While searching external bloggers I came across an interesting blog by an Instructional Technologist at a US School. It mentioned an interesting technology called Sketchcast and the potential to use this program to create tutorials for students and parents.
Whilst this site apparently allowed you to create sketchcasts, it doesn’t appear to be working at the moment. For those interested in learning more, see the following tutorial on how to create a sketchcast using a range of desktop and internet applications. The key to creating a sketchcast is having a mic, a screen recording tool and a sketching pallat, the most basic of which I can think of is Paint.
Anyway, I think this idea could be useful in a classroom. We could use it as a teacher directed aid, however to be more beneficiall to our students, we could get our students to create there own. This could take the form of an overview of a topic or as a solution to a question, as suggested by the blogger. In this way the technology would be implemented using a constructionist approach to learning. This is underpinned by Pappert’s theory that students learn best when they are the designer and builder, as discussed by Harel.
Whilst a true sketchcast involves a sketching pallet, I do not see why this idea cannot be extended to include recordings of software such as Geogebra that will allow more complex ideas to be examined. See my amateurish version below on constructing an angle in a semicircle using geogebra. This was created using Geobra and Debut Video Capture Software.
Note: For a true sketchcast I should also record sound to explain what I am doing.
Note: If you can’t see the embedded video below (I couldn’t see it), see it on YouTube.
I have read Nico’s blog about the benefits and use of utilising geometry software within a classroom. I agree with him that these are an ideal chance to get the students to construct their own knowledge.
Nico talks about the dynamic nature of such constructions i.e. “when constructing the bisector of an angle, dragging the arms of the angle and therefore changing it don’t change the fact that the bisector still divides it in 2 equal angles”. I just wanted to mention that this has been a researched benefit of such software. The dynamic nature allows students to see the generalisations of a construction. Or if you like, it aids the student in seeing that a property doesn’t just hold for one example, rather it holds in all cases (Kissane, 2002). This overcomes the problem of a student questioning the validity of a proof, as it shows that the property holds in more than one instant.
Within our curriculum, I see this as particularly useful in the area of circle constructions where a large number of difficult constructions are necessary. For example, the image below shows a construction which the students could generate to construct their own knowledge that the angle in a semicircle is a right angle.
Kissane, B (2003). Using Technology in the best possible ways. Reflections. 27(1). 2-11.
Upon reading some posts in the global blogosphere (is that a word) I came across a rather thought provoking piece that reminded me of incidents on my practicum. The post concludes on the need to thoughtfully implement technology so that it is utilised as a purposeful tool.
In my practical experience, too often computers were used as the dreaded “teaching machine”, with little difference in such a lesson to completing textbook activities. Indeed some just involved completing an online quiz. Is there a purpose to this?
Rather, we must have a purpose and try and let our students program the computer rather than the computer program the student. Often when utilising Excel in mathematics the students on prac just had to copy code and answer some fairly straightforward questions. Instead, as research points out, why not have a purpose of using Excel, or other spreadsheet programs, to improve the students understanding of the relationships or concepts involved. If we get the students to program their knowledge into excel by converting known mathematical properties into code or formula, they need to utilise higher order thinking.
Don’t just give them a worksheet, with the formula given as below. Let them think creatively for themselves to improve their own understanding.
Overall we need to think seriously about our implementation of technology. Don’t just mimic textbook activities, engage our students and extend them beyond routine ideas.
After reading Taniak’s piece on inappropriateness of the Carbon Dating of Digital Immigrants I felt it was necessary to add my two cents on the digital divide.
For a teacher, I believe there are more important divisions other than age. For example great divides exist within the current generation of “digital natives”.
It seems inappropriate to classify someone as a digital native purely on their age. I personally know 18yr olds have as much ability as a monkey when it comes to utilising technology. Is this person a digital native? Surely Taniak is more of a native than this person?
I believe to us as future teachers, motivating and engaging such students like this 18yr old will be one of the greatest challenges when implementing technology in a classroom.
Additionally, this gap in knowledge may be increased as many such students may be unwilling to ask for assistance due to the stigma attached to a lack of ability with technology. (McFarlane, 2008)
I refer to another bloggers discussion on the lack of research on the success of constructivist techniques. Personally I felt I need to examine this area to see if I could find specific success in my KLA of mathematics, as I too had found some of the claims made to be unsubstantiated.
On some further digging through the archives of ERIC, I discovered several papers one of which I will mention here. Pugalee (2001, see reference below) examined the impact of using technology is a constructivist environment when students learn algebra and functions with the use of graphics calculators.
Original Photography: ‘Graphing’
Made available under Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Licence: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Available at: www.flickr.com/photos/94892233@N00/149555960
Whislt the results don’t give specific details of percents gained in terms of marks, it discusses other aspects of learning that had improved. It allowed the students to make their own connections (connectedness, an element of the QTM) and refine and extend their own understanding.
So while there does appear to be instances of successful implementation of constructivist approaches, I tend to believe his concluding question and see the need for a balance between constructivist and direct approaches mainly due to the time constraints evident in the teaching of mathematics in secondary schools.
Pugalee, D. (2001). Algebra for All: The Role of Technology and Constructivism in an Algebra Course for At-Risk Students. Preventing School Failure, 45(4), 171-176, retrieved August 31, 2008 from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au
