Summer 2004

Talking Maths

Rethinking the Computer Lab Model

Early trial experiences integrating Learning Objects and Virtual Learning Environments into classroom practice are catalysing many ACT schools into re-thinking alternatives to the computer laboratory. LEA CHAPUIS reports on what’s driving changes to the lab as the prime model for ICT delivery.

WHAT DOES it mean for a school when its enthusiastic embrace of a virtual learning environment and digital curriculum resources prompt the comments: This has put pressure on our school’s ICT plan or We’re having to re-think our whole infrastructure set up. This wasn’t expected?

Experiences of teachers in ACT government schools trialling virtual learning environments, such as ‘myclasses’ provided by myinternet, and integrating learning objects developed by The Le@rning Federation are raising all sorts of questions about pedagogy and the integration of ICT into classroom practice. It is highlighting the real ICT issue for all educators—that pedagogical and curriculum needs should drive our choice of what technological tools we purchase and how we deploy them in a school and not the other way round. For too long, it was a case of ICT is the way of the future. Get used to it and work out how you as a teacher are going to include computing (in the already over-crowded curriculum)! Now it’s: I have classes of new millennium, electronic game generation students with diverse learning needs and styles. What ICT tools can I employ to engage them and make them think in meaningful ways?

As teachers, we know it is essential to clarify the purpose and value of a unit of work before we choose the kinds of strategies and resources that will most effectively meet the outcomes we intend for our students. Whether it’s ICT software or a plethora of other resources, such as written or visual texts, video/DVD, music, primary first-hand resources and hands-on materials, the same focus questions should be utmost in our minds. How can I integrate this seamlessly into classroom practice without making it an end in itself? Will it meet the learning needs of my students? Are there online tools in my pedagogical toolbox of strategies that will encourage students to construct new knowledge and understandings? Is it better to rifle through the offline box of tools?

ACT experiences are wide and varied on the ICT continuum. Like many other Australian schools, there are those that made the initial response to computer technology by starting with the computer lab model only to discover that this is already becoming anachronistic in light of the ability of digital resources and other forms of online learning to transform pedagogy and student outcomes. Two further influential factors have been the deployment of broadband to ACT schools and the significantly reduced costs of wireless networks.

In two ACT government school trials—a pedagogical trial of learning objects in late 2003 and a current ‘Online Software Trial of myclasses’ (including the search capacity to locate relevant learning objects developed by The Le@rning Federation)—some interesting experiences are revealing many schools’ opinion that they need to re-examine the lab model as the most effective way for student learning.

One school’s experiences trialling learning objects via Interactive White Board (IWB) technology has reinforced their belief that online tools are best deployed in the classroom environment rather than the lab. This school is fortunate enough to have an IWB in every classroom and has virtually done away with taking classes of students to their lab. The increasing choice of different learning objects published by The Le@rning Federation and other sources, such as The Minerals Council of Australia, allows teachers to choose a range of activities that are best pursued in a classroom environment rather than as a one-off lesson in a lab. For example, a teacher can use the IWB to demonstrate a learning object, then have a range of collaborative, project-based tasks set up for students to further explore the concepts covered in the learning object. It can even include one group on a classroom pod of five or six computers (strategically placed around the room) completing the learning object again as an individual reinforcement task.

High school teachers are also seeing the benefit of this model, particularly those trialling virtual learning environment software. Not only do they appreciate the value of The Le@rning Federation learning objects relevant to their own particular KLA, but also the power of being able to have students log on nearly every lesson to their respective virtual class pages. These students can scan the teacher-selected websites, work through scaffolded activities and appropriate learning objects, and print out or submit work when required.

Early feedback from teachers indicates the power of virtual learning environments to engage and motivate students; overcome issues of not having the right materials for class; access resources from home; keep parents in the loop; and track submitted work. Teachers who are beginning to rely on this virtual environment to improve their students’ learning outcomes indicate that, even in schools where there is a high proportion of computers to the number of students, they are becoming frustrated with the inequity of accessing the technology. For example, in one high school, three laboratories and a library totalling 100 machines do not meet the online needs of staff and students who are enthusiastically embracing this new technology.

The current technical infrastructures of these schools (network cabling, server location, etc), the economic constraints of their ICT budgets, the timetabling nightmare of equitable bookings for all curriculum areas and the potential threat of vandalism of computers in classrooms less secure than a lab all combine into an ICT planning nightmare for school executives. Despite these obvious constraints, many trial teachers are pushing for pods of computers in their own subject classrooms to further explore the learning possibilities afforded by virtual learning environments and learning objects. One teacher’s comment during the learning object trial indicates the potential of what could be achieved with this model.

I introduced The Le@rning Federation learning object ‘Give me a brake’ and re-wrote a graphing assignment around it for my year 9 level 3 students—a group that is not prone to cooperating, nor particularly interested in mathematics. The assignment was more specific than the one written for the higher level class but students were still able to choose the variables to investigate. They appreciated the entertainment value of the animation, the practicality of the simulation and the fact that I had made an effort to choose an activity that they would enjoy (this is not to say that I am not always trying to do this). Their level of cooperation and the standard of their work improved considerably and their enthusiasm and cooperation extended into the next unit.

And:

Susan had a brilliant class today! Teachers are flying with this and we even had a parent ring in and compliment us on the wonderful communication it offers and how involved her son is with it!

When teachers know such outcomes are not out of their students’ reach, they are not going to sit back and accept that one booking a week in a lab (if they’re lucky) is all they’re going to get! Clearly school executives are going to have to look long and hard at the evidence that is coming out of these trials and re-think future directions of ICT deployment in their respective schools.

Lea Chapuis is the ACT contact liaison officer for The Le@rning Federation and runs workshops for teachers on classroom integration of learning objects.

The author owns the copyright in this article. For information related to the reuse of this work in any form please contact the publisher denise.quinn@curriculum.edu.au