media. Hypertext documents have also weaseled their way into the world of online discussion lists. Discussion lists support collaborative writing instruction by engaging students in an online asynchronous text-based conversation about a topic either chosen by the student or asked by the teacher. As an online student, some of the best online discussions I have been involved with attempt to deepen my learning as well as encourage me to engage in a conversation with other students in my course. The discussion moderator, often the professor, takes a learner-centered approach and acts as a facilitator or guide-on-the side. The facilitator redirects conversations as they veer off course and deepens conversations with probing questioning techniques. The facilitator also uses a positive and motivating writing style and tone in an effort to encourage students to brainstorm and evaluate the presented content. Either students assess each other using peer review feedback or the professor assesses student contributions using a rubric that emphasizes collaboration.
Email and discussion lists present new writing contexts, audiences, and purposes with online collaborative peer-group scenarios. Typically, educators hold the students accountable for correct spelling and mechanics. Students master the rules of netiquette. They learn how to use font color and styles to communicate emotion and body language in their writing. Occasionally, educators encourage students to use a specific tone or writing style depending on the purpose of the discussion.
When educators encourage students to use Wikis, an online collaborative writing or spreadsheet tool, their instructional strategies embody the central tenets of constructivist, social learning, and perhaps social cognitive theories (Jonassen, 2006). Wikis, also based on hypertext language (HTML), are “a loosely structured set of pages, linked in multiple ways to each other and to Internet resources and an open-editing system in which anyone” with access “can edit any page” (Godwin-Jones, 2003). Educators use wikis primarily for project-based writing assignments where each student contributes by just clicking the “edit this page” button (Godwin-Jones, 2003). A log keeps track of all the changes; and who made those changes.
In addition to Wikis, educators also use web logs or blogs for online collaborative project-based writing projects. Blogs are chronologically organized HTML-based online content that continue to gain popularity in today’s electronic age. Authors use blogs for many reasons such as to write about special interest topics, to chronicle a personal journal, or to archive photos. Some authors use blogs as sounding boards to discuss social and economic change, land use change, or community development (Hawley personal communication, 2007).
Blogs, when locked down inside a security system, can be very personal and somewhat like a journal. Unfortunately, educators often use blogs inappropriately by locking them down thereby defeating the original purpose of a blog. Blogs were designed to encourage public participation (we are broadening the student’s perception of the public as audience here), monitor blog hits to learn to appreciate stakeholder interest, and to correct misinformed blog comments thus guaranteeing accuracy in public opinion. The real collaborative learning occurs when students allow the larger public read and comment on their writings. Here, the student leaves the learning context of “group work” and moves into the realm of the “network” (Anderson, 2008). Using blogs in the classroom gives the student the opportunity to join a social network outside of her classroom, thereby broadening their audience. In doing so, the educator provides the necessary transition step that takes the students beyond the classroom and connects them with the outside world. Blogging also gives the students’ work meaning outside the classroom and beyond the final grade for the course.
We know that collaborative learning has made a tremendous impact on student learning (Gokhale, 1995; Marzano et al. 2001). We do not know how well students are learning to write in this new context with its new rules and a broader audience. Our assessment strategies focus on writing as a set of individual skills and not the product of collaboration. Yet in my adult career as a professional writer, I have never written a document without some else’s input. So how do we begin to assess collaborative writing in this new online context? I think we need to adopt some of our traditional collaborative learning assessments (Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005) to examine the interaction that occurs in this new peer-to-peer, collaborative peer group, collaborative public group, and peer-to-public groups and networks contexts.
Can we measure the affect of this educational technology revolution that is transforming student learning? Not if standardized tests continue to constrain how teachers teach and how students learn. We have a tremendous cultural barrier to break down regarding student perceptions of their teachers and teachers’ perceptions of themselves. I still receive comments where the students demand that I stand in front of the class and lecture. They want to take simple multiple-choice tests where their grades are a direct result of their ability to memorize facts and concepts. Mathematics software programs, like Accelerated Math, also maintain this cultural barrier. Moreover, the format of the standardized tests also preserves this cultural teaching pattern. Education theories, in general, and social learning and constructivist theories, in particular, will continue to guide our instructional methods. Yet teaching practice and the learning contexts are changing. As the younger generation replaces our current educators, more innovative approaches to learning will blossom. It will just take some time for society and schools, particularly administrative structures, to catch up. Perhaps, technology is transforming learning; however, I do not think we can call it a paradigm shift quite yet (Kuhn, 1962). Education research continues to challenge and test the underlying assumptions of education theory and influence teaching practice. Consequently, educators are learning to step back as the knowledge transmitters and to provide opportunities for students to engage in and own their own learning processes while using a variety of educational technologies.
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Many Students Loosely Joined: Social Software to Support Distance Education Learners. Webinar presented by EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ELIWEB083
Allen, R. (2003) Embracing Math: Attitudes and Teaching Practices are Changing – Slowly. Curriculum Update, Fall 2003. Washington, D.C.: ASCD.
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Becker, J.P., Sawada, T. & Shimizu, Y. (1999). Some findings of the US-Japan cross-cultural research on students' problem-solving behaviors. In, International comparisons in mathematics education edited by G. Kaiser, E. Luna and I. Huntley, 121-139. Philadelpia: Falmer Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). The design of learning environments (Chapter 6).In How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cates, W. M. (1993). Instructional technology: The design debate. Clearing House, 66(3), 133.
Cogan, L. S. & Schmidt, W.H. (1999). An examination of instructional practices in six countries. In International comparisons in mathematics education, edited by G. Kaiser, E. Luna and I. Huntley, 68-85. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Ely, D. P., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse,NY. (2002). Trends in educational technology. fifth edition.
Gokhale, A.A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 1045-1064.
Goodwin-Jones, B. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12.
Jenkins, Henry. (2008, January) What Wikipedia Can Teach Us About the New Media Literacies. Paper presented at the Educause Learning Initiative Annual Meeting 2008, San Antonio, TX.
Jonassen, D.H. (2000). Modeling with Technology: Mind Tools for Conceptual Change. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kawanaka, T., Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). Studying mathematics classrooms in Germany, Japan and the United States: Lessons from TIMSS Videotape Study. In International comparisons in mathematics education, edited by G. Kaiser, E. Luna and I. Huntley, 86-103. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2007. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007494
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Education Study. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results03.asp
Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. (1999). Preparing Our Students for the 21st Century: Key Areas in Education. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/57/f5.pdf
The New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2008). The Horizon Report 2008 Edition. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf
Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology. Education Statistics Quarterly, 2(4), 48. Retrieved February 25, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_2/2_4/e_section5.asp
Ysseldyke, J., & Tardrew, S. (2007). Use of a progress monitoring system to enable teachers to differentiate mathematics instruction. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24(1), 1.
United States Department of Education (2008). United States Department of Education Budget Proposal for 2009. Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/