Technology
in a math classroom can be fun, innovative, and helpful to students because it
allows them to merge their creativity with topics that are usually categorized
as “tricky” or “difficult” and requires a lot of skill. So we provide this
technology hoping it will bridge the gap for the majority of students. Sometimes
we hope it will help them visualize and analyze problems better than direct
instruction and teacher modeling. The students along with the teacher are
learners when it comes to the new technology where they are both learning to
master it at the same time and depending on the knowledge of the teacher with
the technology, learning how to use is can become an easy routine or a
struggle. Either way, there are a lot of benefits. But here is an interesting
situation I found while conducting some research.
Quote
from a paper by E. Paul Goldenberg:
“But
empowerment requires control. If students were not
masters
of the old tools, it is no favor to give them new
tools
that they also do not master. Sometimes students
do know
enough algebra to solve a problem but still fail
to use
that knowledge because they lack the fluency or
experience
to use it effectively and confidently in problem
solving. The same applies to
electronic tools. Learning just
enough about a spreadsheet to solve a
particular class of
problems and then moving on or learning a few construction
tools on geometry software to illustrate a particular collection
of geometrical facts,
and then moving on leaves students
limping users of the tools, not experts who
could whip out
the tool as needed to help reason about and solve a problem.”
I find this rather interesting and it might just hold a lot of
truth. Yes, the child is getting a different perspective on how to problem
solve or visualize shapes, but does mastering the technology mean he is
mastering the material?
I guess it is another two-sided argument that can easily go either
way. This is just something to consider when in a classroom and debating
whether you, as a teacher, should spend 3 days teaching students how to use
technology and mastering it instead of giving supplemental modeling and
formalized assessments to teach them from the textbook.
If you want to read the whole article, it is here:
Thats a good point. On one hand, the student masters the ability to solve solutions, but on the other hand, the student masters the ability to simply find the solution. Without using technology to find solutions, students are forced to solve the problem using their own mental capacity. However, does this mean they actually work through it, or are they just using their memory to solve it? Are they just memorizing formulas and relations between numbers? Mastering the formula is just the same as mastering technology, to me, so while on one hand I too question if the student would be mastering the material, but on the other, I question what exactly defines mastering the material. Using a calculator doesn't always give you the answer, you have to know how to plug it in right. In this way, mastering the technology means mastering the material because without mastering the material's requirements you can't master the technology.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point, Greg. I overlooked the possibility that for one to master technology means he must also master a skill. This skill will tell him whether of not the result from the technology is complete or even accurate. If he wasn't using his knowledge and skill, he would not be able to determine if he is right or wrong.
Delete