On-line learning science

Recently I read an article on Edutopia about the balance of screen-time.

It was encouraging to read this, compared to a common line I hear; "Students can't spend all their day looking at a computer". However the same people making the comment may very well expect students to spend all their day looking at pieces of paper. Clearly the enriched environment of the computer screen has a lot more going for it educationally than a static piece of paper that does not allow for any interactivity, any animation, little experimentation and no collaboration. That is, in itself the paper as a medium for education is a dead loss. However accusing paper of its inadequacies as a medium for communicating with students avoids the real questions - that of pedagogy.

The Pedagogy of Screen time

So what about the comments that "students can't spend all their day looking at a computer". In effect I would agree, so long as the alternative is not spending all day looking at pieces of paper. Instead as the article points out:
The 3 key questions are:

1. Is it appropriate?
2. Is it meaningful?
3. Is it empowering?

These 3 questions sound very similar to the dimensions in the Quality Teaching Framework.

• Intellectual quality (i.e. appropriate and empowering)
• Quality learning environment (i.e. appropriate, empowering and meaningful)
• Significance (i.e. meaningful)

Intellectual Quality

A paper-based means of communicating with students will suffer problems with intellectual quality compared with an Internet-based medium. This is because the computer and the Internet in particular allows for more enriched and interactive experiences which will inevitably challenge the student much more than the limit of paper (without giving the students the equivalent of an encyclopaedia). More significantly is that the interactive world of the computer (and the Internet) allows for experiences where the students are engaged in higher order thinking and to communicate substantively with the rest of the world. So an on-line learning environment is more likely to be appropriate and empowering.

Quality learning environment

Closely linked with my point about intellectual quality is the fact that the environment created by communicating using on-line learning allows for the development of more substantive relationships between students and teachers, and among students. Whereas paper-based material will lend itself to a 'feeding knowledge to the student' approach to education. So, an on-line learning environment is more likely to be appropriate, meaningful and empowering.

Significance

Paper-based communication can suffer from the same problem as a screen - it can lack relevance to the real world, and lack real world experiences. The interactive nature of a computer-based communication strategy allows for immediate adaptation to students prior knowledge and identities. Similarly, the student can easily be linked to relevant real-world experiences. On the other hand, students can easily get the impression that what is written on the paper does not have significance to the real world and their life. So, the on-line learning environment is more likely to be meaningful.

Interacting with God's world using the screen

To me, it is obvious that communicating with students using pieces of paper lacks many opportunities for interactivity. However, if the students explore the real world, as demonstrated on a screen, then they will more readily interact with the real world in meaningful and empowering ways.
I liked the quote in Beth Holland's edutopia article:

"Instead, the tablets were intended to be used as video cameras, audio recorders, and multimedia notebooks of individual students' creations."

Students need to get used to the idea of creating using the technology rather than passively watching it, just like last century when they needed to use what they found from the paper, to interact with the world. This is the fundamental issue of education that is missed by those who want us to go back to the paper-based pedagogies. As Ken Holt has said:

"Learning is not the product of teaching. Learning is the product of the activity of learners."

Teaching Science - using screens

For science based subjects, as I am involved in, this means I will try to include student activities like:

• Creating a record of investigations on their screens. For example write a report of their investigation, or present a PowerPoint of their investigation, or a movie of their investigation. This also lends itself to Project Based learning models where the student may be asked to present a solution to the real-world problem.
• Performing investigations using cameras, microphones or whatever connected to their device. Most of the devices we are talking about have cameras attached. Surely this is a much quicker way to communicate the results of an experiment - take a photo and include it in your report. This is also much closer to what is expected in solving problems in the real world. A picture is worth a thousand words; a movie even more. Similarly, I have asked students to perform sound wave experiments using their microphone (e.g. measuring the speed of sound, and use the computer or mobile device as a CRO to analyse a sound wave). These days, mobile devices also come with an accelerometer (though I have not yet been successful with using these in an investigation). 
• Using the power of analysis tools on their devices to interpret and analyse their results. 
  
  The syllabus asks student to draw graphs in stages 2 and 3. By the time they get to Stages 4, 5 and 6, they should be analysing those graphs. So why waste time getting them to draw a graph on graph paper. Students should be using a spreadsheet to present their graphs, and use the spreadsheet tools to analyse their graphs.
• Using the power of their device to present clear and convincing arguments of what they have investigated. A screen based presentation allows much more scope for students to creatively present their arguments than a paper-based presentation.
• Using the screen to share their presentation or findings with other students. In distance education, if a student presents their work, the teacher is the only person who sees it outside the student's home. I am not sure why this does not discourage the students more than is reported. However a web-based means of sharing what they investigated allows their peers to see what they find. Hopefully to also give the student appropriate positive feedback.
• Using their screens to collaborate with other students who are at a distance from them. This is particularly relevant when considering distance education. It is a lot harder to discuss and collaborate over large distances when learning from a piece of paper. I have seen in real life what Beth Holland's article refers to of students who will not share in class, but they share quite freely on-line - in fact is it possible to stop them? I have had reasonable success with getting a classroom of students (i.e. face-to-face) to collaborate with those completing work on-line. Such is very difficult when using paper-based approaches.

I also use simulations (or games) for the purpose of creating a controlled investigation so the student knows how to investigate the real world.

Conclusion

OK. So I have raved on too much. Hopefully you get the idea. I feel it is therefore naive to be asking how much students should be doing on-line compared to pieces of paper. The real question for science education is how much are the students interacting with God's world in a scientific way. Using a computer lends itself to richer answers to such a question, as the student observes, analyses and interacts in much more relevant ways using an on-line learning environment than by using paper-based means of communication.
(Next I hope to relate this model of on-line Science Education to the 5 E s of Science education in the new National Curriculum).