EDU 807 - Week 1 Video - Blended Learning Energizes High School Math Students - Summer 2018 - Group 3
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Please create an initial, substantive response to each of the three viewing tasks below. (3 total)
Then, offer a thoughtful response to at least three different classmates. (3 total)
One of my favorite pair of questions that you will encounter over and over again this semester are this:
What does this use of technology assume about students and learning? What does this use of technology assume about teachers and teaching?
At this point in the video, how would you reply to those two questions? What does this particular use of Khan Academy assume about students and the ways that they learn? What does it assume about teachers and the way that they teach?
What does this use of technology assume about students and learning?
I think what this technology assumes, and what the teachers are seeing is that self-paced, self regulated learning is more effective than the lecture learner modality. Specifically with math, individual progress and understanding at each step is critical. What has lagged behind is the ability of software to accomplish this effectively. The assumption is that this self-regulated learning environment will provide personalization and increase outcomes.
What does this use of technology assume about teachers and teaching?
This is a great example of the ‘guide on the side’. The teacher is a coach to help individuals through tough spots, but not a fountain of information. The information content is online. The teacher’s role is more personalized to each student. The assumption is that active learning is superior to lecture modalities.
The primary assumption made is that both students and the instructor are at a skill level where they can quickly develop proficiency in using the technology. For example, if students are unable to properly navigate the technology’s interface it can have potentially negative repercussions on students’ motivation and ultimately learning outcomes. Similarly, if an instructor is overwhelmed or overtaxed in using the technology, it can serve as a distraction from interfacing and engaging with students.
Additionally, this process assumes students will make a personal investment in their own motivation and be poised to thrive in self-paced learning environment. Given the example in this video, I was skeptical of this approach in a population of low achievers. The video mentioned that the course primarily consisted of students who failed the course the year prior. While self-paced learning allows students who have seen the material before to concentrate on areas of opportunity, I believe this population could benefit from additional structure.
Finally, this approach assumes the instructor has a strong skill set in working with individual student in a one-on-one setting. In this example the primary delivery of the courses’ content occurs through the students’ interaction with the technology. The instructor is acting more a facilitator and realigning derailed students with the process. I could foresee this being extremely challenging if a professor has an abundance of struggling students or in the event that a significant gap occurs between students’ progress in the course.
Ryan,
You make some great points that I honestly hadn’t considered. I think I take teacher comfort for granted because I’m lucky enough to have tech skills come more naturally, but you bring up the great point of that potentially being a deterrent for both teachers and students. I also appreciated your comment about being skeptical around whether or not this was a good structure for students who were low, but I have to say in my experience it actually helps them boost their confidence even more if they’re given more space to do the work at their own pace. Many of our struggling students fall behind with more structure because they are unable to keep up, which causes them to shut down. In addition, if they’re pulled in groups, they start to perseverate on being “low”, which also causes them to shut down. Since Khan not only gives them “hints”, allows them to retry and they get positive feedback from the teacher I really see it as an excellent option. Khan is also great with having translations when needed, which can also be a skill the teacher is not able to provide during regular classroom instruction. (***Now, if classroom culture isn’t there it could crash and burn very quickly). Thanks for your insights!
Ryan and Allison – I just wanted to make a meta-comment here about the fact that I appreciate Ryan’s initial post for its depth and complexity, and appreciate that you, Allison, were willing to “listen” attentively to what Ryan had to say and reconsider some of your own ideas. I may share this as an example in class when we meet tonight if that’s OK!
What does this use of technology assume about students and learning? What does this particular use of Khan Academy assume about students and the ways that they learn?
Using Khan allows students to explore their own learning in a more independent way, and also assists them in working through problems without always resorting to the teacher to answer questions. They can also take their time and repeat the video/check the hints as often as they need to instead of the pressure of keeping up with the class. Using Khan offers a variety of learning styles, learning resources and levels for the same topic/skill.
What does this use of technology assume about teachers and teaching? What does it assume about teachers and the way that they teach?
Using Khan allows the teacher to focus on students with high need, and also shifts the learning even more into the students hands instead of a drill and kill lecture. The teacher is also able to track individual progress more efficiently via Khan and target interventions and misconceptions more easily that if he didn’t have the program/had to do everything “whole group”. It also streamlines teaching, and allows the teacher to really focus on the core knowledge instead of trying to look for resources/plan using many different sources.
Again, at this point in the video, how would you reply to those two questions?
What does this particular use of Khan Academy assume about students and the ways that they learn?
What does it assume about teachers and the way that they teach?
What does this particular use of Khan Academy assume about students and the ways that they learn?
This section is talking more about student engagement. I would say first it assumes that success is less a function of aptitude and more based on engagement. Any student can achieve if they are given the correct tools and attention. This section also assumes learners had previously been neglected in the lecture model. In this way they were able to slip through the cracks. This use of Khan prevents that by providing the teacher and student with constant feedback. This was never possible in that lecture model.
What does it assume about teachers and the way that they teach?
I think this portion acknowledges the fact that the teacher cannot be omnipresent and provide individual feedback at all times to all learners.
I think it also assumes that teachers will be open to the active learning and blended styles of teaching. We don’t see this as much at my institution because teachers are resistant to all modalities other than lecture. While I think this blended approach is great, it can be an uphill battle with many faculty.
Hi Adam,
I think your observation on the advantage of instantaneous feedback is spot on. A wide array of literature I have seen on the best practices of providing student feedback demonstrates the importance for feedback to be timely, applicable, and easy to understand. Khan is able to achieve this by designing the feedback process to be instantaneous for the student and directly incorporated into the learning module. This along with the gamified elements of acknowledging student achievement and displaying progress hold the potential for creating additional engagement and motivation, as compare to traditional learning models.
Adam,
I really like your reference stating that Khan is able to catch students that would usually slip through the cracks because of the constant and consistent feedback. I wonder what the teacher in the class was able to do/did in order to help the students begin to use that, or if it just came naturally? (Aka: What front-loading was done to prepare the students for this program, if any?) You also bring up a good point of teachers being open to this process, which I see as the biggest struggle of all. It is hard for teachers to let go of the reins, however for many it is hard to change when they’ve been doing it a certain way for so many year. Great insight!
In both cases Kahn operates on the assumption that learning and instructing is most effective through an individualized approach.
The assumption is made that students will respond positively to the motivational affordance of the technology. The instructor in the video mentioned that students are inherently more engaged to any material presented on the computer. He also mentioned that students were motivated by the gamified elements of displayed achievement and the external motivation created by knowing the professor is tracking outcomes.
For instructors, the assumption is made that instructors can properly navigate the technology, but also understands the metrics and makes the appropriate connections to facilitate the learning process. While I have no personal experience with Khan’s interface or its ease of use, I do know a handful of professionals in educational settings that struggle to fully grasp statistical data and their visual representation. While this is probably not a high probability in math instructors, this could be a limitation across other disciplines.
Ryan, you have great points here. The speaker mentions that the students are more engaged. This might be anecdotally observed, but is it really true? I think that is a big generalization to make. We should be careful attributing engagement to a platform just because we like it. We should look at the data. So the engagement assumption might be a stretch for the interviewees to claim.
The bigger point that you raise, and that we will consider even more, is what data points are being collected and measured as “successful?” Are we actually looking at time on task, the number of correct responses in a quiz, or are we trying to assess whether or not students truly understand mathematical concepts that they had been presented? Measuring those three things take entirely different types of tools (and time frames).
Courses in the social sciences, such as history, require full explanations of historical events from teachers, in my opinion. Thus, arguably, computers do have its limitations in classroom environments.
What does this particular use of Khan Academy assume about students and the ways that they learn?
At this point in the video, this answer turns in to engagement and motivation. The students talk about the fact that they are able to work through the problems at their own pace, that they are able to see how they’re doing immediately, and also go back and make corrections as well. The engagement could arguably come partly from the fact that Khan is on the computer, but since students are also performing better, that is also a motivator as well! When students are able to learn at their own pace, make corrections and do it all online, the success rate skyrockets. In addition, when they still feel stuck, they’re able to reach out and get in depth guidance from their teacher. I enjoyed the quote that said “students want to do well”. I think Khan Academy functions on that level, and as such, students feel more confidence and willingness to try. (***Whereas sometimes with a teacher we are convinced they don’t care).
What does it assume about teachers and the way that they teach?
I think here it is important to remember that in order to use these types of programs well, the teacher also needs to have some type of confidence and knowledge of the program as well. Without being able to navigate the “Coach”, they might not be able to reflect on individual students as easily, or identify overall classroom trends that may require a whole group reteach. Having used Khan before, I can attest that it is very intuitive, but I also have more experience with online platforms that many of my colleagues that can struggle sometimes. Training and support would be needed to implement this correctly, otherwise it would just turn in to a babysitter and be no more effective than paper/pencil.
Thanks, Allison, for pointing out these elements. I’m especially interested in thinking about teachers feelings of confidence/competence, and this is a topic that will, a few more times throughout EDU 807.
As we consider the ways in which teachers are evaluated that often by student performance on standardized tests and very sporadic observations – we have to take into account the fact that confidence and competence are things that most teachers cannot take risks on. When we introduce technology into the mix, we have to be very cautious and thoughtful about what, specifically, we are doing with and for teachers.
Reflect on the video and make a connection to one of the “visions” that Cuban offers. What does this vision of educational technology (using Khan Academy) represent? Make a brief argument about which vision this use of technology represents.
Technophile: “The technophile’s vision of such schools is anchored in making teaching and learning far more productive and meaningful than both are now.”
OR
Preservationist: “The vision buried within the preservationist’s story is one of schools’ continuing to do for society what they have historically done: pass on prevailing values and accumulated knowledge to the next generation, improve ways of teaching and learning the prescribed curriculum, sort out those children who achieve academically from those who do not, and give taxpayers as efficient a schooling as can be bought with available funds.”
OR
Cautious Optimist: “… cautious optimists acknowledge the power of organizational structures and cultural beliefs to shape routine school and classroom practices but see these beliefs and structures changing slowly. They believe that putting computers into classrooms will yield a steady but very slow movement toward fundamental changes in teaching and schooling.”
I think you could frame this technology use through the lens of any of the three.
Preservationist: It is a cost effective way to has on the knowledge of math to all generations (not just kids by the way). It allows for improved teaching and learning.
Optimist: This change from passive to active learning has happened slowly and will continue to improve teaching and learning overall.
However, I’ll argue for the technophile. I think the Khan platform, and others like Duolingo for example, represent a much more profound change in the ways that people learn. These also change the things that people have access to. This democratization of knowledge has the potential to bring some of the best content and teachers to every student globally. This, in addition to the local teacher has the power to change education in ways that other computer-school integrations could not prior to this.
Imagine the cost of a platform like Khan (on CD rom) in the ninties. Vendors would price most schools out. Instead the platform is free and available to everyone. For this reason I think we are closer to the vision of the technophile described by Cuban as unlikely as it may have seemed at the time.
Thanks, Adam, for your thoughtful responses on the entire video. I can agree with you here — what we are able to do with tech now is far outside of Cuban’s (or anyone’s) imagination in 1993. For more of his recent views, check out his blog: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/
Also, as you note, there are some advantages to this use of technology, no doubt. This is one vision of technology use that many educators have embraced, though I do wonder what else might be lost… are there certain things being lost, like a deeper conceptual understanding of a subject, or a students’ ability to draw connections from one set of ideas to the next.
I am not sure that technology can do that alone, though it can aid a teacher like McIntosh in his quest to do so.
Thanks for sending the blog link. I think it will be great to see what Cuban thinks now!
As far as what might be lost in the environment shown in this video, I think that the communal conversation in the classroom might potentially suffer. While learning with Khan is really personalized, there is an advantage to a group experiencing learning together. We see this as adults at conferences or in webinars.
With every student so independent we might lose some of that shared experience. I do think a blend of lecture and active learning is best. Lecture is an appropriate modality, it just shouldn’t be used exclusively.
You raise another important point here, Adam, about the atmosphere in the classroom. The extent to which this technology introduces great motivational tools for personalized learning is, in effect, in competition with the type of classroom community and norms that this teacher is creating.
In other words, one of my fears is that this type of “personalized” learning is really just a different type of babysitting, keeping students in a very complacent, yet measurable, pattern while teachers are not given the time, space, or ability to be creative with their lesson planning and strategies.
Thank you Adam for referring to all of the lenses. I completely agree! I was especially intrigued thinking how Khan could be used within the technophile profile, and being a user of Duolingo myself, I appreciated the connection. I would be so curious to see if any schools have worked with Khan in this way, even within one subject area, allowing students strengths and weaknesses to drive their learning and grouping. I also liked your reference/appreciation of Khan being FREE. It is amazing how much schools are asked to pay on a yearly basis for educational platforms when some of the best are out there with no charge.
Khan’s approach correlates well to Cuban’s vision of Preservationist. In this case a technology is being implemented into a learning environment as a tool, but the traditional models of instructor-student interaction and student-content interaction is present. Students are able to self-navigate through the easily understood concepts, but received more traditional instruction when deeper learning and problem solving is required. This fits the Preservationist’s model of selecting technologies for their affordances of efficiency, but not discarding the time-tested models of student learning. Furthermore the use of this technology aligns with the Preservationist’s motivation for sorting students based on levels of achievement. Khan’s analytics provide a clear delineation of students’ competencies and progress. This allows instructors to take a more prescriptive and efficient approach in addressing students’ learning needs.
Ryan, I can agree with the perspective here. One thought that came to mind watching this was that this is still somewhat similar to having students work on problems independently out of a book. Feedback can be obtained by looking at the answers in the back of the book. While Khan is much easier and technologically advanced, I think there are a lot traditional elements still happening here.
As we talked about in the other thread, technology needs to be coupled with culture and pedagogical change. TPACK is a great way to envision teachers developing these skills. I think in this video we see this culture shift beginning, but based on traditional structures, as you mentioned.
I can actually see this video being argued for any of the three visions, but particularly the Optimist and the Preservationist.
Preservationist: Some argue that Khan is simply a way to complete the classroom whole group in an online setting. They’re doing the same learning, same types of problems, but in an online setting. Some have even argued that it makes the job of the teacher easier because it does their job for them. (I don’t agree, but in the wrong classroom I could see that happening).
Optimist: This is where I really see our video hitting the mark. The teacher is aware of Khan’s ability to make learning more personalized for each student, and the teacher is also able to provide interventions for individual students almost immediately. Students are also able to work through the platform /their learning independently, with the teacher only stepping in to coach. While there are still areas for improvement, this is much better that the pre-perscribed apps that are also out there that don’t ask students to show their work and provide A/B/C/D answers and don’t let students go back and check. The student’s learning is obviously becoming much more active, and the scores are proving it.
Technophile: Using a program like Khan, the classroom could be transformed into pods of knowledge and learning. Khan can do diagnostics, show areas of strengths and growth, and in turn the teacher could create a more fluid classrooms environment. Now, I don’t think that’s where this was going but it COULD given the right training/preparation.
Thanks, Allison, for offering your take on the different perspectives. I’m glad that you see some optimism in this model, and that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Along the lines of the preservationist, however, I would also question whether or not students are actually engaged in higher level thinking about mathematics and if their experience is truly helping them understand the ideas at a conceptual level. That is my one fear about this kind of “personalized” learning.
Educator Peter McIntosh helps his students to take ownership of their learning by using interactive subject-mastery tools like Khan Academy. For more articles and videos about integrating technology in the classroom, visit our Tech2Learn resource page.
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments