|At the MTBoS booth|
Tonight MTBoS will be doing a webinar having participants share their experiences at the conference. Click here for details.
I hope to "see" you there!
More NCTM conference adventures in my next blog entry.
|At the MTBoS booth|
How do we create contexts for mathematizing? I think there's been a wealth of work in this area, from work based in Realistic Mathematics Education, work on word problems like that from Verschaffel, Greer, and de Corte, and, most recently, Dan Meyer's work. I could go on, as there are many more examples, and perhaps future work will give us a clearer picture about which contexts work best and why.
"The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), the dominant US professional organization for math teachers, has the use of technology in classrooms as a main pathway to improving learning. The NCTM's Principles to Actions says, on page 5: 'An excellent mathematics program integrates the use of mathematical tools and technology as essential resources to help students learn and make sense of mathematical ideas, reason mathematically, and communicate their mathematical thinking.'
So one way to find out what the vanguard of K-12 mathematics teachers are doing in their classrooms -- and are planning to do -- is to look at the list of presentations given at the huge annual NCTM meeting. How many of those presentations are about, or at least make reference to, technology?
Ihor Charischak, president of the NCTM-affiliated Council for Technology in Math Education, has done just that. He released his findings in a recent blogpost.
According to Charischak, at the NCTM Annual Meeting to be held in Boston, MA, next April, there will be 733 sessions. He combed through them and identified just 97 that highlight technology in some form. At 13.2 percent, not only is that low, it indicates a continuing drop in interest in educational technology. At last year's NCTM Meeting in New Orleans, 21 percent of the sessions were technology-oriented, a year earlier, in 2013 in Denver, 28 percent of the sessions had a technology theme, and the year before, in Philadelphia, there were 38 percent tech sessions, an all-time record.
Not only is there relatively little evidence of teacher interest in incorporating any kind of technology in the classroom, but the trend is clearly down. Moreover, what technology interest Charischak could identify was hardly in new technologies: It was predominantly the use of handheld calculators and Computer Algebra Systems (like Mathematica), which where highlighted in the title or abstract of just 15 sessions.
What these data show is that, to date, practically all that much-hyped edtech funding has had virtually no direct impact on what goes on in the K-12 math classroom. Overall, K-12 math teachers are not incorporating new technology in their teaching."Dr. Devlin finishes with this:
"Genuinely revolutionizing K-12 education within a decade requires a transformative, national, public-private initiative, perhaps reminiscent of, but much less expensive than, the NASA Apollo Project to put a man on the Moon.
How badly do we want 21st-century-relevant, first-class education for the nation's children?"
"An excellent mathematics program integrates the use of mathematical tools and technology as essential resources to help students learn and make sense of mathematical ideas, reason mathematically, and communicate their mathematical thinking."I also looked for sessions that promoted Math 2.0, which is my vision of how powerful math-based software combined with the use of collaborative Web 2.0 tools in a dynamic classroom can produce engaging learning experiences for both teachers and students.
|Math 2.0: It takes a village|
It seems that the pace of technological advancement, combined with the clear success stories of how technology has improved productivity in other sectors, is leading policymakers and educators alike to take another look at computers in the classroom, and even at computers instead of classrooms. In particular, advances in computational power, memory storage, and artificial intelligence are breathing new life into the promise that instruction can be tailored to the needs of each individual student, much like a one-on-one tutor. The term most often used by advocates for this approach is “Personalized Instruction.”
However, despite the advances in both hardware and software, recent studies show little evidence for the effectiveness of this form of Personalized Instruction. This is due in large part to the incredible diversity of systems that are lumped together under the label of Personalized Instruction. Combining such disparate systems into one group has made it nearly impossible to make reasonable claims one way or the other. To further cloud the issue, there are several ways that these systems can be implemented in the classroom. We are just beginning to experiment with and evaluate different implementation models—and the data show that implementation models matter. How a system is integrated into classroom routines and structures strongly mediates the outcomes for students. In light of recent findings, it may be that we need to turn to new ways of conceptualizing the role of technology in the classroom—conceptualizations that do not assume the computer will provide direct instruction to students, but instead will serve to create new opportunities for both learning and teaching.”*It will be fun to watch this opportunity manifest itself in the math arena in the coming months and years. I call my vision of this Math 2.0 and I'll be writing about it in future blogs.