Table 3
| |
Focus
of Goals and Objectives
|
|
Technology
|
Content
|
|
Goals
and Objectives Require the Teaching of
|
Skills
|
Concepts
|
|
Skills/Concepts
|
Concepts/Skills
|
Technology-focused goals
require teaching either skills or skills/concepts. Skills primarily
involve "knowing how to do" while skills/concepts involve
"knowing how to do" and "understanding the various why's".
Content-focused goals require teaching either concepts or concepts/skills.
Concepts primarily involve "understanding the various why's"
while concepts/skills involve "understanding the various why's"
and "knowing how to do". So if both technology and content
focused goals require teaching that has the potential to result in the
same learning outcomes, assuming appropriate contexts and execution
for each, what difference does it make where goals are focused?
Technology-focused goals
that are skill-centered, by definition, are not taught to build conceptual
understanding. In contrast, the primary purpose of all content-focused
goals is to construct conceptual understanding, but what about technology-focused
goals that are skills/concepts-centered. These goals, by definition,
address conceptual understanding, so again, what's the difference? The
difference occurs in technology's role in the development of conceptual
understanding. Technology's role in content-focused goals and objectives
always remains a secondary consideration even when teaching skills,
because those skills are viewed as an extension to conceptual understanding,
allowing for application. The exact opposite is noted of technology-focused
goals. Skills and the applied nature of technology itself are viewed
as the portals through which conceptual understanding may be derived.
Teaching for conceptual understanding through technology has important
implications that warrant serious consideration.
One implication, for example,
involves the notion that a particular technology is an essential component
of a concept. Olson and Clough (2001) articulate this point nicely (p.
4).
"For instance,
researchers (Annenberg/CPB, 1997) found that even the brightest
students in a high school physics classroom did not understand the
basic concept of an electrical circuit despite two months of instruction
on electricity. When asked how to make the bulb light, one student
thought a bulb holder was a necessary part of a circuit. When trying
to light the bulb, the student asks the interviewer, "Can I
use the little piece we used in class?" When asked why she
needed the bulb holder, she states, "It carries the charge
or something. I don't think it will light without it." Equipment
is often used before students have seriously grappled with the concepts
under study. As a result, they can perceive the technology to be
a necessary part of the concept."
The
student's confusion about the role of technology in this case contributed
to her incomplete understanding of the concept of electrical circuits.
Other forms of misconceptions may be fostered through the use of technology
to teach conceptual understanding. For example, in many instances, technology
functions as a "black box" when students never comprehend
the processes implicit in the technology. As a result, when students
are asked to apply their "conceptual understanding" in the
absence of the exact technology used in the lesson, their cognitive
structures collapse revealing only a partial (at best) framework of
understanding (Almy, 1966; Olson & Clough, 2001).
The
complete abandonment of technology is certainly not the answer, however.
Students need tools in order to build upon the foundation of their understandings.
Most reform efforts in science education such as learning cycles, problem-based
learning, and other forms of inquiry demand that students have access
to the tools they need to answer their questions. But, the tools must
be ones they can comprehend and explain. Without this essential restriction,
teachers will contribute to students gaining a false sense of the nature
of science. What respectable scientist would think about publishing
results of an experiment without an understanding of the technologies
used to produce the data? Yet this occurs all too often within the classroom.
In order to alleviate this problem of "low tech", a "higher-tech"
and "low tech" approach may be preferable.
For
example, in a unit on topography, students may need to work cooperatively
to gather data on beach dune elevations and construct a map based on
that data. The fear is that the teacher may give the students GPS
(Global Positioning Satellite) units, allow them to collect data,
and then download the data into a GIS
(Geographic Information System) program that produces a map and
assume that students understand technically and conceptually how the
data was collected, why it was collected, and what happened to it after
they got back to class. This, of course, is a worse case scenario in
which the students have little to no idea how their data was produced,
what really happened with the data that was collected, and subsequently,
what the resulting map spatially represents. In another scenario, the
teacher acknowledges that some explanation of the origin and evolution
of the data is necessary. The teacher takes the time to explain as well
as he or she can (depending on time, knowledge of equipment, etc.) the
technical and conceptual aspects of the technologies used during and
after the students' data collection. This is, however, a problem which
goes right back to the child's Piagetian stage of development (concrete
operational) that says that his or her thinking is still heavily tethered
to the physical world. Woolfolk (1995) illustrates this point:
"thus,
children at this stage [concrete operational] can imagine several
different arrangements for the furniture in their rooms before they
act. They do not have to solve the problem strictly through trial
and error by actually making the arrangements. But the concrete-operational
child is not yet able to reason about hypothetical, abstract problems
that involve the coordination of many factors at once" (p.38).
The simultaneous coordination of numerous factors is exactly what the use
of indirect-observational technologies requires. To avoid such complications,
the use of 'low-tech' technologies such as meter sticks, string, and
line levels can be used to measure elevation changes across a transect
that can then be used to construct a hand-drawn map by connecting data
points. The important difference is that the students can directly observe
and manipulate the physical process of data collection. Once the foundation
of the cognitive structure has been laid through concrete experiences,
'higher-tech' tools can be introduced to further build on the conceptual
goals, but always with a watchful eye that the technology does not generate
a gap in their understanding. Even with the 'low-tech' example given
in this paper, if the students do not understand, for instance, how
the line level functions in producing the data they collect, the technology
is impeding the move towards a more complete understanding of the concept.
Implications for Use
Technologies implemented
in classroom learning are either good or bad depending on the context.
It is the context (e.g. teacher goals, teacher behaviors and characteristics,
student behaviors and characteristics, aspects of the learning environment)
that determines when, what, and how technologies should or should not
be used. We do not presume to further diminish any vestige of professionalism
left teachers by demanding the embracement or abandonment of technology.
Rather we want educators to understand that the inclusion of technology
into their instruction is a test of their professional competence and
excellence and not a fun afterthought. "Making choices about technology
for the purposes of K-12 education should be a serious and thoughtful
process guided by the notions of teaching and learning" (Dawkins,
2002, p. 1). Therefore, the idea of blanket inclusion or exclusion of
technology in middle grades earth science education is, at best, irresponsible
considering our understanding of how these children typically learn.
Before making the choice
to include technologies in lessons, educators must understand the benefits
and drawbacks inherent to a given technology in a given context. Furthermore,
closer monitoring of conceptual understanding is needed based upon the
gap that exists between a more concrete, directly observable means of
handling data and a more abstract, technology-rich approach, that may
in fact hide misconceptions about both the specific content being studied
and the nature of science. In the end, the "principles of effective
teaching are not changed by the presence or absence of technology"
(Olson & Clough, 2001, p. 5). As long as educators adhere to those
principles and remain mindful of the advantages and disadvantages inherent
to the use of technology, the overarching goals of developing a scientifically
literate individual and improving student achievement will be realized
more effectively.
References
Almy, M. (1966). Young
children's thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Baker, D.R. & Piblurn,
M.D. (1997). Constructing science in middle and secondary school
classrooms. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bransford, J., Brown, A.,
& Cocking, R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Dawkins, K.R. (February,
2002). Earth-View: Using high tech and low tech in a field course
for teachers. A paper presented at the K-12 Outreach Conference,
RTP, NC.
Edelson, D. (2001). Learning-for-use:
A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3): 355-385.
Linn, M.C., Songer, N.B.,
& Eylon, B.S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning
and instruction. Handbook of Educational Psychology. Calfee,
R.C. and Berliner, D.C., Eds. Riverside, NJ: Macmillan, 438-490.
National Research Council.
(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council.
(1997). Science teaching reconsidered. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
North Carolina Department
of Public Instruction. (1999). North Carolina science standard course
of study. Raleigh: Author.
Olson, J.K. & Clough,
M.P. (2001). A cautionary note: Technology's tendency to undermine serious
study and teaching. The Clearinghouse, 75(1): 8-13.
Penick, J.E., Yager, R.E.,
& Bonnstetter, R.J. (1986). Teachers make exemplary programs. Educational
Leadership, 44, 14-20.
Penick, J.E. & Bonnstetter,
R.J. (1993). Classroom climate and instruction: New goals demand new
approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(2):
389-395.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing
ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business.
New York: Penguin.
Postman, N. (1995). The
end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Vintage.
Roth, W. (2001). Learning
science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38(7): 768-790.
Woolfolk, A.E. (1995). Educational
psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., &
Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17: 89-100.
Wu, H., Krajcik, J., &
Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations:
Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38(7): 821-842.
