Well, we just passed the computer bond issue, so we have the money. Now what are we going to do with it? Educators often ask this question when their districts begin to infuse technologies into their mathematics and science programs. While most such projects are not bereft of planning, the financial issues often outweigh curriculum, management, and teaching issues—the very opposite of what should occur.
Here at Arizona State University's College of Education, we work with middle school science and mathematics departments in the Phoenix area, providing them staff development, content, and technical assistance. We also place our students in local schools for their field experiences and student teaching.
Over the past several years, a number of local districts have begun to buy computers or upgrade their current equipment. Many have complained of the futility of attempting to select equipment that will be useful and won't quickly go out of date. The three most common frustrations, in our experience, are the following:
1. We Bought Them, but Nobody Uses Them
This is one of the most frustrating situations a district can face. Technologies are not used for a number of reasons, but all boil down to two basic problems: They don't do what we want or we don't know what to do.
They don't do what we want. Very often the lion's share of money allocated for technologies goes for hardware: computers, monitors, keyboards, and peripherals. Educators ordinarily do little advance planning to determine what software is needed for teachers and students to use computers effectively in the classroom. In science and mathematics, in particular, most published software is really pretty bad. A district must look carefully to determine whether the software is any good and where it might fit into curriculum goals (see Flores, et al. 1997, for a list of software we find exemplary).
Additionally, most good software requires more memory than basic computer models have. This is often an unanticipated or underestimated expense that can seriously deplete funds originally earmarked for software. Therefore, you must account for software and memory requirements at the start of the planning phase, not at the end. After deciding what software you will need to meet your curriculum goals, determine the optimal memory requirements and build these into your purchase plan.
We don't know what to do. Many teachers face the added frustration of not understanding the peculiarities of the software, how the computer works, or how to alter their teaching styles to accommodate the new tool. Here, staff development is a key issue, but again, most districts do not factor this into the financial package for technology infusion. As a result, staff members do not fully use available technologies. A teacher we work with recently switched from a DOS/Windows environment to the Macintosh platform. Even when using software he was familiar with on his old machine, he was maddened by the new quirks and nuances of the Macintosh version.
Even more challenging are teachers who have never used computers. They may resist implementing technologies in their classroom because they are (1) uninformed about how computers can improve their teaching; (2) too short of time to begin the difficult process of learning to use computers in their classroom; or (3) afraid of computers because of past experiences, colleagues' horror stories, or changes they anticipate.
2. Too Many Kids, Too Few Teachers
The most common strategy for reducing the ratio of students to computers is to create computer laboratories. Although this strategy allows students to have blocks of hands-on time with computers, we believe it creates more problems than it solves. First, it is hard to schedule activities in computer labs (some teachers find it so difficult that they simply give up). Competition for time slots in the laboratory can be intense. The likely result is that no students have consistent or long-term experience with computers in any one subject area.
A second problem is that real scientific activities and hands-on mathematics are difficult to carry out in a computer laboratory. Most such activities require more room and equipment than staff members can haul into and out of a room not dedicated to such activities. Many of the best uses of technologies for mathematics and science involve probeware—devices that take information from the environment (the velocity of a falling object, for example) and enter that information directly into a data file (see Middleton et al. 1996 for examples of these technologies).
A third, more important problem is that when large numbers of computers are in a room separate from classrooms, many students get hands-on experience occasionally, but no one gets to use the computer in a truly authentic way—that is, the way a scientist or mathematician might use it to solve a difficult, time-consuming problem. In order to be true tools for learning, computers must be on hand when the need arises, not next week when the lab is open.
3. Obsolete? We Just Bought Them!
People purchase technological products only to find them outmoded in the blink of an eye—a problem for which the computer industry itself bears some responsibility. By all indications, this problem is bound to get worse, not better. After purchasing $50,000 worth of equipment on the Power Macintosh platform, for example, we were shocked to learn that IBM—one of the companies collaborating on the Power PC chip—would no longer adapt its operating system to support the platform. So where does that leave us? Will Apple continue to use the Power PC? Will we still be able to get software? What about servicing? These are issues that the fickle nature of the industry leaves us to grapple with.
But there is another reason that machines so quickly become obsolete for educational purposes: In an attempt to give the maximum number of students exposure to computers, school districts typically purchase a large number of low-quality machines. In three years' time, the district must replace them. A better approach is to buy fewer high-end machines that will do what you want, last longer, and be organized so as to maximize student "minds-on" time. (See the list of principles for determining whether technologies are being used in an authentic and effective way.)
Seven Principles for Using Technologies to Teach Science and Math
Technologies are instruments that educators should use judiciously at the proper time in the proper place. They neither supplant the thought processes of children nor make learning fun or easy.
Technologies should enable students to do what they couldn't do without them (for example, engage in scientific experiences not feasible with other tools).
Technologies must be on hand all the time so that when the need arises, students can integrate them into their learning.
Technologies should allow students to develop, refine, and test mathematical and scientific phenomena. Thus they should facilitate the creation of information that students can share, modify, and transport elsewhere.
Technological systems should be user-friendly, making it easy for students to share data and resources.
The setup of computers and classroom space should increase communication among students, not stifle it.
Technologies must engage students in independent exploration.
Adapted from a report submitted to the National Science Foundation (Flores et al. 1997).
Better Ideas
Here are some suggestions for avoiding the above problems when choosing, purchasing, and using technology.
Eliminate one-student, one-machine thinking. The fallacy that has most inhibited effective use of computing technologies in K–12 education is the belief that each child must have his or her own computer for any given activity. This is just not so. Pairs, trios, and even larger groups of students can use a computer effectively if the staff develops the activity properly.
In fact, we encourage districts to maximize the number of students who share a machine. Although this seems counterintuitive, it is an effective way to authentically integrate computers into the mathematics and science curriculum. A single high-end machine with a projection device can involve an entire classroom of children in solving a math problem or understanding a scientific concept. As each student tries out hypotheses and modifies them, all students can share in the public record of thinking. Only when all classrooms have this capability should educators start thinking about buying more machines.
Build technology into the curriculum. Otherwise, technology will only be tacked on. For example, demonstrating the trigonometric ratios using The Geometer's Sketchpad (Jackiw 1995) is not as effective as using the software to explore, model, and subsequently verify the functions. To build in technology this seamlessly, most districts will have to revise most of their standards, as well as their texts and other materials.
Some aspects of science and mathematics cannot be taught meaningfully without using computing technologies. For example, by middle school, the field of statistics in some published curriculums becomes so dependent on complex data sets that even students using scientific calculators have difficulty understanding the underlying patterns among the data. In science, students using computer-based probeware can find empirical data for what were formerly abstract, theoretical concepts. Such probeware also helps students develop both mathematical and scientific concepts at the same time, making the applications even more cost-effective.
Make the technologies available at all times. Students and teachers need consistency for the educational process to run smoothly. For technologies to be among the many tools a teacher employs to help the class grasp difficult mathematical or scientific concepts, they must be on hand when needed—just as pencils and paper must be on hand for students to take notes. Without the ability to take notes during a discussion of a complex topic, students cannot record the connections they make and gain insights into how the concepts fit together in a higher-order fashion. In a mathematics class, the teacher might ask whether a falling object does indeed have a parabolic position/time curve. Ideally, the teacher should feel free to ask students how they would go about finding the answer and then engage students in this type of proof using the available technology. Having students do this a week later in a computer lab is no substitute for such immediate follow-up in the classroom.
Make sure your computers can talk to one another. Even if your district can only afford a single machine for each classroom, the computers must be able to share resources (tools, models, and representations) so that students can share resources as well. A scientific or mathematical concept is useful only if people can share it, take it apart, and discuss its logical structure and ability to explain and predict phenomena. This gets at the very nature of scientific and mathematical verification (National Research Council 1996; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics 1989).
It is crucial that students be able to modify hypotheses, as most models students construct in the beginning will be either incomplete or contain misconceptions. Over time, the teacher and students can pare down the initial ideas into a workable model that can serve the class as a whole.
Further, when computers—even those separated by classroom walls—are linked, the teacher can pool them for a particular activity, thereby reducing the student-computer ratio significantly.
Build physical plant considerations into your purchase plan. One of the big surprises districts often face when purchasing computer equipment is that their buildings have inadequate electrical, communications, security, and space requirements. Correcting these shortcomings is expensive—often more expensive than the technologies and software themselves.
These kinds of physical improvements require more long-range planning than does the immediate technology plan. You must envision the technological future of the school, as well as what telecommunication companies have in store—and build on both types of information. Consult with your local telecommunications companies to ascertain their long-range plans so that you will be prepared for the changes to come.
By following all these suggestions, your technology purchases should support your academic goals in practical ways, improve teaching and learning, and make the most of the money you have.
