When I began reading this article, I have
to admit I had little understanding of what was being discussed in the article
– I was grateful for the definition of “microworlds”, provided by the author,
as “self-contained worlds where students can ‘learn to transfer habits of
exploration from their personal lives to the formal domain of scientific
construction’ “ (Healy & Kynigos, citing Papert, 1980). The evolution of
microworlds in the scientific age continued in a new way when computational
environments were introduced into mathematics education. The interaction with
these environments would allow students to receive immediate feedback on
programs. These microworlds would be interpreted through “body syntonicity” and
“ego syntonicity”, according to Papert (1980). The former of these would relate
knowledge to the physical, while the latter would relate knowledge o the
mental/personal, basing this on the idea that students develop schemes of
understanding based on personal interactions. Another approach for interacting
with microworlds is an instrumental approach instrumental approach with respect
to a microworld, which allows for both the student and the instrument being
used to develop. Microworlds, for example, may be computer apps with which
students interact; this was explored by using digital media as a method for
displaying rationality vs irrationality of integers.
I find one line in this article
interesting, in particular: the authors explain their reasoning in introducing
microworlds where, “it is not that the microworld substitutes the teacher” (pg.
65). Why not? Is the author saying that the construction of a microworld is
there to facilitate the zone of proximal development and to facilitate the
microworld? Is this because the authors are afraid of backlash, or because the
authors believe that a teacher is truly important in a classroom?
Another thing that is interesting is the
concern around the preference or ability to use the different syntonicities.
For example, the use of a visual instrument to investigate a virtual microworld
would be limiting to students who are visually impaired.
Overall, I found this article really
difficult to follow before the example was provided; understanding what a
microworld looks like before going into theory would’ve helped, but the image
provided a lot more context. Some of the themes brought up here remind me of a
conversation I had at the beginning of the year at a “meet the faculty” event. I
spoke with one professor in the digital technology faculty in EDCP (I don’t
remember the exact name of the faculty); we discussed something called
“technology death”, or the rejection of technology out of fear of something
unknown. What I recognized in that discussion is that the fear of a new,
unknown technology (and the implications of using it immediately and readily
without much consideration for the consequences) could have been eased much
more gently had more articles like this been discussed. Meanwhile, many
teachers do not use technology in their classrooms anyway, whether due to a
learning curve or a hesitation to use an unknown medium.
Before I had asked you what article you wanted to read, I started reading some of this article. I had only read the first page or two, and I agree with you that it was hard to follow. So (for selfish reasons) I was glad that you said you wanted to read this article. I am glad though that it became more manageable once the image was shown.
ReplyDeleteTwo weeks ago in EDCP 562 I was discussing the use of technology in the classroom with three of my peers. One of my peers had asked us to read an article in favor of technology in the classroom. In reading the article, there was a part that said that teachers will often say that technology is great, but it doesn't work for their particular subject. In the discussion with my peers, I noted that I would probably be classified as one of those teachers who doesn't use technology very much because it doesn't "work" for my subject. I do think that technology is very valuable in teaching mathematics because it allows students to visualize, learn, and conceptualize things they may not have without the use of technology. However, I think there is great value in knowing how to solve a problem with the limited resources that may be around you rather than having to refer to a technology to do it for you. So if I were to summarize my view point on technology being used for instructional purposes, I think it needs to be split down the middle with traditional forms of instruction to get the best results.
Keri, I was stopped by your comment that technology does not 'work' for a particular subject. I very much agree with you, that there is huge value in learning how to solve a problem with only your mind, but I tend rebel against the idea that math is so different than other subjects. I think we suffer a bit, at least at the university level, from too many instructors who believe this, making math more exclusive than it needs to be. There could be new strategies and technologies out there which could drastically help students to understand, which are simply dismissed out of the belief that math is different. Sorry, it's a personal pet peeve of mine and a conversation I've had on more than one occasion with other mathematicians.
ReplyDeleteAlex, you bring up an interesting point about microworlds not replacing teachers, or do they? Based purely on personal experience, I think there is absolutely no replacement for the teacher. I have gone to school with a *lot* of different people, I think I have run into one who had the drive and focus and attention to probably teach himself anything. It's true, there are vast resources out there; anyone could learn anything without a teacher, but to tie in with our main blog, the huge majority of us don't have the attention, the stamina and the will to do it alone.