Does Using New Technology Improve Children's Learning?

1. Does Using New Technology Improve Children's Learning? Andy Powell and Jess Allen

2. Do new technologies which aim to scaffold biology learning improve children's learning?

3. Scaffolding • Scaffolding metaphor first used by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) • Scaffolding consists of an adult ‘controlling’ the elements of a task initially beyond learners capacity, allowing them to concentrate on/complete only those elements within his range of competence . • As the learner progresses the task proceeds to a successful outcome

4. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) • Scaffolding is associated with Vygotskys’ notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) • Interacting with more able members of a society the child can do things that it would not be able to do on its own. • Learning and development occurs through the internalisation of social processes.

6. Level of Assistance • It is the assistance that is often seen as scaffolding and amount of assistance is critical. • Too much and the task is too easy, too little and the task is too difficult. • The assistance should • Be of a level just outside the child’s existing developmental level • Be sensitive to changes in the child’s developmental level, and as the child progresses the adult should fade this help by providing less and less • eventually be withdrawn altogether when the child is competent.

7. Scaffolding and Technology • Traditional views of scaffolding focused on social interaction as the source of assistance • The focus of the last two decades research on cognitive science issues in technology design illuminated ways in which technological tools may provide the same scaffolding

8. Scaffolding and Technology 2 • Reiser (2002) discusses two mechanisms to explain how software tools can improve learning: • structure the learning task, guiding learners through key components and supporting their performance • shape the students performance and understanding of the task in terms of key disciplinary content and strategies, thereby problematising this important content.

9. Case Study 1: BGuILE

10. BGuILE • Provides Biology Guided Learning Environments for secondary school children • Explorable with specially designed computer software to foster scientific enquiry and discovery • Children working collaboratively are given biology-relevant scenarios to explore with BGuILE

11. ExplanationConstructor 1 • ExplanationContructor is a BGuILE software • Computer-based science journal • Students must construct scientific explanations based on environment being explored • Students record research questions and sub-questions as they emerge • Students given explanation prompts to facilitate and link to research questions

12. ExplanationConstructor 2 • Supports and improves learning through structuring • Software provides a structured workspace • Provides guidance for planning and monitoring • Helps children articulate reasoned research questions • Helps to see links between questions and explanations

13. Evaluation of ExplanationConstructor 1 • Evaluation of BGuILE software looks at benefits provided to nature of exploration and investigation carried out by children • Sandoval and Reiser (2004) analysed ExplanationConstructor applied to Galapagos environment • Scenario: Population of finches on island is dropping • Children must find out and explain why, considering ecosystems and other biological factors • ExplanationConstructor provides structured workspace to explore this

15. Evaluation of ExplanationConstructor 2 • Sandoval and Reiser analysed collaborative student interactions • Students guided to consider many concepts through explanation guides which may have been overlooked • Prompting sub-questions served to anchor investigation and guided further exploration • ExplanationConstructor provided structure to investigation • Still allowed children to form own representations and guide and monitor own progress

16. Evaluation of ExplanationConstructor 5 • Sandoval and Reiser’s analysis demonstrates how BGuILE can improve learning • Observational research is effective at uncovering observable benefits to the learning process • However, need evaluation in terms of measurable domain-level learning gains • Also, need comparisons to groups not using software • Without these, difficult to say how much BGuILE improves learning

17. Case Study 2: Ecolab

18. Developed by the (Human Centred Technology Group at the University of Sussex). • Interactive learning environment that helps children aged 10-11 years learn about food webs and chains and was based on the concept of the ZPD • Flexible environment in the form of a simulated ecology laboratory • The animals and plants that the child selects are put into this simulation and can be viewed from different perspectives

19. World View

20. Energy View

21. Web View

22. Four phases of difficulty From eat/eaten by to food webs Increasingly abstract terminology

23. Interpretation of the ZPD necessary to allow the operationalisation necessary for the construction of a design framework. • The elements of adjustable assistance to the system comprise: • Zone of Available Assistance (ZAA) applicable to that system. • The elements of this ZAA which meet the needs of a particular learner at a particular time comprise the Zone of Proximal Adjustment (ZPA) which system needs to make for learner.

24. Does Ecolab Improve Learning? • Designed using a participatory design approach and evaluated in classroom setting (Luckin & du Boulay, 1999). • Three variations on the Ecolab theme • Vygotskian Instructional system (VIS), • Woodsian Inspired System (WIS) • No Instructional- intervention System (NIS). • Aim of the VIS system is to maximise the ZAA and refine the ZPA so that it is line with the ZPD. • WIS and NIS implement different variations and combinations of the features in the design framework with the purpose of evaluating VIS. • Each acts as a different type of instructional partner for the child. • Design framework implemented within VIS, WIS and NIS evaluated to explore the hypothesis that the VIS variation of Ecolab will offer the most appropriate assistance and improve learning

25. 30 children, aged 10-11, three different ability groups based on school assessments, three experimental groups matched for ability • Written and verbal pre-test • Used Ecolab individually for 60 mins over 2 sessions in normal classroom environment • Post-test

27. Problems • No control group • No comparison with other teaching methods such as a classroom discussion or reading from a text book. • Small numbers of children in each group • No clear cut result in terms of abilities suggesting that Ecolab is not yet totally effective at modelling the ZPD for all ability levels

28. Critique 1 • BGuILE and Ecolab evaluation indicates that scaffolding technology can improve learning • BGuILE: increased articulation and critical consideration • Ecolab: ability to consider different perspectives and experience more complex terminology • However, evaluations insufficient in helping to conclude that learning gains will occur in every child in every classroom • This is because evaluations lack…..

29. Critique 2 • A non-technology control group to compare the group who have experience learning gains to • Long term measurement of learning gains to see whether effects are quantifiable over time • Unbiased, independent evaluation carried out by people other than designers

30. Conclusion 1 • Can conclude that technologies such as BGuILE and Ecolab do improve learning, though it is difficult to say how much • However, cannot generalise this assumption across all technologies and all children • Even the most perfectly designed technology may not improve learning in every child in every instance • Many contextually specific issues to consider when ascertaining whether a technology can improve learning….

31. Conclusion 2 • Technologies must be tailored to classroom curriculum • Technology must meet specific needs and objectives of curriculum • Through this, can improve learning in ways relevant to children’s needs • Proper curricular activities must be implemented to allow the technology to be applied correctly • This will allow technology to be maximally effective in improving learning

32. Conclusion 3 • In broader sense, must consider that technologies, learners and teachers work together as a system • Cannot consider the effectiveness of technology alone • Children have own learning attitudes and expectations • Technology alone will not change these – desire to learn must be fostered by classroom culture • Technology such as BGuILE and Ecolab create opportunities for learning • However, no guarantee that children will capitalise on them!

33. Conclusion 4 • Teachers also vital to the effectiveness of technology in improving learning • Technology activities alone mean very little • Teachers must capitalise on what is learned through giving real meaning and context beyond the computer screen • Must facilitate classroom discourse and discussion to bring what is learned to life • Effectiveness of technology therefore depends on how teachers cultivate their use and guide the students

34. Conclusion 5 • Demonstrates that technologies are unable to improve learning alone • Required are: • Good teachers • Good classrooms • Enthusiastic children (created by the above) • Curriculum specific tasks to apply technology to • Without these factors technology alone will not improve learning

35. Bringing it all together….. • Using technology can improve learning in children • Current evaluations inadequate at saying how much • However, technology should not be viewed as the be-all and end-all of learning anyway • Technologies provide support in right context to influence direction and practice of learners • Technology is not a replacement for a teacher, but a tool they can use • Should be used to shape children’s engagement with tasks and add another dimension • ‘One tool alone cannot build a house’ • However, can make a vital, valid and unique contribution

36. References • Luckin, R., du Boulay, B. (1999). Ecolab: The Development and Evaluation of a Vygotskian Design Framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 10, pp 198-220. • Luckin, R. (2003). Between the Lines: Documenting the Multiple Dimensions of Computer-Supported Collaborations. Computers and Education. 41, pp 379 – 396. • Pea, R. D. (2004a). The social and technological dimensions of “scaffolding” and related theoretical concepts for learning, education and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451. • Puntambekar, S. & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: what have we gained what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1, 1-12. • Quintana, C., & Fishman, B. (2006, April). Supporting science learning and teaching with software-based scaffolding. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. • Reiser, B. J. (2002). Why Scaffolding Should Sometimes Make Tasks More Difficult for Learners. Proceedings of CSCL 2002.

37. References Cont. • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences: 13(3), 273-304. • Sandoval, W.A., & Reiser, B.J. (2004). Explanation-driven enquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372. • Sharma, D. & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Interactive Learning Environments. 15 (1), pp 27 – 46. • Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2005). Explaining behavior through observational investigation and theory articulation. Journal of the Learning Sciences: 14(3), 315-360. • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 17, pp 89-100. • http://Ideas.fcs.sussex.ac.uk

38. Questions?