Welcome to the Curriculum & Leadership Journal website.
To receive our fortnightly Email Alert,
please click on the blue menu item below.
Curriculum & Leadership Journal
An electronic journal for leaders in education
ISSN: 1448-0743
Follow us on twitter

Mobile digital devices to enhance mathematics and science learning

Jeremy Roschelle
Center for Technology in Learning SRI International http://www.ctl.sri.com

This article is an edited abridged version of the author's keynote address at Curriculum Corporation 13th National Conference, Adelaide, August 2006.

 

Roschelle March07

As 21st-century societies are increasingly organised around knowledge and innovation, it is hard to imagine how school education will be able to keep pace without the incorporation of new technologies. However, although new waves of emerging technology have excited educators before, most have failed to make a substantial impact on school learning (Cuban 2003). Schools are complex institutions that adopt technology quite differently from consumer markets. To make an impact on learning, new technologies must be integrated into schools’ social practices, including curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and school leadership.

In today’s schools, the typical ratio of students to computers is 5:1. Traditional desktop technology is expensive and, as a result, limited computer resources must be shared among many users and are often located in special computer labs (Cattagni & Farris 2001). The logistics of scheduling lab time and moving students between rooms greatly interferes with teachers’ abilities to integrate computers into learning activities (Becker 1999). The resultant infrequency of technology use limits the overall possible impact of computing in education.

In contrast to desktop computers, handheld digital devices are relatively inexpensive, allowing a student to device ratio of 1:1. In addition, handhelds are mobile and flexible, allowing for easy use in and across classrooms, field sites and home environments. Finally, because handhelds can be used much more frequently than computers in traditional labs, they have dramatically increased the potential to positively influence the learning process (Consortium for School Networking 2004).

Handhelds are not simply smaller personal computers; in fact, the most successful examples are not particularly like personal computers at all. Two such devices – graphing calculators and networked classroom response systems – demonstrate that handhelds are already making a huge difference in student learning. These success stories draw on rich integration with school social practices, suggesting that successful designers must think about more than just technology, and also consider the dynamics of how and what students learn.


Graphing calculators

Graphing calculators have become one of the most widely adopted handheld technologies in education. Graphing products are now integrated with national and state standards (for example, Victorian Essential Learning Standards) and are supported in some curriculums. Best practices of instruction are well documented and teacher professional development is widely available (Burrill et al. 2002; Seeley 2006).

Like other handheld instructional technologies, graphing calculators are inexpensive, mobile and readily adaptable to existing classroom practices. They enable students take on traditional tasks in new ways, and also tackle new topics that would otherwise be inaccessible, such as manipulating complex data sets or demonstrating how a change in an equation links to a change in a graph (Goldenberg 1995; Kaput 1992). Calculators enable students to devote their attention to conceptual understanding rather than laborious calculations, and their interactive nature gives students greater responsibility for checking their work and justifying their solutions.

Strong research on the use of graphing calculators supports their educational value. US National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) results have consistently shown that frequent calculator use at Year 8 level (but not at Year 4 level) is associated with greater mathematics achievement, across different locations and demographic variables (National Center for Education Statistics 2001, p 141). The NAEP findings are corroborated by studies by Heller et al (2005), Graham and Thomas (2000), Ellington (2003) and Khoju et al. (2005).


Classroom response systems

A second effective handheld learning technology is the networked response system. The first notably successful classroom response system, Classtalk, was patented in 1989, and similar product concepts have since been re-implemented many times. This technology serves to augment the natural communication flow of the classroom, accommodating existing teaching practices while offering new enhancements.

In a traditional communication flow, a teacher assigns an activity to a student, the student submits the assigned work, and the teacher returns the graded assignment to the student some days later. In this model, there is very little discussion after a question has been answered. Furthermore, for the majority of students, there is a long delay before they receive any response from the teacher.

In contrast, the networked response system enables teacher–student communication to occur much more rapidly, with smaller-sized tasks. Students enter their responses to a given question or problem into a personal computing device, such as a graphing calculator, laptop or even a special purpose device similar to a TV remote. The teacher’s desktop machine then aggregates the student work, and presents it in a graphic that teachers and students can interpret quickly. The key difference from traditional class discussions is that the thinking of all students is thus visible simultaneously, not just the answer of one individual.

Even the most basic uses of classroom networks can profoundly affect teaching and learning. Real-time information about students’ comprehension enables teachers to modify instruction to meet the needs of learners. Formative assessment is known to be a very powerful intervention (Black & Wiliam 1998) and these systems enable students to receive much more feedback than in traditional settings. In addition, students can see where classmates share their understandings and recognise that they are not alone. Students’ work can be displayed anonymously, eliminating embarrassment (Owens et al. 2002). For problematic concepts, the shared points of reference provided by the system can catalyse class discussions.

Despite its fairly simple function, this technology can therefore bring about a significant, powerful shift in the classroom climate, pedagogy and resulting learning (Davis 2003; Stroup et al. 2002). However, non-technological social processes, such as asking questions, explaining, clarifying and summarising, still carry much of the burden of teaching and learning. The effective implementation of classroom response systems requires a combination of pedagogical technique and computational capability.

The work of noted physics teacher Eric Mazur supports the potential of the networked classroom. Mazur’s pioneering style of classroom practice, termed ‘peer instruction’, is based on augmented teacher–student communication and increased class discussion, as described above. Analysis of his students’ test scores over time has suggested that Mazur’s method can yield substantial gains in student learning, which has been corroborated by subsequent research (Crouch & Mazur 2001; Fagen et al. 2002).


Emerging representational and collaborative tools

The representational capabilities of graphing calculators can now be found in a variety of devices, including Palm PCs, PDAs, handheld gaming devices and mobile phones, and the capabilities of such devices will continue to expand. Simultaneously, the wireless networks required for classroom communications are becoming increasingly common. The growing convergence of these capabilities is expressed in a variety of powerful new applications. Examples include the SimCalc networked calculators (Hegedus and Kaput 2003), and developments with Pocket PCs (Nussbaum and Zurita 2004). At SRI International, the GroupScribbles program is being developed as a means of using ink or stylus input to capitalise on the potential of networked technologies for classroom collaboration.

These studies demonstrate the potential of networked handhelds to stimulate passionate engagement, peer interaction and deep conceptual learning. They build on simple everyday classroom activities, such as answering questions, and transform this activity into a much more powerful form. Technology is not used merely as a medium for individual practice with subject content, but rather as a medium to transport teaching and learning into the social space of the classroom. This collaborative learning dramatically augments the learning that occurs through individual interaction with technology devices.


Conclusion: efficiency and innovation

A number of key features contribute to the success of the two technologies described above. Both graphing calculators and classroom response systems are relatively simple, robust and cheap. Simplicity is an absolutely essential feature of all technologies that succeed at scale in transforming classrooms. Even more importantly, there is a deep scientific linkage between the capabilities of these technologies and how students learn. Graphing calculators and classroom response systems both facilitate conditions that are known to optimise student learning, such as formative assessment, peer interaction and opportunities for reflection and revision.

Two less obvious factors also contribute to the success of these two technologies. First, their adoption has been championed by practising teachers who function as influences on the professional community. The participation of teachers is a key characteristic of effective technology integration. Indeed, leading companies in both graphing calculators and classroom response systems have come to rely on advice from the teacher networks to design new features (Ferrio et al. 1997). Many education technologies developed without teacher input are too complex and too rigid to fit into classroom practices. More simple technologies that are open to teachers’ adaptation and improvement are needed.

Second, efforts to integrate these technologies into classrooms did not begin with the expectation of rapid transformation, but rather provided a context to support a long, steady trajectory of continuous improvement. In this way, teachers can begin with one or two relatively simple applications of the technology, and gradually increase the depth and breadth of their integration as their confidence grows. Well-designed technology can provide a pathway for growth, whereby teachers who use the technology can gradually become more expert in helping their students to learn.

Many technologies fail in schools because they actually make teachers’ lives more complex. This cannot work; effective integration requires technologies that make teachers' lives easier. Yet, while they do so, the technologies must also enable significant innovation. The most powerful technologies will be open to teachers’ innovation and adaptations; and the most successful technology companies will develop strong relationships with educational practitioners. Finally, the most transformative products will become pathways and catalysts by which teachers can develop their own expertise in supporting student learning.


References

Becker, HJ 1999, Internet use by teachers: Conditions of professional use and teacher-directed student use, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, Irvine, CA.
Black, P & Wiliam, D 1998, Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment, King’s College, London.
Bransford, JD, Brophy, S & Williams, S 2000, 'When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities', Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol 21, no 1, pp 59–84.
Bransford, JD & Schwartz, DL 1999, 'Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications', in A Iran-Nejad & PD Pearson (eds), Review of research in education, vol 24, pp 61–100, American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.
Burrill, G, Allison, J, Breaux, G, Kastberg, S, Leatham, K & Sanchez, W 2002, Handheld graphing technology in secondary mathematics: Research findings and implications for classroom practice, Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX.
Cattagni, A & Farris, E 2001, 'Internet access in United States public schools and classrooms: 1994– 2000', retrieved 15 July 2006, from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JUN01_Issue/article04.html
Chan, TW, Roschelle, J, Hsi, S, Kinshuk, Sharples, M, Brown, T et al. 2006, 'One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration', Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning, vol 1, no 1, pp 3–29.
Consortium for School Networking 2004, A guide to handheld computing in K–12 schools, Consortium for School Networking, Washington DC.
Crouch, CH & Mazur, E 2001, 'Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results', The Physics Teacher, vol 69, no 9, pp 970–7.
Cuban, L 2003, Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Davis, S 2003, 'Observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol 19, no 3, pp 298–307.
Ellington, AJ 2003, 'A meta-analysis of the effects of calculators on students’ achievement and attitude levels in precollege mathematics classes', Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol 34, no 5, pp 433–63.
Fagen, AP, Crouch, CH & Mazur, E 2002, 'Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms', The Physics Teacher, vol. 40, no 4, pp 206–7.
Ferrio, T, Phipps, A & Schaar, R 1997, 'Building a breakthrough business concept', TI Technical Journal, pp 26-32.
Goldenberg, P 1995, 'Multiple representations: A vehicle for understanding understandings', in DN Perkins, JL Schwartz, MM West & MS Wiske (eds), Software goes to school, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp 155–71.
Graham, AT & Thomas, MOJ 2000, 'Building a versatile understanding of algebraic variables with a graphic calculator', Educational Studies in Mathematics, vol 41, no 3, pp. 265–82.
Hegedus, SJ & Kaput, J 2003, 'The effect of a SimCalc connected classroom on students’ algebraic thinking', paper presented at the Psychology in Mathematics Education conference, Honolulu, HI, July.
Heller, JL, Curtis, DA, Jaffe, R & Verboncoeur, CJ 2005, Impact of handheld graphing calculator use on student achievement in Algebra 1, Heller Research Associates, Oakland, CA.
Johnson, DW & Johnson, RT 1989, Cooperation and competition: Theory and research, Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN.
Kaput, J. 1992, 'Technology and mathematics education', in D Grouws (ed.), A handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Kaput, J & Hegedus, SJ 2002, 'Exploiting classroom connectivity by aggregating student constructions to create new learning opportunities', paper presented at the 26th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Norwich, UK.
Khoju, M, Jaciw, A & Miller, GI 2005, Effectiveness of graphing calculators in K–12 mathematics achievement: A systematic review, Empirical Education, Palo Alto, CA.
Mazur, E 1997, Peer instruction: A user’s manual, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
National Center for Education Statistics 2001, The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2000 (NCES 2001–571), United States Department of Education, Washington DC.
National Research Council 1999, How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Owens, DT, Demana, F, Abrahamson, AL, Meagher, M & Herman, M 2002, Developing pedagogy for wireless calculator networks: Report on grants ESI 01-23391 & ESI 01-23284 (also presented at SITE, Albuquerque, NM, March 2003), Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus,OH.
Roschelle, J & Pea, R 2002, 'A walk on the wild side: How wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning', International Journal of Cognition and Technology, vol 1, no 1), pp 145–68.
Roschelle, J, Pea, R, Hoadley, C, Gordin, D & Means, B 2000, 'Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies', The Future of Children, vol10, no 2, pp 76-101.
Sawyer, K (ed.) 2006, The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, Cambridge University Press, New York. Seeley, C 2006, 'Technology is a tool: President’s message', NCTM News Bulletin, vol 42, no 7, p 3.
Soloway, E, Norris, C, Blumenfeld, P, Fishman, BJK & Marx, R 2001, 'Devices are ready-at-hand', Communications of the ACM, vol 44, no 6, pp 15–20.
Stroup, WM, Kaput, J, Ares, N, Wilensky, U, Hegedus, SJ, Roschelle, J et al. 2002, 'The nature and future of classroom connectivity: The dialectics of mathematics in the social space', paper presented at the Psychology and Mathematics Education North America conference, Athens, GA.
Tinker, R & Krajcik, J (eds) 2001, Portable technologies: Science learning in context, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Vahey, P & Crawford, V 2002, Palm education pioneers program: Final evaluation report, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Vahey, P, Tatar, D & Roschelle, J 2004, 'Leveraging handhelds to increase student learning: Engaging middle school students with the mathematics of change', paper presented at the 2004 International Conference of the Learning Science, Santa Monica, CA.
von Hippel, E 2005, Democratizing innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Weiner, N 1948, Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Wilensky, U & Stroup, W 2000, 'Networked gridlock: Students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the hubnet architecture', paper presented at the the fourth annual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI.
Zurita, G & Nussbaum, M 2004, 'A constructivist mobile learning environment supported by a wireless handheld network', Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol 20, pp 235–43.

Key Learning Areas

Science
Mathematics

Subject Headings

Science teaching
Mathematics teaching
Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
Elearning
Computer-based training