Teresa Gannon
Technology, a word that educators hear often these
days.This is not a sentence.; the education buzz word of the
`90s. Education journals are filled with articles on the topic.
Schools are spending more money on it than any other curriculum area;
school boards are pushing for it. PAC committees all over Canada are
raising money for it, and every school seems to want more of it. Do
you have any evidence for this statements. Cite.. In School's Out,
Perlman (1992) claimed that not only will technology close the door
on traditional schools, but it will also render obsolete schools,
students, and teachers as we think of them today. The classroom has
evolved into a place of varying needs. Specify some of these needs..
These needs are expanding at a proportional speed as we approach the
twenty-first century. Therefore, the teacher of today is faced with
the monumental task of attempting to meet these needs. Technology has
opened many doors for overwhelmed teachers. This tool, which first
appeared as something almost unreachable, has become a necessity. We
are living in an information society, the impact of this
technological shift is no longer an intellectual abstraction. Many
feel we should be changing our educational system to reflect this
shift from an industrial age to the information age. If we want our
school system to serve as an important resource for all citizens
throughout their lives, then we need to be preparing our students to
understand the complexities of technology. Matras (1991) states that
having technologically enriched classrooms will allow us to continue
our explorations with mathematics, by looking for new mathematics
that we couldn't do at all before. This will improve mathematics
education. But as long as we test students using paper and pencil,
little will change..
The push for technology in the math classroom is based on these
benefits: first, changes in patterns of instruction which leads to a
new classroom dynamic in which teachers and students become natural
partners in developing mathematical ideas and solving mathematical
problems; second, computers improve student achievement; and third,
computers can serve as a motivational force and a challenge.
The interactive nature of the computer and its tremendous capacity
for enabling student-centered activities and explorations has
required a fundamental shift in the role of the computer-using
teacher (Hannafin et Savenye, 1993). No longer is the teacher a
dispenser of information to relatively "passive" learners. Mehlinger
(1996) called the teacher a "manager of information who is also
responsible for the moral leadership of the class. Terms like
"facilitator", "coach", "guide", "organizer", "initiator", and the
like appear frequently in literature describing the
technology-oriented teacher's new role. This is not a new concept by
any means. Dewey advocated student initiated activities in 1933
(Hannafin and Savenye, 1993)! The teacher is no longer the
"all-knowing controller" but may at times become the learner and
explorer along with the students.
The teacher's role does not change simply by using the computer in
the classroom. The change occurs only to the extent to which a shift
of responsibility to the learner occurs. The more responsibility and
freedom given to the learners, the greater the shift in the teacher's
role. Hannafin and Savenye (1993) suggest that the role fo the
teacher can be viewed as a continuum. At one end is the role of the
traditional lecturer and imparter of knowledge, while at the other
end is the role of the coach, observer and facilitator. They suggest
that the learning theory embraced at the traditional end of the
continuum is objectivist-based. The objectivist point of view is that
knowledge exists as a separate entity and can be acquired and passed
on by teachers. The learning theory at the other end of the continuum
is likely to be constructivism whereby knowledge exists in each
person's mind and is uniquely shaped by individual experiences (von
Glaserfeld, 1989). The shift in the teacher's role may coincide with
an underlying change in learning theory.
In our school, Ladysmith Secondary, we have been given the opportunity to bring technology into our math classes. We are part of a pilot project that began in September 1997 that has two of our math 9 classes using a computer program called `The Learning Equation', an interactive, self-paced, computer-guided learning program that conforms exactly to the math 9 curriculum. The four western provinces, in conjunction with the publisher, Nelson Canada, have invested about 10 million dollars in developing this program. Sound, animation, and interactive questioning and testing require students to take a far more active role in their learning. I am very much for computers, but I wonder how these type of commercial products actually do what such reform documents as NCTM propose teachers should be doing.. This purpose of this paper is to find out whether the CGL program is improving students' attitudes and achievement.
The CGL project is a pilot program, jointly created and funded by the four western provinces and Nelson Canada. This study was designed to look at and compare the achievement of students involved in this program and those that are not. Because I am teaching the "traditional" math 9 classes I had a strong interest in the results of the new, "non-traditional" classes as compared to my own. I was also interested to hear what the students involved in the program had to say about it. Interviews with students, midterm and final exam results constituted the data sources for my study.
This study focused on four classes of grade nine math students at Ladysmith Secondary, a public high school in Ladysmith, BC. The students come from a small community of approximately 6000 people. There are a large number of bus students who come from the surrounding farms and rural areas. Counting these rural areas the population is approximately 12000. The students came from lower-middle-class homes and are generally college bound. However, few make it through college and university.
In September 1997 I started teaching at Ladysmith Secondary School. I was assigned two math 9 classes that ran the whole year. LSS is on the semester system, but the administration and math department had agreed a few years back that they would teach math 9 as a linear course because they felt that this would improve student achievement. The other two math 9 classes were being taught in the same two blocks but they would be using the new computer lab and the new CGL program, whereas the traditional classes would be held in a portable.
In the CGL math class the students worked at their own pace at their computer. They were shown how to go through the tutorials and examples before attempting a self-check. Each student was responsible for his or her own notes and examples for each lesson, and the notebooks were marked for completeness. After achieving a mark of 70% or higher on the self-check, the student could move onto the next lesson. The teacher's role in the CGL classroom was that of a facilitator or guide; students were encouraged to use the computer and other students as resources first, before going to the teacher with problems. Homework was assigned with each lesson from a student workbook, but the bulk of the assigned work was on the computer. Each student wrote unit tests at the end of each unit.
In the traditional math classroom, students were taught through more traditional methods. The teacher presented the lesson to the class using the overhead or chalkboard and then assigned activities and problems for students to work through. The teacher then would circulate the classroom and assist students who were having difficulty with the concepts. Students often worked in pairs on the assignments. Unit tests were administered at the end of each unit.
According to Kerlinger (1986), the best survey method is the personal interview . I decided to interview two students from the CGL class and two students from the traditional math class to get a better understanding of student experiences in the different learning environments. Each interview took about 15 minutes, and I asked the students the questions show in table 1.
1. How do you feel about math? Do you enjoy it? Do you look
forward to your math class and why?
2. What was your mark in math 8?
3. What was your mark on the midterm? If you did poorly can you
explain why you think you did poorly?
4. What was your mark on the final?
5. What was your overall mark in math 9?
6. What was your favourite part of math this year?
7. What didn't you like?
8. How do you feel about asking for extra help in math class?
9. Do you think the CGL program has given you any skills that
students in the regular program didn't? Or vice versa.
10. What would you change if you were the teacher of the math 9
course you just took?
11. Do you think your experiences in math this year have improved
your attitude towards math?
The students are identified as only:
Subject One female CGL math class
Subject Two female CGL math class
Subject Three female traditional math class
Subject Four female traditional math class
When asked, "How do you feel about math? Do you enjoy it? Do you look
forward to your math class and why?" the responses were:
Subject One: It is my favourite subject. I enjoy it. I look
forward to it, but double blocks are too long staring at the computer
screen.
Subject Two: It used to be one of my favourite subjects until this
year. I hate it. I don't look forward to it because it is so
confusing and I tried so hard but didn't do very well.
Subject Three: I like it. It is a fun class usually. I look
forward to it, especially when we get to play one of those math
games.
Subject Four: It is not my favourite subject but I enjoy it. I
look forward to it, I guess because we can work with our partner, so
we don't have to be like totally quiet and not talk to
anyone.
Both subjects from the traditional math class looked forward to math
class, but only one of the subjects in the CGL class looked forward
to the class.
When asked, "What was your mark on the midterm? If you did poorly can
you explain why?" the responses were:
Subject One: I think my mark was a B. This was one of the top
marks in my class I think.
Subject Two: 54%. I don't know why I did so poorly. My
basic math skills were lacking even though I got 97% last year in
math. I need hands on stuff; I am a kinaesthetic learner (we learned
that in CAPP this year).
Subject Three: 80%. I did OK. I lost most of my marks on the "No
Calculator" section of it; just silly errors I guess.
Subject Four: 87%. I did pretty good I think that was second
highest in our class.
Table 2: Subjects and their Math Marks
|
Subject # |
Grade 8 Mark |
Midterm |
Final Exam |
Grade 9 Mark |
|
One |
B |
B |
77% |
B |
|
Two |
A |
54% |
62% |
C+ |
|
Three |
B |
80% |
79% |
B |
|
Four |
A |
87% |
80% |
B |
The table shows that Subject One from the CGL math class stayed the
same throughout the year. Subject Two from the same class, dropped
from her math 8 mark considerably and seemed to have more difficulty
in math 9. Both of these students had a tutor for the last month of
math 9 to help them review for the final exam. Subject Three, in the
traditional math class stayed fairly consistent throughout the two
years. Subject Four dropped a letter grade over the course of math
9.
When asked the question, "What was your favourite part of math this
year?" their responses were as follows:
Subject One: The unit tests, because of the names. He used our
names in the questions, so it was fun to read them.
Subject Two: Scatterplots and the Explorers (games on the CGL
program that helped develop our skills).
Subject Three: I liked when you would be teaching us and tell us a
funny story to go with the lesson. You were so funny, especially that
toe story for our trigonometry unit. I think trigonometry was my
favourite unit because of that.
Subject Four: I liked when we got to work in teams and compete
against each other. My team came second. I also liked playing combo 5
and Roll to 100, it was fun.
Each subject had different parts about math 9 that were considered to
be their favourite. One subject from the traditional, and one subject
from the CGL class said that they enjoyed the "games" the best.
When asked the question, "What didn't you like about math this year?"
their responses were as follows:
Subject One: The notebook check and the extra work we had to do in
our notebook. I didn't enjoy that. I didn't like that we could fall
behind so easily, it was hard to keep up. I didn't like not having a
textbook to refer to and take home. There weren't enough examples in
the little notebook that we got. I got my dad to get me a textbook to
have at home to review from.
Subject Two: I could go on forever! I didn't like how we were
expected to learn it ourselves, I need someone to explain things to
me. He was not open to questions and expected a lot of us.
Subject Three: The homework. Oh, and the portable - it was
too hot and it smelled old.
Subject Four: The distance and time problems and the rate of work
problems. They were hard.
When asked the question, "How do you feel about asking for help in
math class", the following responses were collected:
Subject One: I didn't like to ask for help, because he would flip
out if you didn't get it the first time.
Subject Two: He wasn't really open to questions. He wanted us to
figure it out ourselves or go back over the lesson again rather than
explain it to us. Sometimes, especially after the midterm that we all
did bad on, he would teach a lesson but he would get mad if we still
didn't get it.
Subject Three: I would ask for help if I needed it, or I would ask
my partner. Most of it was pretty easy, but if I didn't get it I
would just ask you. Asking for help doesn't bother me at all.
Subject Four: Yeah, I felt comfortable asking for help, but
usually I could figure it out myself or I would ask Ashley or Chris
how to do it if you were busy.
It seems the subjects in the CGL class were much less inclined to ask
for help in their math class because they felt the teacher would get
mad. Students in the traditional class were comfortable asking their
teacher for help at any time.
When asked the question, "Do you think the math class you were in has
given you any skills that students in the other program might not
have?", the responses were as follows:
Subject One: No, I don't think so.
Subject Two: Maybe we have some higher skills in some areas
because the computer program was harder I think.
Subject Three: I think we are better at algebra and problems where
you have to show your steps to get the answer because that was what
we practised, but the other classes had all multiple choice tests so
they are probably not as good at these types of questions.
Subject Four: We have better algebra skills I think, because when
I was studying for the final with my friends in the other classes
they would be amazed at how I solved the problems step by step. They
used guess and check to solve the problems not algebra.
The subjects in the traditional math classes felt that their algebra
and problem solving skills were more developed. These students had
more experience with paper and pencil problem solving than the CGL
students. CGL students faced many multiple choice problems on their
self-checks and thus seemed more inclined to try and solve these
problems in their heads without writing any steps down on paper.
When asked the question, "What would you change if you were the
teacher of the math 9 class that you just took", the following
responses were collected:
Subject One: More explanations on each lesson. A better outline
for each lesson.
Subject Two: Give out more reviews. More help. Teach more on the
board to the whole class.
Subject Three: Less homework!
Subject Four: I don't know. I guess it would be kinda cool if we
could work ahead if we wanted to or skip the easy units.
Subjects One and Two in the CGL classes seemed to feel that more help
and explanations would be beneficial. The students from the
traditional classes did not respond the same. One thought of less
homework, and the other thought that being self-paced might make the
math class better.
When asked the question, "Do you think your experiences in math this
year have improved your attitude towards math? Why or why not?", the
following responses were collected:
Subject One: No, it was a bad experience.
Subject Two: No, it sucked and I feel lost now.
Subject Three: Yeah, I think my attitude has improved. I had a
pretty bad attitude at the start of the year.
Subject Four: No, I don't think I can say that my attitude
improved. It didn't get worse either, it just stayed the same. I
always had an OK attitude towards math.
It seems that the CGL students felt that their attitudes had not
improved, but seemingly rotten worse. Subject Three thought that her
attitude had improved and being the teacher I would have to agree
with her. Subject Four said her attitude didn't change and that it
was always OK.
WMRWMRWMRThis like all of your narrative needs to be expanded.
In the last week of January, all four math classes wrote a midterm exam. The CGL teacher (the math department head) prepared the exam. The results for the four classes are shown in table 3 and in chart 1. On June 17, all of the math 9 classes wrote their final exam, again prepared by the CGL teacher. These results are shown in table 3 and chart 2. Both exams consisted of three sections: a basic skills, no calculator section (25%); a multiple choice section (55%); and a long answer section (20%).
(CLASSES A AND B ARE THE CGL CLASSES)
|
|
MIDTERM RESULTS |
FINAL EXAM RESULTS |
|
|
CLASS A |
58 |
63 |
|
|
CLASS B |
51 |
53 |
|
|
AVERAGE |
54.5 |
58 |
|
|
CLASS C |
59 |
63 |
|
|
CLASS D |
60 |
58 |
|
|
AVERAGE |
59.5 |
60.5 |
|
The average mark achieved by the students in the CGL classes on the
midterm exam was 54.5%, whereas the average mark achieved by the
students in the traditional classes was 59.5%. From these exam
results it would seem that the traditional students achieved 5%
higher than the CGL students. 5% does not seem to be much of a
significant difference.
The average mark achieved by the students in the CGL classes on the
final exam was 58%, whereas the average mark achieved by the students
in the traditional classes was 60.5%. From these exam results it
would seem that the traditional students achieved 2.5% higher than
the CGL students. 2.5% does not seem to be much of a significant
difference.
Conclusion:
Does computer assisted learning improve student achievement and attitudes in math 9?
The results in this study indicate that no, the CGL program did
not improve student attitudes. Further studies would have to be done
using a larger amount of subjects for this result to be
conclusive.
The results in this study indicate that no, the CGL program did not
improve student achievement on the midterm and final exams. Students
in the traditional classes scored 5% higher on the midterm and 2.5%
higher on the final exam. The differences were not large enough to
suggest that the CGL program was a detriment to student achievement.
Further studies will have to be done to determine whether the
traditional classes continue to do better than the CGL classes. This
was the first year of the CGL program, so there will be improvements
made to improve results for next year.
Also, the teacher of the traditional math 9 classes will have a year of experience teaching the new math 9 curriculum next year. (This was her first year teaching math 9 with the new curriculum, and only her second time teaching math 9). So it will be interesting to see what happens next year and in subsequent years. It would also be interesting to have classes in different schools using the same program, to write the same final exam and compare those results.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Hannafin, R.D. and W.C. Savenye. (1993) Technology in the
Classroom: The Teacher's New Role and Resistance to It. Educational
Technology. June: 26-31.
Kehlinger, F.N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioural
Research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 377-388.
Matras, M.A. (1991) Technology in the Classroom: Beginnings
and Endings. Mathematics Teacher. 84, 2: 86-87.
Mehlinger, H.D. (1996) School reform in the information age. Phi Delta Kappan. February: 400-407.
Perlman, L.J. (1992) School's Out: Hyperlearning, the New Technology, and the End of Education. New York: William Morrow.
Van Dusen, L.M., and B.R. Worthen. (1995) Can integrated instructional technology transform the classroom? Educational Leadership. 10: 28-33.