Technology: A Mixed Bag for Science Education?
Published October 31, 2009 by Rick Biche
Technology seems to be supporting two diverging paths in education. I am not sure these paths are anything new really. One represents a humanistic approach to learning while the other is focused on embedding itself within the achievement/testing model of education. Of course we know which one has been on top for the past decade or more.
I came across a reference to Adaptive Curriculum at Ed Tech for Science. I wasn’t surprised to hear the usual “asleep for 50 years” story that has become so cliche in the push for more technology in schools. New York city Ed Chancellor Klien is quoted as saying “It is time to use technology differently.” And there-in lie our two diverging paths.
I spent some time looking over the Adaptive Curriculum site. For the district level coordinator, what’s not to love? A highly standardized, gated environment with clear assessments of the product’s ability to meet its own goals (this is sometimes referred to as achievement, that is another conversation). Even better, students can just complete labs online. There is no need to get out lab gear. Besides, labs rarely produce the correct result with all the experimental noise that happens.
Before I go too far down this path I should reveal that I use modeling software with my students. I have found the software to be very effective at meeting the learning goals that I have set for students. But I only use it when a real lab cannot be done within reason. For example looking at heat, energy and molecular motion. If we need to understand temperature changes and state changes, we boil the real thing. The same goes for pressure changes. Make no mistake, kids get wet those days, lab gear gets broken and not everyone gets the same result. But we also go to the whiteboard, in dynamic groups, and write, hypothesize, erase, draw, explain, test, fail, try again…
From the Adaptive Curriculum website
Adaptive Curriculum for Middle School Science is the ideal solution to student engagement and making science come to life in a virtual environment.
If you want to bring science to life, do science. Get messy, fail, question, grow more questions.
More from the website
- Real-World Experiments
Aimed at improving student inquiry skills, these science Activity Objects create virtual experiments in a safe environment. Benefits of virtual experiments include::
- Comprehension. Students can perform the experiment over and over.
- Safety. Students are not exposed to dangerous situations and liability is reduced.
- Cost Reduction. Virtual experiments do not require equipment or supplies and can be repeated as many times as necessary.
- Resolution of ethical dilemmas. Virtual experiments eliminate objections to specimen dissection.
And there it is, hiding in the context of better comprehension (you know, if this didn’t work for you do it again and again until it does), this selling point has nothing to do with kids and learning and everything to do with ease of implementation, not having to think and of course, saving money.
I understand that there are things that cannot be taught through middle school labs. I also understand how decisions regarding curriculum packages can shift values.
Are there good things in packages such as Adaptive Curriculum? Sure, but these things worry me. If a school or district choose to use this type of program, what steps would be put in place to ensure that real science still happened? What discussions would be required to promote real solutions across all classrooms? And most importantly, how will the district support students asking questions the software cannot answer?
Filed under Educational Technology
I share your concerns, and agree that technology in science teaching is a mixed-bag. We’ve all been enamored with technology, and its promise in science teaching, starting way back in the 80s with Apples and PCs, and then in the 90s with the rise of the Internet. I have to admit, that I too have used technology (especially project-based/internet-based) in my classes, and much of my own work is done using technology.
But there is this notion that programs like the Adaptive Curriculum are a way to ensure that all students learn science. I too took a look at the website, as you did, and find it to be simply another way to “cover” the ground, rather than “uncovering the ground” as you believe by involving your students in real science inquiry. I think your approach is more powerful, and fits with these words that were written by Bob Samples, many years ago:
Science is fun. It always has been. In the presence of the joy of creating and discovering, there is always the sense of the antic. Jerome Bruner said it best when he described the act of creativity. He said, “There is something antic about creating, although the enterprise be serious.”
Technology should be used in the science classroom, but simply shifting to an “adaptive type-of curriculum” lessens the chances for learning that involves the messy, creative side of science.
I have always found labs challenging for some of the reasons mentioned above; they can be time consuming, they don’t always give the expected results, students can end up quite confused and/or frustrated, they take a lot of time to set up.
Having said that; labs are one of the parts of teaching science that I really love! This is where students actually get to do science! What is going to stick with a student longer? A virtual lab on circuits or a real lab where they set up their own? A virtual dissection or a real one? Which is more magical; a virtual acid base lab or a real one?
I usually remind my students before a lab, hey, this can be a little challenging–so expect that and persevere because it is going to be really fascinating and exciting when things work. When they know that it is hard to locate the collar cells on a sponge cell under the microscope they feel a real sense of accomplishment when they do finally do find them.
And what about those kids who cruise along in the rest of science class doing so-so, but who come alive with the labs? The kids with real practical knowledge, who love hands on, who really ‘get’ the labs. Hard to imagine them getting fired up about a simulation.
Virtual labs have a place, a rather limited place, but they definitely should NOT supplant real labs.
Thanks for your thought provoking post!
Hi Rick, thanks for taking a look at my blog about science and technology in education (http://www.ed-tech-4-science.com). I do agree with Claire, that virtual experiences should not replace experiences with the real physical world.
To be sure, I also agree with the importance of having full inquiry experiences. The role of guided inquiry, however, is very important for learning both science content and process skills. The only time I could do full inquiry on a regular basis was when I taught a science research class in the Bronx.
I think the best virtual experiences are those that don’t replicate classroom labs but take students to places they couldn’t ordinarily go and do things they ordinarily couldn’t do. For example, Adaptive Curriculum’s “Mutualism” Activity Object allows students to do a virtual experiment with a crocodile and plover bird and “Nuclear Energy: Fission” has students go into a nuclear submarine to manipulate control rods of a reactor.
Adaptive Curriculum doesn’t look to take over the curriculum, it is a compliment–with one experience per week that can be done in school, at home, or at a public library. It it was being pushed as an everyday approach, I would also feel the threat to realia.
I don’t believe we should condemn virtual experiences; they can add value to science education. But I do think it is a good question that you raise: how do we best use virtual experiences to promote inquiry?