Colleen's Blog

Final Blog for Book

2007-05-28T17:15:00.000-07:00

In the final chapters of the book, the author notes that the studies conducted at Whitmore High School cannot be used to "delineate a set of inevitable consequences of instructional computing." Because of the fact that there are so many other factors involved, such as the nature of computer use, the frequency with which it is used, and its "intensity and centrality to the curriculum," it is simply not possible through this or any other studies done so far to qualitatively describe how computer use will affect student's grades. What we can learn from this study, however, is probably consequences in terms of the social environment of the classroom. The book wraps up with a summary of the three commonly found consequences of computer use in the classroom: 1) Students' enhanced motivation and enjoyment, 2) shifts in the teacher's role, and 3) changes in peer interaction patterns.

The author comments that "one striking effect of computer use across the wide variety of applications studied at Whitmore was enhanced student enjoyment of, interest in, and attention to classroom activities." She also mentions that many others have found this result in their studies as well. She contributes this enhanced enjoyment mainly to the fact that computer use introduces variety to the otherwise dull school routine. With the use of computers, the students experience greater control over their learning, mistakes are viewed as opportunities to change directions instead of as failures, and each student can work at his/her own pace. Another appeal to students is that they consider knowledge in computer use as being useful for their future careers. Other studies show similar results as far as the reason behind increased motivation. And we also know that increased motivation generally results in increased learning.

During the computer use at Whitmore High, the teacher's role changed from being the "sage on the stage to the guide at the side...this shift meant not only that the students received more individualized help, but also that they, generally speaking, worked more actively on their own rather than having the pace and content of their work controlled quite minutely by the teacher." These results coincide with other studies showing that a greater amount of control over their own learning enhances and increases student learning. When the teacher becomes a guide and a coach, learning improves.

One common concern about computer use in the classroom is "that it might lead to students being cut off from much of the human interaction that they now experience in the classroom." The author points out, however, that studies seem to indicate the opposite; "there is now an emerging consensus that the use of computers for instruction typically increases interaction among students." That was a concern I had when first reading this book. For example, with the GPTutor program, students came to class and worked on their own for the whole period. However, they were allowed to get help from each other and this freedom actually increased the incidents of peer help. Also, when there are fewer computers than students, the teachers will form small groups to work together.

Overall, computer use in the classroom appears to have no negative effects, but can certainly have positive effects. Of course the level of effectiveness has much to do with how and why the computers are used. But in general, computer use appears to increase student motivation and interest in their work. It gives the teacher the opportunity to become a guide instead of a lecturer. It increases student interdependence, and changes the way in which students get help from the teacher. Whether or not it increases test scores is unknown, but then it is the increase in student learning that we are primarily concerned with, and an increase in motivation indicates a great possibility of an increase in student learning.

Second Post for "Computers and Classroom Culture"

2007-05-14T11:16:00.000-07:00

The next section of this book is about the use of computers in the classroom. The higher level Computer Science classes at the high school had a computer lab adjacent to the classroom, and very different learning takes place in each area. While in class, the learning is teacher-centered, with the typical setup of a blackboard at the front of the room, the teacher's desk in front of it, and all the students' desks lined up facing the board. The teachers would lecture and occasionally call on students to answer questions. The students were expected to be listening at all times and be ready to respond when called upon. While in the lab, student learning was very different.

Overwhelmingly, the students preferred to be in the lab "working with the computers...rather than learning about them." Students would often ask to go to the lab, and would be clearly disappointed if told they could not. While in the lab, the students had much control over their projects. They would be given basic parameters, but allowed to complete the assignments in the way of their choosing. The author argues that the reason for the students' preference for the lab was that "the students' relationship with their teacher changed as they moved from one setting to another, as did their relationships with their peers. In addition, the relation between the students and their work underwent a major shift." The author believes this is the main reason for increased motivation in the students, and after reading these chapters, I agree.

As with the GPTutor, the teacher became, in the lab, less of the "expert" and more of a collaborator and coach. The students were also able to enjoy more freedom while in the lab. With the teacher working individually with students who needed help, the other students were not a distraction if they moved about or talked quietly with each other. They also had the freedom to help each other. Being given the choice of how to construct their projects, the students were also able to make their work more personal and meaningful. They could connect to personal interests or possible career paths, thereby gaining a deeper and more meaningful understanding of what they learned through the project.

As seen with both the GPTutor and the computer lab for Computer Science, it was not necessarily the use of computers that increased student motivation and learning, but more the roles taken on by the teachers and students in the different setting. While in the traditional class, students were expected to passively absorb information fed to them. This led to frustration for the students who fell behind, embarrassment for those who answered questions incorrectly, and low motivation for any student who struggled with the subject matter. On the other hand, the atmosphere when working with the computers was completely different. Teacher-student relationships as well as student-student relationships improved, with private individual help for those struggling, freedom of choice for the students, peer help made possible, and the opportunity for all students to work at their own pace. These are good lessons for any teacher to remember for any subject, completely aside from computers in the classroom.

My first posting

2007-04-25T19:09:00.000-07:00

I am reading Computers and Classroom Culture by Janet Ward Schofield. This book was published in 1995, so it is a little old. However, so far it has been very interesting. The purpose of the book was to investigate "how the social organization of school and classroom influences the use of computers, and how computers use in turn affects the functioning of classrooms." The investigation is based on the results of a two-year study at Whitmore High School. I was surprised to find that the study was done during the years of 1985-1987. Because I graduated in 1986, I was interested to see what types of computer-aided teaching had been going on back then. I do not recall seeing many computers in my high school at all. As a matter of fact, I took typing (on a typewriter!) my senior year.

The book begins by looking at an artificial intelligence tutor called GPTutor, which stands for Geometry Proofs Tutor. This tutor was "designed to teach geometry students how to do proofs." I was very impressed with what this tutor was designed, and by all accounts was able, to do. What the author was looking for is how this tutor affected the social organization of the classrooms in which it was used and compared this to classrooms (some taught by teachers who used GPTutor in other classes, some taught by teachers who did not use it) in which the tutor was not used.

The results were compelling. The author noted that both students and teachers noticed a significant difference in "the relative amount of attention given to students of different ability levels." During observations of geometry classes before GPTutor was used, the general rule was teacher-controlled classes. The teacher asked if anyone had questions about the previous homework and would demonstrate particular problems on the board. Then the teacher would introduce new material and ask specific students, those who were reliable in "getting it right," to work new problems and show them on the board. One teacher even gave extra credit to the students who did this. Needless to say, only a handful of students ever got the extra credit, and they weren't the ones needing it!

With the use of the tutor's, the teachers moved from the role of lecturer to the role of collaborator. They began giving the extra help some students needed, and this help was very individualized. Previously, help was generalized to try and reach as many students as possible. With the use of the tutors, the teachers were able to cater their help to the unique needs of each student. Another positive change was that while those who needed extra help were finally getting it, those who needed more of a challenge were able to work at their own pace and move on.

What I am interested in finding out is the cons of using this type of technology in the classroom. There must be something, because I personally have never seen something like this used in a school. I know it creates very student-centered work, but the students were not working together with this tutor. Therefore, there was no peer learning or collaboration. However, that doesn't mean a tutor couldn't allow for group work. I will post more as my reading progresses for anyone out there who is interested!