Spring 2005

Online teaching & learning

Thirty years on: computers and mathematics

How far has computer use in the Mathematics classroom progressed over the past 30 years? HOWARD REEVES believes that recent developments by The Le@rning Federation in online resources represent a huge leap forward.

SCHOOLS NOW HAVE networks of tens, in some cases hundreds, of computers in classrooms. In many learning areas such as SOSE and Science the classroom’s window to the world via the Internet has changed the way students access information. In other learning areas computers have changed the way students process and present information.

On the other hand, for a large proportion of the 30 years, I would suggest that the use of computers in Mathematics classrooms has been quite limited. Despite the number of computers in schools, access (specifically, lack of access) for Mathematics, lack of suitable software and the inclination of teachers have limited their use.

Two pieces of recent research on opposite sides of the Pacific provide a picture of the access and use issues. Professor Bill Mulford, from the University of Tasmania, in a survey of 1400 year 10 students found only 5% saying that they use computers in Mathematics classrooms all or most of the time; 79% rarely or never. The research of Mulford’s colleagues (Robertson, Webb and Fluck) in years 3 and 5 in government and Catholic schools suggests ‘there is little evidence that incorporation of ICT into programs of the classes observed had resulted in, or was leading to, a sustained transformation of teaching and learning’.

In a study of two high schools in Silicon Valley (California) where high access to technology was not an issue, Peck (2002) and colleagues found at the end of a year-long investigation that aside from the 5% of students who were identified as ‘technophiles’ and who voluntarily enrolled in computer-based electives, technology had little impact on students’ school experience. Why? Peck suggested traditional school structures (separate subject structure and cellular classrooms hamper the spread of innovation) were contributing factors, along with time constraints (What can be achieved in a 50-minute lesson?). Implementing instructional technology takes time and ultimately the decision about how things occur in the classroom rests with individual teachers. These reasons aside, Peck found tensions among educational priorities, not the least being pressures (imagined or real) on teachers meeting accountability demands of testing.

So how do we make better use of the computers in Mathematics classrooms?

The issue of suitable mathematical software is a complex one, but one which is being addressed by The Le@rning Federation. I believe teachers have had some expectations about the sort of software they would like to use in their Mathematics teaching and these expectations are only now being fulfilled. There is some great software available—The Geometer’s Sketchpad and similar geometry packages, Curriculum Corporation’s Maths 300 collection, spreadsheet packages, graphing packages and the like. Some of these assist in concept development, some are great for mathematical modelling, but many make large demands on teachers’ time and personal mathematical competence to become sufficiently familiar with them and their mathematical ideas to use with students in classrooms. So in the last 30 years, but in reality only in the last 10 years, this software has been among the best examples in Mathematics. Most of them serve secondary teachers better than primary teachers.

Enter The Le@rning Federation

By bringing together teachers and educators with content expertise and experience, creative design and programming people from successful multimedia companies in business and in the marketplace, and talented and experienced writers, TLF has developed a process to produce high quality online curriculum content for teachers to use in classrooms. And, it is freely available … no cost!

Let us look at some of the characteristics that distinguish TLF’s mathematical learning objects from the outputs of other developers and suppliers.

The learning objects address significant mathematical ideas and concepts; that is, mathematical content that most teachers would agree is a focus in their classrooms and consider being important.

Within most of the learning objects there are levels of difficulty. Students may be engaged in the same task or activity, with the teacher directing them to a level appropriate to their development and ability. ‘Wishball’ has levels that focus on whole numbers, and other levels that focus on thousandths.

There is no attempt to cover the breadth and depth of the Mathematics curriculum. Rather, the learning objects aim to assist teachers to focus on concepts that many teachers find difficult to teach. Spatial visualisation is one such area of the Mathematics curriculum.

Teachers are finding learning objects simple to become familiar with, both in terms of educational value and learning outcomes, and their use in classrooms. Drawing on their other experiences with software and the electronic medium, such as games, students find the learning objects mostly intuitive to navigate and use. Teachers and students like the interactivity of the learning experience and the quality of the in-built feedback.

The learning objects range across the years prep to year 9. They reflect current priorities; for example, the importance of starting the development of mental computation strategies in the early years and linking these strategies to written strategies.

Other learning objects draw on contexts in which students voluntarily apply their mathematics and numeracy skills in their daily lives.

From a technical point of view the learning objects are fast loading, are useable across PC and Macintosh platforms and can be placed on school networks. They are engaging for learners and make the most of the electronic medium. To date there are a broad range of Mathematics and numeracy learning objects from Project 1 (Counting to quantifying) and Project 2 (Representing and visualising). By the conclusion of Projects 3 (Variation, transformation and change) and 4 (Uncertainty and predictability), there will be an even greater range.

We really have come a long way in 30 years, much of it in the recent (TLF) years.

Using timetables to plan a trip.

References

Peck, C, Cuban, L & Kirpatrick, H (2002). ‘Techno-promoter dreams, student realities’, in Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 472–480.

Mulford, B, Hogan, D & Lamb, S (ongoing). ‘School governance, instructional practices & student outcomes in Tasmanian schools research project’, University of Tasmania.

Webb, I & Fluck, A (2005). ‘A Systems Approach to ICT in School Education’, University of Tasmania.

Howard Reeves is an advisor to The Le@rning Federation’s Mathematics and Numeracy projects.

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