Mathematics Education (Signadou)
Teaching with Learning Objects:
Conclusion
My vision for excellence in mathematics teaching and learning, then, must certainly involve the appropriate use of technology and, without doubt, will involve Learning Objects of many types. Our challenge as teachers, of course, remains to use our knowledge of our subject matter, our skills of pedagogy, our own wisdom of practice and, above all, our concern for and knowledge of our own students to create the most effective and appropriate learning experiences we can, using those tools most suitable for that task.
I have little doubt that Learning Objects will be less of a solution than carefully structured learning sequences. The very notion of "object" suggests use in isolation, as a filler or even a "quick fix". While Governments are proving happy to deliver large numbers of these extraordinary and powerful tools, the real challenge for teachers will lie perhaps in building an accompanying database of lesson plans and sequences which describe effective classroom trials and applications of these resources.
Another key consideration: If the primary purpose of mathematics in schools is to produce numerate citizens, then certain essential skills may be recognised: student mathematical thinking needs to be flexible, confident and transferable. What have these to do with Learning Objects?
So, as teachers, let us embrace the possibilities of these wonderful tools, but do so mindful of the demands of quality pedagogy, and the limitations of any computer-bound learning resource. For all their fizz and whistle, their colour and movement, their compelling contexts and extraordinary scenarios, Learning Objects need to be viewed in the context of a rich variety of learning experiences, and serve simply to add another element to an already rich pedagogical repertoire now available to us all.
REFERENCES
Atkins, S. (2003). Achieving educational soundness in the digital age. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation and education.au limited.
Chapuis, L. (2003). Learning objects. Canberra: ACT Department of Education and Training.
D.E.T., N. S. W. (2003a). Quality teaching in NSW public schools. Sydney: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.
D.E.T., N. S. W. (2003b). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: Discussion Paper, from http://www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/qualityteaching/docs/Starting_the_discussion.pdf
EQ. (2001). Productive Pedagogies, from http://www.education,qld.gov.au/tal/pedagogy.html
Interactive Multimedia Unit. (1993). Investigating Lake Iluka. Wollongong: Interactive Multimedia Pty Ltd.
Kaput, J. (2003, March). Integrating Navigator and SimCalc: The extraordinary becomes ordinary. Paper presented at the Teachers Teaching with Technology Annual Conference, Nashville.
Newmann, F. A. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
The Le@rning Federation. (2004a). Quality assurance framework for online content development. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation and education.au limited.
The Le@rning Federation. (2004b). Technical specification for content development. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation and education.au limited.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (Vol. 1: Problems of General Psychology). New York: Plenum Press.
Room 206 Phone 02 62091142
Stephen Mark
ARNOLD