high-tech versus low-tech teaching in the urban classroom
DESCRIPTION
Students within the urban classroom are front-seat recipients to multimedia and technology on adaily basis as they receive it from both television and internet.As powerful a tool as MultimediaTechnology is, it has not been widely used within the context of the urban classroom.Traditional means of teaching, though at times effective, are limited in helping to engage thismedia-savvy generation of students.Low-tech and high-tech instructional strategies wereimplemented in two biology classes to explore their effects on the understanding of abstractconcepts. Daily teacher reflections were used to compare student engagement during aninstructional unit.Pre and post-instructional quizzes were analyzed with Microsoft Excel tocompare the effect of low-tech versus high-tech instructional strategies.Though studentengagement in the high-tech group was significantly higher than that of the low-tech group, bothgroups displayed equal understanding of content.These results support the implementation ofhigh-tech strategies to increase student engagement; however other factors may have more of asignificant impact on understanding.TRANSCRIPT
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 1 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
Abstract High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
Narciso Aguda, M. Ed. 2139 Purdue Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90025. University of California Los Angeles Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, Los Angeles, CA Faculty Advisor: Irene Swanson Field Supervisor: Lily Ning
Students within the urban classroom are front-seat recipients to multimedia and technology on a daily basis as they receive it from both television and internet. As powerful a tool as Multimedia Technology is, it has not been widely used within the context of the urban classroom. Traditional means of teaching, though at times effective, are limited in helping to engage this media-savvy generation of students. Low-tech and high-tech instructional strategies were implemented in two biology classes to explore their effects on the understanding of abstract concepts. Daily teacher reflections were used to compare student engagement during an instructional unit. Pre and post-instructional quizzes were analyzed with Microsoft Excel to compare the effect of low-tech versus high-tech instructional strategies. Though student engagement in the high-tech group was significantly higher than that of the low-tech group, both groups displayed equal understanding of content. These results support the implementation of high-tech strategies to increase student engagement; however other factors may have more of a significant impact on understanding.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 2 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
Contents 1.0|Rationale and Posing of Question 1.1 Background 1.2 Context of Research 1.3 Personal Educational Philosophy 1.4 High-tech vs. Low-Tech Approaches 1.5 The Posing of the Question
2.0|Theoretical Underpinnings and Secondary Sources 2.1 Constructivism 2.2 The Nature of Analogy 2.3 Krashen’s Affective Filters 2.4 Bloom’s Taxonomy 2.5 Multiple Intelligences
2.6 Student Learning from Simulation 2.7 Good Teaching 2.8 Deficit Thinking
3.0|The Inquiry Process 3.1 Overview 3.2 Sketch of Group A 3.3 Sketch of Group B 3.4 Implementation 3.5 Implementation Matrix
4.0|Data and Observations 4.1 Pre-course Survey 4.2 Pre-instruction Quiz 4.3 Delivery 4.4 Inquiry Activity 4.5 Assessment 4.6 Follow-up Focus Groups
5.0|Interpretations and Implications 5.1 Implications to sub-question #1 5.2 Implications to sub-question #2
6.0|Conclusions
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 3 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
6.1 Students are media-savvy and are therefore more engaged in this relevant form of presentation of an abstract concept.
6.2 “Engagement” is a relative term. 6.3 Engagement within the “Pedagogy of
Poverty” 6.4 Technology presents content in a relevant
manner 6.5 Multimedia technology helps students
make better connections between structure and concept
6.6 Assessment and follow-up 6.7 Implications to the teaching practice
7.0|References
8.0|Appendices
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 4 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
1.0|Rationale and Posing of Question
1.1 BACKGROUND:
For many of us, making mental abstractions is a daunting task. In science, students are required
to make transfers between analogies to real science. PowerPoint and Multimedia, though not
new forms of technology and media, are powerful tools for teaching. They are presently in
abundance on the university campus, private schools, and many schools in affluent areas, but not
so much in the urban environment.
I am an expert in PowerPoint and other graphic programs. I spend a great amount of time
developing PowerPoints that not only present information, but that also provide animations to
assist students build a better “story” and concept in which to couch new information.
1.2 CONTEXT OF RESEARCH
I teach at an urban high school in downtown Los Angeles. The high school has an ethnic
breakdown of 98% Hispanic and 2% African-American students. Organizationally, this school
follows a “4x4 modified Copernican Schedule,” which was devised as an alternative to the
traditional calendar (Braumbaugh, 2001). In theory, the Copernican schedule should allow
students to accelerate their matriculation through the high school system, receiving more credits
per calendar year. This would allow the students to complete high school in three rather than
four years as in traditional schools. This model requires students and teachers to progress
through the material of two traditional semesters (40 weeks) in the span of one semester (20
weeks), cutting instruction time in half. As a result, our school is modified into a 4x4, Concept 6
(3-track), year-round schedule. The challenge for all teachers at this high school is how to adapt
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 5 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
the content normally covered throughout the span of one 20-week semester into the 8-week
“mester.” The challenge is immense and many teachers are sacrificing rigor and depth of content
for brevity.
The social dynamic of this brand new high school, which opened on July 5, 2005, was chaotic, as
it struggled to find its identity. A majority of the students enrolled were a direct result of the
capping of other schools in numerous areas within a 10 mile radius. As a result, over 100 gangs
from different parts of the city are represented on the school campus on any given day. Racial
and social tensions have mainstreamed, which manifest in the school culture and identity. Lock
downs, random student searches, and a heavy police presence are almost daily routines on this
campus. Despite all of these, the school contains numerous sub-cultures that provide for a
welcoming breath of diversity. Though the school’s population consists primarily of Hispanic
students, sub-cultures exist and flourish as students become more involved with extracurricular
activities. Cinco de Mayo and Martin Luther King, Jr. day are both recognized and celebrated.
From the “rockers” to the enduring sounds of Raggaeton and hip-hop, additional sub-cultures
emerge that add flavor to administrative monotony. This school is an island among an even
more diverse subsection of the city. It is located in the center of a commercial district known as
the Fashion District or more commonly, “Santee Alley.” Shops and businesses owned by other
ethnicities including Korean, Filipino, Mexican, Italian, El Salvadorian, etc. line the streets
adjacent to the school. The average annual household income within the 90011 zip code is
slightly under $24,000, merely a 0.01% increase since the previous year (Census Data, 2000).
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 6 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
The high school also follows the Small Learning Communities (SLC) model. In theory, this
model would further facilitate matriculation by effectively breaking up the school into four
smaller schools: Arts and Entertainment (A&E), Public Service and Social Justice, Travel
Tourism and Culinary Arts (TTC), and Business, Technology and Finance (BTF). During the
time of implementation, I was teaching within the Arts and Entertainment SLC. All students in a
particular SLC have the same teachers and classmates throughout their high school careers. The
theoretical implications for such a model include: smaller class sizes, the building of better
relationships between students and teacher, and the lessening of the administrative load on a
single principal or assistant principals (US Department of Education, 2006). However, since the
school’s inception, the SLC model has been simply an evanescent ideal as the administration still
struggles with overcrowding, incorrect student programming, cultural conflicts, SLC purity, and
the concept-6 (3-track) system. As a result, teachers are still dealing with large class sizes and
programming issues. Some students are sometimes added or removed at the four week mark. In
many cases, students are retaking classes they have already passed due to programming
inconsistencies. Despite all of this, learning is taking place in the classrooms that foster the idea
of caring.
1.3 PERSONAL EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
Part of my Philosophy of Education is to be able to provide an environment that is enriched,
where learning is more-so a multi-sensory encounter than a traditional lecture where content-
induced comas prevail. In this sense, learning becomes more than a task, but an experience.
Socio-cultural theorists agree that learning occurs through experiences in environments of
community. It has been said that the “you” of today is a representation of the sum total of your
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 7 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
experiences until today. All experiences are events in our lives that change us. Many people do
not equate experiences with learning yet they would agree with the statement, “I am who I am
today because of my experiences.” You will not be the same person tomorrow because of your
experiences today. If learning shapes your view on life tomorrow, learning therefore is a series of
experiences that shapes our understanding. In my teaching, I intend to take students through a
series of multiple experiences that would hopefully provide a memory crutch on which to couch
new, abstract information. The vehicle of experience is that of the visual aid—specifically the
use of technology and multimedia. Throughout my life I have been inundated by multi-media
experiences. I’ve known the power of television, technology, and multi-media to be one of my
best teachers. If the purpose of a teacher is to provide the student with a learning environment
conducive and relevant to the learner, then teachers cannot afford to be flippant with the delivery
of information, lest students become drones perpetuating the pedagogy of poverty. Knowledge,
then, should, if at all possible, be relevant and accessible to our students’ media-savvy culture.
Therefore, in nearly all my presentations, activities, and lectures as a school teacher, I
incorporate the use of technology as a visual aid.
1.3.1 POWERPOINT: A VISUAL TOOL FOR A VISUAL GENERATION
Traditional teaching has been that of white and black-board lectures, manipulatives, and thought-
exercises. While these methods have their place, students get easily confused, sometimes
formulating misconceptions that can take years to deconstruct. Though my students are
considered to be urban and of low-income, they are not immune from the effects of media. Being
in the middle of a media-driven city, they can be described as a post-modern generation driven
by the use of the visual aid and multi-media. Students who watch my computer presentations
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 8 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
have asked me questions like, “what website did you download that from?” or “Mr. Aguda, did
you download the newest version of Google Earth yet?” Further, many of my students
communicate via the internet through websites such as www.myspace.com, www.xanga.com,
www.facebook.com, websites designed to network friends and others. These are students who
are engrossed with MTV, BET, and the Disney Channel. Many even enjoy watching TLC and
the Discovery channel. It is no doubt that these students are a visual generation. In a time where
nearly all media is communicated via images, movies, animations, sound, and live-action, it
remains to be explored what effect this tool has in the realm of academics, especially in the urban
high school.
1.3.2 EQUITABLE ACCESS TO CONTENT THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
Unfortunately, as powerful a tool as media is, it is not being used to its fullest potential in
teaching science, especially in the urban context. Some of the teaching observed in classrooms
within the district are what Haberman pointed out in his Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good
Teaching: “the core functions of urban teaching include: giving information, asking questions,
giving directions, making assignments, monitoring seatwork, giving tests, reviewing tests,
assigning homework, reviewing homework, settling disputes, marking papers and giving grades
(Haberman, 1991).” Part of the problem with learning and retention in the inner city is due to a
method of teaching that is not only archaic, but is assumed to continue to work in such a context.
This is faulty. It follows from a deficit assumption that students in the inner-city context require
stringent, traditional means of teaching where the content is far from engaging and as a result, far
from being accessible (Venezuela, 1997). Students are believed to be incapable of learning any
other way than this structure. As a result, many students do their work, copy answers and
definitions from books to satisfy the requirements of the teacher’s questions, and then pass a
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 9 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
class without having truly made connections to actual content let alone begin the vital task of
establishing critical thinking skills.
Haberman suggests a drastic reform of urban schools from this pedagogy to “good teaching.”
What can happen to learning if such a shift occurs? What happens to the traditional urban
classroom when content is made accessible to the student, especially in the same form that is
accessible to the student from Beverly Hills and even UCLA? PowerPoint is not only a tool to
be used in colleges and universities where resources are abundant, but can also be a tool that
could begin to shift us towards good teaching. Content can now be relevant, especially in this
visual generation. And I could think of no better candidates to experience this shift, than my
students.
1.4 HIGH-TECH VS. LOW-TECH
1.4.1 THE TRADITIONAL LOW-TECH APPROACH
For most of my life as an elementary and secondary student I learned in a traditional, low-tech
classroom. In a traditional setting, the primary mode of delivery is that of teacher-delivered,
black and white board lecture, much of which is not interactive except when students are
required (or simply reminded) to take notes specific to the topic and the assessment. After the
teacher has disseminated the information, an activity follows to help solidify information. This
activity is usually also low-tech. In a science classroom, manipulatives and other hands-on
devices are used to represent certain structures and concepts. The teacher will then debrief the
activity by initiating a discussion or by lecturing briefly on the components of the analogy and
defining what they represent in real science. For example a teacher may say, “The pipe cleaners
represent chromosomes.” After this brief discussion and a simple check for understanding the
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 10 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
topic is completed and the teacher moves on assuming that students have made the appropriate
connections.
1.4.2 MANIPULATIVES IN THE TRADITIONAL SETTING
Science is a study of conceptual abstracts that are at many times intangible and therefore require
the use of analogies. These activities are hands on and exemplify the definition of an “inquiry-
based activity.” For example, to teach the process of mitosis, a teacher may use a paper plate,
pipe-cleaners, glue, and macaroni. The teacher proceeds to use an analogy to describe the
process of mitosis that occurs in this “cell”. We can start with pipe-cleaners and glue, because
students have a contextual basis with which to begin. Cognitive theory bears strongly on the use
of prior knowledge as a basis upon which to build new knowledge. They know what pipe
cleaners are and even some understand their simple properties. The use of manipulatives and
activities that model concepts are vital to this constructivist view of learning. However, how
effective is this traditional form of inquiry-based activity in the overall conceptual framework
that the teacher is assisting in building within the student’s mind?
1.4.3 MANIPULATIVES AND ANALOGIES
Manipulatives are essentially analogical devices that require some form of transfer. Transfer of
learning must occur from learning in one context (the analogue or source) to a related
performance in another context (the target). Without a student making these connections,
students may formulate misconceptions such as the one below:
“I remember that the pipe-cleaners moved to the side and then the paper plate split in half,” was
a common answer in some final exams that I gave. Though it seemed that many students were
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 11 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
able to connect the analogy to the concept initially, many students unsuccessfully retained the
appropriate connections during the final exam. It could also be argued whether or not students
even understood the analogy.
Furthermore, students who are not visio-spatial find difficulties in making these mental
abstractions. When students arrive at the final assessment or culminating task, did they really
make the connection between structure and concept? Will they remember the function of
chromosomes and spindle fibers? Or will the knowledge retained only include the fact that “the
pipe-cleaners represented something important” as has been seen in many of my exams.
1.5 POSING OF THE QUESTION:
DOES POWERPOINT AND MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY FACILITATE
UNDERSTANDING OF ABSTRACT CONCEPTS BETTER THAN
TRADITIONAL LOW-TECH TEACHING METHODS?
Given that students in this culture and generation are media-oriented, I want to explore whether
or not the use of multimedia and technology positively affects student learning in terms of
retention and engagement. I want to compare traditional methods of teaching that include
traditional lectures and hands-on analogy (as discussed above), to a “high-tech” teaching context
where students are inundated with multimedia and computer technology. To help answer this
question, I have broken down my inquiry into two guiding questions:
1.5.1 DOES POWERPOINT HELP IN STUDENT ENGAGEMENT?
Are students more engaged in the material when the instructor uses multimedia technology in the
classroom better than traditional white-board lectures and hands-on manipulative analogy?
Images, full-color pictures, animations, and other forms of the visual aid are relevant resources
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 12 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
which any student in Los Angeles should be familiar. I would like to find out whether or not
students felt engaged in learning about mitosis. Students who are actively engaged in the
curriculum have the most access to the content and who inevitably have a positive experience
with the information.
1.5.2 DOES POWERPOINT AND MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY AFFECT A
STUDENT’S OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT BY MAKING
BETTER CONNECTIONS BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND CONCEPT? When using manipulatives only, students are required to perform the activity as described by the
instructor, as well as be able to make connections between analogy and structure. In my
experience this is difficult because many students have difficulty with analogies, while others
simply recall the analogous structure better than what it actually represents. Learning structure is
simply rote memorization where students remember that “blue pipe-cleaners represent sister
chromatids.” In PowerPoint and multimedia this is not necessarily the case. Instead of students
experiencing pipe-cleaners, students see pictures of chromosomes that bear better resemblance to
what is really happening within a cell. PowerPoint is still a domain of analogies since what is
being seen is only a virtual representation of a real cell. However, this technology effectively
discards the “middle man” in the process of learning an already difficult concept.
Additionally, mitosis is a process and must be studied as such. For example, if pipe-cleaners
represent chromosomes in teaching mitosis, then how can “Anaphase” (the part of mitosis where
sister chromatids are pulled apart towards the poles of the cell) be modeled? A teacher can
model this by essentially manipulating the manipulatives, however, I would argue that
PowerPoint can provide a more effective way by providing a student with a better overall picture
of mitosis. Furthermore, PowerPoint and Multimedia technology can help students understand
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 13 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
the bigger picture. Many minutes are wasted helping students to map the correct connections
between manipulative analogies and concept that sometimes the “big-picture” is neglected or at-
best deemphasized. What students are left remembering in a short period of time is simply what
the pipe-cleaners represent. PowerPoint and Multimedia technology has the potential to
emphasize show the “big-picture,” specifically focusing on concept, function and structure co-
dependently. For example, students can better understand why there are spindle fibers when
presented animation of spindle fibers actually moving sister chromatids away from the
metaphase plate.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 14 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
2.0|Theoretical Underpinnings and Secondary Sources
2.1 CONSTRUCTIVISM
According to constructivism, knowledge is not 'about' the world, but rather 'constitutive' of the
world. Knowledge, then, is not a fixed object, rather it is constructed by an individual through
his or her own experience of that object or concept. Therefore, learning is more than being a
student; it encompasses a series of learning experiences and teachable moments which provide
the learner with mental reminders of the specific concept. Constructivism envisions the student
not as tabula rasa, (or “blank slate”) but rather sees the student as a wealth of experiences, each
having his or her own relevant experiences. The teacher then must be relevant to the learner, so
that he or she may build upon previous knowledge. This realm of thinking implies an approach
to learning that consists of an authentic, challenging curriculum which includes students,
teachers, and experts within the context of a learning community. Its goal is to create learning
communities that are more closely related to the collaborative practice of the real world. In my
classroom, students enter with preconceived notions of the world, its structure, and its functions.
Whether or not they are aware of it, students are scientists at heart, positing and hypothesizing
about the world around them. These hypotheses are shaped by their environment and their
experiences. A crucial element of constructivism is active participation where dialog is shared
via experiences (Brunner, 1973).
In sum, the contemporary constructivist theory puts the learner under the category of active
agents. The learner engages in his or her own knowledge construction by integrating new
information into his or her own prior knowledge by associating and representing it in a
meaningful way. Constructivists argue that it is impractical for teachers to make all the current
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 15 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
decisions and dump the information to students without involving students in the decision
process and assessing students' abilities to construct knowledge. In other words, guided
instruction is suggested which puts students at the center of the learning process, and provides
guidance and concrete teaching whenever necessary.
2.2 THE NATURE OF AN ANALOGY
Analogy is either the cognitive process of transferring information from a particular subject (the
analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), or a linguistic expression
corresponding to such a process (Gentner, 1983). Analogies are limited in that they deal only
with relational predicates. For example, Kepler attempted to explain planetary motion by using
an analogy of a boat in a swift current of water. He related the boat to the planets and the water
current to this mysterious “gravitational” (though not called that yet) pull. However, analogy is
limited in that it does not deal with real object attributes. (As is the nature of an analogy) The
boat does not “look like” the earth and this strange cosmic gravitational pull does not resemble
true gravity. In teaching abstract concepts such as mitosis, one begins using analogies (pipe
cleaners, paper plates, etc.): “the chromosome is like a pipe cleaner.” However, though this
analogy has relational alignment, it is not really a chromosome. The teacher proceeds to use a
PowerPoint presentation of a REAL cell undergoing REAL mitosis. Here the student
experiences LITERAL SIMILARITY, where both relational predicates and object attributes are
shared.
Dedre Gentner’s work on Structure Mapping suggests that Analogies and Literal Similarities
exist on a continuum (see Fig. 2.2). The closer an analogous object is to the target object, the
easier it is for a student to understand the concept.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 16 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
Figure 2.2 Gentner’s Similarity Space:
Showing different kinds of matches in terms of the Degree of Relational Versus Object-description Overlap
2.3 AFFECTIVE FILTERS
"Affective Filter" is the term Stephen Krashen has used to refer to the complex of negative
emotional and motivational factors that may interfere with the reception and processing of
comprehensible input. Such factors include: anxiety, self-consciousness, boredom, annoyance,
alienation, and so forth. Though, according to Krashen, this theory applies most closely to
second language acquisition rather than what he calls “conscious learning,” I would argue further
that mental block does occur in terms of boredom and annoyance. To use a methodology that is
often convenient, approachable, fun, and relevant to the student is to, in essence, lower the
mental block or affective filter and hopefully decrease boredom and anxiety. Since a majority of
my students surf the internet, the task to explore and “play” with a flash animation on a website
should not be a daunting task. Also, because mitosis is an active moving process, the use of
multimedia technology could be of great benefit in understanding this process better than static,
two-dimensional images (Krashen, 1987).
2.4 BLOOM’S TAXONOMY
The cognitive domain involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. This
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 17 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
includes the recall or recognition of specific facts, procedural patterns, and concepts that serve in
the development of intellectual abilities and skills. There are six major categories, which are
listed in order below, starting from the simplest behavior to the most complex. The categories
can be thought of as degrees of difficulties. That is, the first one must be mastered before the
next one can take place (Bloom, 1956).
Category Example and Key Words Knowledge: Recall data or information. Key Words: defines, describes, identifies, knows, labels, lists, matches,
names, outlines, recalls, recognizes, reproduces, selects, states.
Comprehension: Understand the meaning, transla-
tion, interpolation, and interpretation of instructions and problems. State a problem in one's own words.
Key Words: comprehends, converts, defends, distinguishes, estimates,
explains, extends, generalizes, gives
Application: Use a concept in a new situation or unprompted use of an abstraction. Applies what was learned in the classroom into novel situations in the
work place.
Key Words: applies, changes, computes, constructs, demonstrates, discovers, manipulates, modifies, operates, predicts, prepares, pro-
duces, relates, shows, solves, uses.
Analysis: Separates material or concepts into com-
ponent parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. Distinguishes between facts and
inferences.
Key Words: analyzes, breaks down, compares, contrasts, diagrams,
deconstructs, differentiates, discriminates, distinguishes, identifies, illus-
trates, infers, outlines, relates, selects, separates.
Synthesis: Builds a structure or pattern from diverse elements. Put parts together to form a whole, with
emphasis on creating a new meaning or structure.
Key Words: categorizes, combines, compiles, composes, creates, de-vises, designs, explains, generates, modifies, organizes, plans, rear-ranges, reconstructs, relates, reorganizes, revises, rewrites, summa-
rizes, tells, writes.
Evaluation: Make judgments about the value of
ideas or materials.
Key Words: concludes, contrasts, criticizes, critiques, defends, de-scribes, discriminates, valuates, explains, interprets, summarizes, sup-
ports. Table 2.4 Bloom’s Taxonomy. Levels of cognitive rigor increase as one traverses down the chart.
The challenge for any teacher is to provide students with enough scaffolding so that students can
go beyond the rote recall stage (i.e. Knowledge) and progress to higher orders of processing and
thinking (i.e. Application, Analysis, and Synthesis). Students cannot attain these levels of
knowledge assimilation and application with only a casual experience with content. Within a
classroom context, teachers provide this higher-order-thinking practice by preparing activities
which help solidify recall and allow students an interactive experience with the content.
Students who have more hands-on experience with the content (via problems, interactive
simulations, etc.) are generally able to envision the bigger picture of the concept and therefore
are able to understand the material better than simply recall knowledge.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 18 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
2.5 MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory states that individuals possess multiple mental
representations and intellectual languages. Each individual differs from one another in the
strength of each particular cognitive representation. According to multiple intelligences theory,
there are at least eight different intelligences (see Table 2.5). These intelligences constitute the
ways in which individuals assimilate, retain, and manipulate information (Gardner, 1996). The
ways individuals demonstrate understanding (and misunderstandings) is further affected by
which intelligence is being used. For example, students who are adept in Spatial Intelligence as
well as Logical-Mathematical Intelligence are able to see a cell in three-dimensions. That is
there are cognitive faculties which facilitate the representation of a two-dimensional image into a
three-dimensional projection in one’s mind. Students who do not have these intelligences
experience difficulty in making this projection and therefore, require models and manipulatives
or highly descriptive language to grasp adequately the concept. The teacher must make
modifications to the instructional delivery in order to cater to the needs of these other
intelligences.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 19 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
Verbal-Linguistic Logical-Mathematical Visual-Spatial Bodily-Kinesthetic
choral speaking declarizing storytelling
retelling speaking debating
presenting reading aloud dramatizing book making
nonfiction reading researching
listening process writing writing journals
problem solving measuring
coding sequencing
critical thinking predicting
playing logic games collecting data experimenting solving puzzles
classifying using manipulatives learning the scientific
model using money
using geometry
graphing photographing making visual
metaphors making visual analogies
mapping stories making 3D projects
painting illustrating
using charts using organizers
visualizing sketching patterning
visual puzzles
hands on experiments activities
changing room arrangement
creative movement going on field trips physical education
activities crafts
dramatizing using cooperative
groups dancing
Musical Interpersonal Intrapersonal Naturalistic
humming rapping
playing background music
patterns form
playing instruments tapping out poetic
rhythms rhyming singing
classroom parties peer editing
cooperative learning sharing
group work forming clubs peer teaching
social awareness conflict mediation
discussing cross age tutoring
study group brainstorming
personal response individual study
personal goal setting individual projects journal log keeping personal choice in
projects independent reading
reading outside cloud watching
identifying insects building habitats identifying plants
using a microscope dissecting
going on a nature walk build a garden
studying the stars bird watching
collecting rocks making bird feeders
going to the zoo
Table 2.5 Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. Key cognitive skills for each intelligence. A student may possess skill in one or many of the intelligences listed above.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 20 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
2.6 STUDENT LEARNING FROM SIMULATION (TRADITIONAL vs. HI TECH)
Much work has been done in regards to student learning using simulations. A study by G.
Baxter shows that such methods of inquiry offer great implications to teaching, especially in the
urban context. For example, simulations are less costly and time consuming to administer than
hands-on assessments, in part because large numbers of students can be tested simultaneously, if
sufficient computers are available. Also, Baxter mentions that computers offer better
opportunities for students to access the content, because it “provides an open-ended,
unconstrained environment for conducting science investigations.” Their findings were curious
in that both groups performed similarly, each group having large fluctuations in performance.
“Some students performed better with one method and some students perform better with the
other” (Baxter, 1995.)
Another group of researchers from the Hong Kong Institute of Education researched the use of
Internet-based, teacher-delivered scientific inquiry. They found that the use of internet
simulations rather than actual experiments was time, safety, and financially more practical.
Also, they mentioned that the “hands-on” experiments using computer simulations provide the
student with a “self-paced” learning experience, allowing students the freedom to work at their
own pace. The interactive nature of the internet allows for students to have a truly cognitive
“mind-on” learning experience, allowing students to draw on prior experience rather than “rote-
recall and performance.” They also mentioned that this type of experience is facilitated by high-
quality graphics and animations to which any student of varying science achievement can have
access (Yan Yeung, et al, n.l.).
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 21 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
2.7 GOOD TEACHING
The impetus for such an endeavor is heightened by an article by Martin Haberman.
In his article, Haberman, an education professor at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
describes the teaching practices in many high-poverty, urban schools. He maintains that this
approach, which emphasizes constant teacher direction and student compliance, keeps many
students from reaching their full potential. "Teachers who begin their careers intending to be
helpers, models, guides, stimulators, and caring sources of encouragement transform themselves
into directive authoritarians in order to function in urban schools." As a result of such teaching
practices, students do not have adequate exposure to the content; they are generally disengaged
with curriculum and as a result, produce lower scores on standardized tests. Haberman suggests
a shift to “good teaching” practices in the urban context which would pressure teachers to illicit
student involvement and help whet a student’s process of critical thinking. Haberman provides
12 characteristics of “good teaching” and contrasts them to the pedagogy of poverty. Good
teaching occurs in classrooms where students are: (1) involved with issues they regard as vital
concerns, (2) whenever students are involved with explanations of human differences,
(3)whenever students are being helped to see major concepts, big ideas, and general principles,
and are not merely engaged in the pursuit of isolated facts, (4) involved in planning what they
will be doing, (5) involved with applying ideals such as fairness, equity, or justice to their world,
(6) actively involved, (7) directly involved in a real-life experience, (8) actively involved in
heterogeneous groups, (9) asked to think about an idea in a way that questions common sense or
a widely accepted assumption, that relates new ideas to ones learned previously, or that applies
an idea to the problems of living, (10) involved in redoing, polishing, or perfecting their work,
(11) involved with the technology of information access, (12) involved in reflecting on their own
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 22 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
lives and how they have come to believe and feel as they do, good teaching is going on
(Haberman, 1997).
2.8 DEFICIT THINKING
The Pedagogy of Poverty follows from the idea of deficit thinking. Deficit thinking is a mindset
on learning that blames the student; in essence “positing that the student who fails in school does
so because of internal deficits or deficiencies.” Richard Valencia delves into a discussion of six
characteristics of deficit thinking in the context of schooling. (1) He determined that this deficit
thinking framework is inherently oppressive since its nature is this ‘victim-blamers/victim”
model where the student is thought to be the cause of such problems in learning. (2)
Oppression; because students are to blame, people of power exercise the unjust use of authority
and power to keep a group of people at bay. (3) Further, he calls deficit thinking a
“pseudoscience” arguing that research performed regarding this pedagogy is flawed. (4) Deficit
thinking is also greatly influenced by the temporal period which it finds itself; in light of the
changing atmospheres of scholarship, the framework of deficit thinking evolves. (5) Educability;
deficit thinking posits a prediction of maintenance and perpetuation of deficits, should an
intervention not be pursued. (6) Heterodoxy; the notion of deficit thinking is integrated as part
of the society and is therefore undisguised, unquestioned, and undisputed (Valencia, 1997).
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 23 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
3.0|The Inquiry Process This study was conducted by comparing two biology classes:
Group A
Period 1 Biology: LOW-TECH group
Traditional white-board lecture and hands on student inquiry.
Group B
Period 4 Biology: HIGH-TECH group
PowerPoint Lecture and internet-based student inquiry.
3.1 OVERVIEW
Implementation contained six parts. In part one, both groups were assessed for their involvement
and exposure to multimedia by taking a pre-course survey. In part two, both groups received the
same pre-quiz to assess for previous knowledge on the topic of mitosis. In part three, students
received the initial delivery of curriculum by either one of two methods: The LOW-TECH
(designated hereafter as GROUP A) group received traditional delivery of curriculum (i.e. the
use of a white-board and colored markers). The HIGH-TECH group (designated hereafter as
GROUP B) experienced a purely PowerPoint based lecture incorporating animations and full-
color representations of mitosis. Further, both groups completed a post-lecture worksheet to help
reinforce and simplify what was learned. In part four of implementation, all students were
engaged in an inquiry-based activity to solidify concepts using hands-on experience. Group A
was instructed to create and model mitosis using traditional manipulatives (analogy-based) and
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 24 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
their notes as a hands-on “laboratory activity.” Group B was directed to www.cellsalive.com
where they were able to manipulate a virtual cell as basis for their inquiry. This website also
provides further animations of the processes involved in mitosis. Assessment throughout the
inquiry was through a worksheet which required students to narrate correctly the steps of mitosis.
Step five in implementation required both groups to take identical assessments to assess
understanding of the concepts. The final step (step six) was a follow-up to the implementation
consisting of two focus groups
3.2 A SKETCH OF GROUP A
The students in group A were from my 1st Period Biology class. This class consisted of 34
students. Academically, this class was one of my stronger classes. Though this class was much
larger than my period 4 class, I attribute the higher scores to longer attention spans and the
prevalence of more advanced ESL students and fewer IEP students. Normally, I ran both 1st and
4th period exactly the same; however it is was 1st period that has consistently had higher
academic averages. This class consisted of approximately six IEP students and 18 ESL
students, most of whom were in their second or third year in ESL at the time of implementation.
From a management standpoint, the number of students in this packed class made this class
slightly more difficult to manage than other classes. Also, over half of the class usually arrived
late due to increased security procedures in effect before the start of the school day. As a result,
much time was wasted in the beginning of the class period as we all wait for a majority of the
class to report. Despite this however, students had longer attention spans and had a greater
ability to grasp material.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 25 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
3.3 A SKETCH OF GROUP B
Group B consisted of students in my 4th Period Biology class. This class consisted of 23
students. Because of the high percentage of IEP and ESL students in this class, this was the
more underperforming class of the two, academically. The administration normed the number of
students shortly after the pre-course survey was given, explaining the discrepancy between the
number of respondents to the surveys and those who took both pre and post tests. As a result of
the smaller class size, my aid and I are able to spend more individual time with students and less
time with classroom management. Despite this, the class tends to move slower due to the higher
prevalence of students with IEPs.
3.4 IMPLEMENTATION
3.4.1 PART I: PRE-COURSE SURVEY
A pre-course survey was administered during the first week of class (Appendix 8.1.1). Students
were asked to think about what ways they received information from a teacher. The survey
listed 12 different methods of both teacher-delivered instruction and inquiry methods. Students
were asked to choose to which methods they were previously exposed. They were then asked to
rank their selections in terms of interest level. Marking a “1” would denote no interest, a “3”
would denote neutral, and a “5” would denote most interested. Further, students were asked to
provide reasons for their responses, specifically those methods that I will be studying in this
research project. Although all students completed surveys, many students either dropped or
transferred to other classes in an attempt to norm my classroom size, hence the larger sample size
for survey completion.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 26 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
3.4.2 PART II: PRE-INSTRUCTION QUIZ
To assess previous knowledge on this topic and to have a comparison control for which to gauge
the effectiveness of the instruction, I administered a pre-instruction quiz. The quiz consisted of
12 multiple choice questions dealing with the topic of mitosis. About 1/3 of the questions asked
dealt with terminology and definitions. The majority of the quiz consisted of the processes of
mitosis and asked students to identify correctly particular steps of mitosis, as well as some of the
structures required for mitosis. These exams were graded and compared to a post-instruction
quiz. Much of this pre-instruction quiz was redundantly placed in the post-instruction quiz to
serve as a side-by-side comparison of knowledge retention and assessment of understanding.
3.4.3 PART III: DELIVERY (Instruction)
LOW-TECH DELIVERY
Instruction was delivered strictly by traditional means. No technology was used.
Students in group A were given a dispatch asking them to think about how a single cell (the
instructor, 26.2 years ago, after conception), could give rise to the multi-cellular organism that
stands in front of the class today. After a brief discussion to peak interest, students were then
asked to participate in a 30-minute traditional lecture by taking Cornell-style notes (Appendix
8.3.1). During the last 10 minutes of the class period, to help solidify their notes and make them
more concise, students were asked to complete a fill-in-the-blank worksheet (Appendix 8.3.6).
HIGH-TECH DELIVERY
Instruction was delivered using a projector and a computer equipped with PowerPoint.
Students in group B were given the same dispatch as group A. After a brief discussion to peak
student interest, students were then asked to participate in a 30-minute PowerPoint lecture by
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 27 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
taking Cornell-style notes (Appendix 8.3.2-5). During the last 10 minutes of the class period,
students were also asked to complete a similar worksheet. (Appendix 8.3.6)
3.4.4 PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY
To assist in students making connections between analogy and structure, both classes were
engaged in a hands-on inquiry activity.
LOW-TECH INQUIRY - Mitosis Models
Students were given the following materials: Paper plates, pipe cleaners, straws, and yarn.
Students were asked to create a BEFORE or AFTER model of each step of mitosis. Each
completed model had its own: (1) legend, telling what each material represented, (2) narrative, a
description of what is or what has happened in the picture, and (3) a title, identifying each step in
the process. To help guide their inquiry and planning, a worksheet was also completed
(Appendix 8.4.1). This worksheet was also used as a study guide for the post-instruction
assessment quiz.
HIGH-TECH INQUIRY – www.cellsalive.com/mitosis.html
Each student received a laptop and was asked to visit the Cells Alive website, a free, interactive
model of a cell undergoing mitosis. Students were asked to watch the animations between each
step. They were to draw a picture of what they saw and to describe what happened in each step.
A worksheet, similar to the one given to group A was completed to assess for understanding
(Appendix 8.4.2-3). This worksheet was also used as a study guide for the post-instruction
assessment quiz.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 28 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
My special education aid was instructed to keep careful notes regarding student engagement in
both classes as she worked very closely with a majority of the students.
3.4.5 PART V: ASSESSMENT
Finally, after two days exposure to the material, students were asked to complete a quiz. This
quiz consisted of the identical quiz questions from the pre-instruction quiz as well as another
series of similar questions based on the overall concept.
3.4.6 PART VI: FOLLOW UP FOCUS GROUPS
A week following implementation, I identified 3 students from each class who fell into any one
of these three categories:
Below Average student Average Student
Above Average Student
The students were asked to form a discussion group while I interviewed each group as a whole.
The interviews were recorded and I asked students to be honest with their responses. The
interview questions were as follows:
(1) Were you engaged in the lecture? (2) What do you remember about the activity in Mitosis? (3) Where you engaged in the inquiry activity? (4) What was your overall interest level? (5) What aspects of the activity did you enjoy? (6) Did it help you understand the process of Mitosis? How? (7) What was difficult about the activity? (8) When you were completing the quiz on Friday, were you thinking about the activity? (9) When I ask you a question now about Mitosis, what will you think about to help you
remember? (10) Why did you think about that? (11) For LOW-TECH students: if we worked on the computer simulation, would you have understood the concept better? For HIGH-TECH students: if we worked on the mitosis models, would you have understood the concept better?
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 29 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
3.5 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
An overview of the process is summarized in the chart below:
I. PRE-COURSE SURVEY
GROUP A GROUP B
Type of Assessment Pre-course Survey Pre-course Survey
II. PRE-ASSESSMENT
GROUP A GROUP B
Type of Assessment Multiple Choice Quiz Multiple Choice Quiz
III. DELIVERY
GROUP A GROUP B
Type of Instruction Discussion/Lecture Discussion/Lecture
Mode of Delivery Teacher: Board work/lecture Teacher: Animations/PowerPoint
Assessment Worksheet Post-lecture worksheet
Worksheet Post-lecture worksheet
IV. INQUIRY ACTIVITY
GROUP A GROUP B
Type of Instruction Inquiry Inquiry
Mode of Delivery Student: Manipulatives Student: Internet Website
Assessment Worksheet Post-activity worksheet
Worksheet Post-activity worksheet
V. ASSESSMENT
GROUP A GROUP B
Type of Assessment Multiple-choice and short answer quiz
Multiple-choice and short answer quiz
VI. FOLLOWUP ASSESSMENT
GROUP A GROUP B
Type of Assessment Interview (focus group) and “no-stakes” assessment quiz
Interview (focus group) and “no-stakes” assessment quiz
Students involved 1 Below Average performing student 1 Average performing student 1 Above Average performing student
1 Below Average performing student 1 Average performing student 1 Above Average performing student
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 30 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Pract ice
4.0|Data and Observations 4.1 Part I: Pre-course Survey
The results from the pre-course survey are summarized in Figures 4.1a and 4.1b and Table 4.0.
Respondents ranked their interest levels on a scale from 1 to 5. Each method was denoted by a
letter (see Table 4.0 for Method designations). Students who had not had exposure to a certain
method were asked to not rank the category and to leave it blank. Data was then collected and
entered into an MS Excel Table where averages for each category were calculated.
A Whiteboard/Chalkboard
B Overhead projectors
C Building Models (Hands-on activities)
D Verbal Call and Response
E Book Work
F Silent reading
G Work sheets
H PowerPoint
I Videos and Films
J Field Trips
K Group Presentations
L Internet
M Friends and Family who know the subject
N After School Tutoring (you and a teacher)
O Copying notes
P Labs
Q Computers
Table 4.0 Teaching Method Categories and their letter designations
Figure 4.0 Numerical Ranking Designation from Pre-course survey (Appendix 8.1.1)
Question #1: What methods have your teachers used when you learned a new topic? Please circle all that apply.
Also, please rank which method is most interesting for you from 1—5. Not Interesting Neutral (didn’t care) Very Interested 1 2 3 4 5
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 31 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
A 1 1 4 1 3 5 5 3 4 4 3
B 5 1 4 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 2 5 1 1 3 4 5
C 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 3 1 4 4 5
D 2 5 2 5 5 5 1 5 5
E 3 3 2 4 4 5 5 2 4 3 5
F 3
G
H
I 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 5 5
J 2 1 5 2 1 3 1 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5
K 3 4 5 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 1 3 3 1 4 4 4
L 3 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 4
N 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 1 1 3 3
O 2 2 5 5 3 5 2 2 3 5 3 3 2 3 3 3
P 2 3 5 5 3 2 4 3 5 5 5 5 2 5 3 3 4
Q 5 5 5 3 5
R 2 3 5 3 2 3 4 3 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 5 5
S 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
T 4 2 2 3 4 4 2
U 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 3 5 3 3
V 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 1
W 4 2 1 3 4 4 2 1 5
X 5 5 1 5 5 5 1 1 5 1 5 5 5 5
Y 2 4 2 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5
Z 2 4 3 3 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 4 4
AA
AB 4 4 5 2 1 2 4 3 4 5 3 4 3 3 4
AC 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 5 3 4 3 4 4 3
AD 2 3 3 1 2 5 5 1 3 5
AE 3 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 3
AF 4 1 2 1 1 3 2 5 3 3 5 4
AG
AH 3 1 3 3 5 3 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 4
AI 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5
AJ 1 2 1 4 2 4 2 4 2
AK 3 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 4
AL 2
AM 3 4 4 3 2 1 3 5 4 5 2 4 4 3 5 4 3
AN 1 3 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 3
AVG 2.56 2.92 4.19 3 2.53 2.9 3.41 3.38 4.3 4.67 2.81 4 2.87 2.28 3.41 3.92 4 Table 4.2 GROUP A Raw Data for Pre-course Survey (Appendix 8.1.1)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 32 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
A 2 1 4 1 1 1 4 5 3 2 5 5
B 3 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 5 3 4
C 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 3 1 1 3 5 5
D 3 4 3 2 1 3 2 4 5 5 2 5 5 1 3 3 5
E 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 2 5 2 1 2 4 5
F 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 5
G 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 1 5 5
H 3 2 5 1 2 4 5 3 5 5 5 2 2 3 4 5
I 2 3 4 3 1 2 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 4
J 5 4 1 2 1 4 5 3 4 2 3 5 2 3 4 4 5
K 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 5 5 1 5 1 5 5
L 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 5 5 2 5 3 1 1 5 5
N 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 4 3 5 3 4 3 3 2 5 4
O 3 2 4 1 1 2 2 4 5 5 2 5 2 1 2 4 5
P 3 3 4 1 2 5 3 2 1 4 2 3 3
Q 2 2 2 0 3 2 2
R 5 4 5 2 1 4 5 5 4 3 2 5 3 1 5 5 5
S
T 3 5 1 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 5
U 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 4 3 5
V 3 3 2 2 4 2 3 5 5 1 4 1 4
W 3 2 4 1 3 1 4 2 5 5 1 5 1 1 3 4 5
X 2 2 3 1 4 1 5 3 3 5 4 5 5 4 2 5
Y 3 2 4 1 3 1 3 5 5 4 5 1 3 4 5
Z 2 2 4 4 5 2 4 5 5 4 3 5 3 2 4 5 5
AA 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 5 2 5 5 1 1 4 5
AB 4 3 2 3 1 4 5 2 5 5 3 5 3 4 4 5 5
AC 3 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 2 1 3 4 5
AD 2 3 5 3 3 1 3 3 4 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
AE 5 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 5
AF 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
AG 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
AVG 2.52 2.38 3.68 2.07 1.97 2.36 2.67 3.4 4.28 4.25 2.57 4.57 2.91 1.76 2.72 4.19 4.57 Table 4.3 GROUP B Raw Data for Pre-course Survey (Appendix 8.1.1)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 33 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
4.1.1 Top 5 teaching methods
The top 5 methods of teaching from group A and B include (ordered from greatest interest to
least):
GROUP A GROUP B
1. Field Trips (J) 2. Videos and Films (I) 3. Making Models (C) 4. Internet (L) 5. Computers (Q) and
Labs (P)
1. The Internet (L) and Computers (Q)
2. Videos and Films (I) 3. Field Trips (J) 4. Labs (P) 5. Building Models (hands-on
activities) (C)
Table 4.1 The Top 5 Teaching Methods for both experimental groups from Pre-course survey
GROUP A: Methods of Teaching vs.
Student Interest Level
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Methods of Teaching
Figure 4.1a Results from Pre-course survey Methods of teaching vs. Student Interest Level. GROUP A
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 34 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
GROUP B: Methods of Teaching vs. Student
Interest Level
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Method of Teaching
Figure 4.1b Results from Pre-course survey Methods of teaching vs. Student Interest Level. GROUP B
Method of Teaching vs. Student Interest Comparison
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Method of Teaching (Table 4.0)
Relative Interest Level (Figure 4.0)
Group A (Low) Group B (High)
Figure 4.1c Results from Pre-course survey Methods of teaching vs. Student Interest Level. GROUP A and B compared.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 35 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Both classes selected the same 6 methods of instruction as their top 5 most interesting ways to
learn; the only difference between the classes was in ranking. Such correlations between the two
experimental groups imply that both classes contain the same types of students, with similar
interests. Note that none of the methods listed as their top 5 include traditional low-tech methods
of teaching. This is not to say that students are aversive towards these methods, only that they
are either more neutral or less interested in these methods than the high-tech methods.
On average, no specific type of method received anything below a 1.5 (moderately not
interesting). It would seem that students seem to accept all of these types of methods whether
they are engaging or not.
4.2 PART II: PRE-INSTRUCTION QUIZ For the pre-instruction quiz, I asked students to attempt more than random guessing. I asked
them to think seriously about the questions and try to recall any information they might have
received from television or media regarding the topic of mitosis. This was a timed exam of 30
minutes and all students completed the quiz well within the time allotted.
The results were as follows (see Table 4.5a and 4.5b). GROUP A had an average 36% (Letter
grade: F). Students in GROUP B had an average of 38% (Letter grade: F). Both classes also had
standard deviations of 19%. This was to be expected. Students entered class with little or
below-average knowledge of the topic. Furthermore, the standard deviations for both classes
(SD=19%) showed that around 95% of students in both classes scored between 27% and 44%,
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 36 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
signifying that the spread was random further implying that students knew little to nothing about
the topic.
4.3 PART III: DELIVERY
LOW-TECH GROUP A:
I asked a second pair of eyes to gauge student engagement during delivery in both classes. I
have an IEP Aid for both my classes to help assist in working with my special education
students. I asked her to take careful note on how the lectures in both classes seemed to affect
student engagement: Were students involved in the lecture? Were they asking questions? Was
the note-taking simply rote copying or were they actively engaged in the concept rather than just
the task of copying the board? Her notes were then compared to my own personal reflections for
consistency. A summary of her notes and mine are as follows:
Notes from IEP Aid
During the lecture on mitosis in which the teacher used nothing more than a white
board and marker, the students’ level of engagement was fairly low. Most of the
students’ time was spent looking down at their notebooks, taking notes. Only a few
students participated in answering questions, and even less students were asking
questions. They occasionally glanced up at the board to see what the teacher was
writing and then continued taking notes. Though it seemed they were less engaged in
the active process of learning, a majority (over 95%) of the students completed their
notes.
Personal Reflection Notes Many students entered the classroom late as usual, a result of the security procedures
in place outside of the school for safety. After a few minutes, a majority of the class
filtered in and after the warm-up I was able to begin implementation. Two days ago, I
gave an introduction to Mitosis using the a CELL CYCLE PowerPoint presentation to
both my experimental groups. I left them hanging right after telling them about the G2
phase and alluded to cell division by asking them questions like, “Why do you think
the cell needs to duplicate its DNA during synthesis?”
One of the things I highly enjoy about my first period class is that I, as the performer-
teacher, feel extremely fresh. Although, I’m not too fond of white-board lectures, I
knew I could do more of a “performance” to my lecture than any other class of the
day. And it seemed as if I did do a great job. Students were engaged in this simple
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 37 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
low-tech presentation. Facial expressions showed interest and after speaking with my
TA, I surmised that at least 95% of the students were actively engaged in (at least) the
note-taking aspect of this activity.
I never really did too well in my Systems Physiology class in college. The class was
split into three sections, and after getting below average on the first 2 exams, I thought
the final portion would be rather difficult and surely I would be doomed. On the
contrary, I did extremely well during this Muscle Physiology component. Thinking
this through, I realized that I can attribute most of it to the way that the information
was presented. This professor chose the low-tech method of presenting the lecture.
She argued clearly that this method of sequentially presenting “pieces of the story”
made it easier for student retention. I’m finding out that the white-board, low-tech
methods of delivery have this particular strength even in this context. Students are
more engaged watching the story happen than simply just looking and answering. Of
course, this is probably dependent on the classroom culture and structure, as well as
whether or not the classroom is properly managed.
In this classroom, it seemed students were engaged. Many students even asked further
deeper questions regarding why certain processes occurred, a favorable sign that they
were not simply copying out of rote. Another student, Deborah (pseudonym), the
moment the AFTER picture of Telophase was drawn out, blurted out with “o it looks
like we’re back to where we started.”
“True, you’re absolutely right Deborah…is that what Mitosis wants to do?” I
responded.
“Yup, because you start with one cell and get 2 baby cells.”
(It is important to note, however that this student is always actively vocal in my class
both in and out of the topic.)
I knew that the lesson had been adequately delivered, at least I hope so.
High-Tech Group B:
Notes from IEP Aid
In the lecture in which the teacher used Power Point, the level of engagement was
high. The students were looking up almost the entire time and they were paying close
attention to what the teacher was presenting. They seemed very interested in
understanding the subject matter, as many of the students participated in both
answering and asking question. Looking over notes to stamp for class credit, I noticed
that over 95% of the students completed their notes.
My Personal Reflection Notes
Much of the class did show up today! Students in this class are generally on time, yet
much more sluggish in comparison to period one. Period 4 is difficult for me because
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 38 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
I am usually drained by 1:45pm. My “performance” as a teacher seemed limited
today as I was extremely tired.
Despite this, I began the period with the usual routine. However, for this period, all
information was delivered via PowerPoint and projected onto my whiteboard.
Students completed the dispatch and were engaged in the opening discussion of, “how
did Mr. Aguda get from this (small dot = single cell) to this (adult Mr. Aguda today)?”
Many students laughed and got excited during this brief discussion.
Students were then asked to set their notes up for the Mitosis Lecture. My PowerPoint
was designed to show a before and after picture of each stage of Mitosis. A transition
slide would provide the effects needed for an “animation-like” transition to the ‘after’
picture. After each transition, a discussion would follow that would ask students to
describe what they saw.
For some reason, I was not as excited in the delivery of this lecture. Much of the time
for delivery was spent copying the figure on the board. And since, I myself was not
drawing the picture on the board along with them, it seemed like eternity waiting for
my students to finish copying the pictures. Also, I felt like the PowerPoint was
confusing at times since I could not fit all the figures (before and after, specifically)
onto one slide. During the lecture, students asked to return to the previous figure to
copy down what components of the cell they missed. I suppose this was a positive sign
that students were engaged in following the PowerPoint.
Also from my vantage point, fewer students seemed to ask questions or provide
answers to the questions posed during the lecture.
This lecture was completed in a shorter amount of time than the low-tech lecture.
Students then completed a post-lecture worksheet identical to the one given to 1st
period.
4.4 PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY
Low-Tech Group A:
Notes from IEP Aid In the activity that required the students to create the four stages of mitosis using
Styrofoam plates and various other materials, the students were focused on merely
reproducing the picture of the cells in their notes they had taken. Almost every
student asked for my assistance. They were all asking me questions about what parts
to include in the different stages as oppose to asking me about what was happening.
They were all concerned with including the proper components of each stage but
placed little importance on the significance and role of the components. They didn’t
seem to be concerned with trying to understand what was occurring within each stage
nor with understanding the overall concept. Many of the students didn’t even bother
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 39 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
with the “narrative” part of the activity, where they were asked to write an
explanation of what was happening in each stage.
Notes from my personal reflections
Many students entered class again late. The dispatch for today asked several
questions about structures within the cell undergoing Mitosis. It also asked them
about the acronym, “PMAT,” denoting each stage of Mitosis. Many students had to
file through their notes to complete the dispatch; however this is normal, especially
with fresh material.
Much time was spent in discussion to review yesterday’s material, per the request of
a female student who could not seem to find the letters “PMAT” on her notes from
yesterday.
After a 15 minute discussion that seemed engaging from my vantage point, I
proceeded with the instructions for the MITOSIS PLATE Models. Before class I
debated with myself whether or not students should be required to complete the entire
process, making a total of 4 plates. I decided that students, in order to review the
entire process of mitosis, should complete all 4 steps.
Students quickly understood the instructions and began creating their models.
Alongside creating their models, students were asked to write a narrative of what is
occurring in the cell during that particular stage of mitosis. This worksheet was
collected after the project.
Many students, it seemed, merely looked at yesterday’s worksheet and copied the
figures directly as items on a paper plate. I did not remember answering any
questions that dealt with the procedure or the narrative, only questions similar to:
Student: “What is this swirly thingy?”
Me: “It’s DNA that has not condensed yet, check your notes.”
Student: “So can I use the yarn for that?”
Me: “Why not?”
Student: “Ok, thanks…”
Me: (interjecting) “So what are you going to write in the narrative about what’s
happening on this plate?”
Student: “I dunno…”
Me: “What did I just tell you was happening?”
It seemed that students were 100% engaged in the arts and craft activity, however
they were lacking in the big picture concept of mitosis. I knew this would happen and
so I turned to asking students questions about the process of mitosis. This took time,
and many students seemed antsy wanting just the answer so that they could complete
their assignment.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 40 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Time ran out quickly, though many students completed more than half of the
assignment. I asked the students to take their worksheets home as means of
studying…I had purposed for them to have written a narrative before they would
begin the assignment, so that what would be brought home could be used for
studying. However, upon dismissal it seemed that many students did not complete the
worksheet portion of the assignment.
High-Tech Group B:
Notes from IEP Aid During the activity in which the students were given laptops and directed to an internet
website, the students’ attention seemed to be captivated by the animations. As the students
were analyzing the animations of the cells during different stages of mitosis, they were
making attempts to interpret them. They would then ask me if their interpretations were
correct. The students seemed to be getting a clearer understanding of stages as well as the
overall process.
My personal reflections
Today period 4 looked excited when they saw “Laptops” on the agenda.
“Mr. Aguda, could we check Myspace?”
“No, we’ll be exploring Mitosis on the computer!”
“O, ok…like what we learned yesterday?”
“Yup”
It took a long time to get started, mainly because students had a hard time working
with the Macintosh computers. From an informal discussion, it became apparent that
many students use PCs at home. After 15-20 minutes of getting students started up,
they began their exploration of www.cellsalive.com. The room was pretty quiet as
students explored the website.
20 minutes into the activity, there was still silence as students were completing their
worksheet! 100% participation! Wow! By this time however, students were asking
questions regarding what to copy down. I told students to observe and watch and
then write only what you observed. Many students did just that.
A number of students finished quickly. I asked them if they understood mitosis. Of
course they said yes, but I doubt that they only rushed through the assignment to
complete it.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 41 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Unlike the previous class, students did not ask many structural questions; rather they
asked questions that were based on the concept.
For example, “Mr. Aguda, it looks like the chromosomes are moving here, but I
notice that that happens after this phase.”
It would seem from my observations that students were generally involved in piecing
together a story.
By the end of the period, many students had completed their worksheets and had an
adequate study sheet for tomorrow’s assessment.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 42 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Activity Group Engaged? Discussions Assignment completed?
Delivery (Lecture)
A Minimal to Yes, students busy completing/copying notes
Minimal involvement
Yes
Inquiry Assignment Low-Tech Delivery
A Yes, students were actively engage in the assignment
Questions regarding structure and analogy, not function
All did not complete the worksheet.
Delivery (Lecture)
B Yes, students were busy copying figures, but were looking up most of the time
Questions regarding structure and function.
Yes
Inquiry Assignment High-Tech Delivery
B Yes, 100% participation in the activity.
Questions regarding structure and function.
Yes
Table 4.4a. Observations during Delivery and Inquiry Activity. Observation notes were collected from IEP and Teacher. They were compared against one another for consistency, summarized and tabulated.
4.5 PART V: Assessment
Implementation day 3 was an assessment examination for the content that had just been
delivered. The scores for both classes compared with their pre-test scores are shown in tables
4.5.1-4.5.2 below.
All students completed the examination within the time allotted (35 minutes). Notes were not
allowed during the examination and all responses were bubbled into a scantron sheet.
4.5.1 GROUP A Results
For GROUP A, students scored an average of 50% on the post test. Though this is still an F-
average for the class, students did show significant improvement when compared with their
average for the pre-test (% change = +14%). Students in GROUP A had a wide spread standard
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 43 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
deviation of 22%, much larger than the spread during the pre-test, denoting perhaps random
guessing.
4.5.2 GROUP B Results
For GROUP B, students scored an average of 55% on the post test. This is also an F-average for
the class, however students did show significant improvement when compared with their average
for the pre-test (% change = +16%). Students in GROUP B also had a wide spread standard
deviation of 22%, much larger than the spread during the pre-test, also denoting perhaps random
guessing.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 44 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student RAW1 Pretest RAW2 Post %Change
1
2 4 33% 20 71% 38%
3
4 8 29%
5 3 25% 14.5 52% 27%
6 3 25% 9.5 34% 9%
7 6 50% 21 75% 25%
8 6 21%
9 1 8% 19 68% 60%
10 3 25% 7 25% 0%
11 6 50% 8.5 30% -20%
12 7 58% 21 75% 17%
13 18 64%
14 5 42% 8 29% -13%
15 2 17% 7 25% 8%
16 1 8% 6 21% 13%
17 3 25%
18
19 6 50% 22 79% 29%
20
21
22
23 2 17% 7 25% 8%
24 2 17% 16.5 59% 42%
25 6 50% 11.5 41% -9%
26 2 17% 3 11% -6%
27 9 75% 22 79% 4%
28 4 33% 15 54% 20%
29 9 75% 14 50% -25%
30 5 42% 19 68% 26%
31 6 50% 21.5 77% 27%
32 3 25% 10 36% 11%
33 2 17% 10 36% 19%
34 19.5 70%
35 3 25%
36 6 50% 18 64% 14%
37 7 58% 23.5 84% 26%
38 4 33% 11.5 41% 8%
39 4 33% 18.5 63% 29%
AVG 4.28 36% 14.03 50% 14%
STD DEV 0.19 19% 6.18 22% 19% Table 4.5a. Comparison results from PRE-INSTRUCTION QUIZ and POST-INSTRUCTION QUIZ. GROUP A (RAW1: Raw scores for pretest; Pretest: % score for pretest; RAW2: Raw scores for post-test; Post: % for post-test; %change: +/- change for student between pre-test and post-test)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 45 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student RAW1 Pretest RAW2 Post % Change
1
2
3 2 17% 14.5 52% 35%
4 6 50% 25 89% 39%
5 7 58% 9 32% -26%
6 1 8%
7 3 25% 18 64% 39%
8 6 50%
9 9 75% 18.5 66% -9%
10 4 33% 11 39% 6%
11
12 7 58% 20 71% 13%
13 3 25%
14 5 42% 17 61% 19%
15 10 36%
16 4 33% 15.5 55% 22%
17 5 42% 13.5 48% 7%
18 2 17% 11 39% 23%
19 1 8%
20 5 42% 17 61% 19%
21 2 17% 11 39% 23%
22 7 58%
23
24 5 42%
25
26
27 7 58%
28
29
30 4 33%
31
32
33 21.5 77%
34
AVG 4.524 38% 15.5 55% 16%
STD DEV 0.187 19% 4.6637 17% 19% Table 4.5b. Comparison results from PRE-INSTRUCTION QUIZ and POST-INSTRUCTION QUIZ. GROUP B (RAW1: Raw scores for pretest; Pretest: % score for pretest; RAW2: Raw scores for post-test; Post: % for post-test; %change: +/- change for student between pre-test and post-test)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 46 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Post Test Scores
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
PRE POST %change
Group A
Group B
Figure 4.5c. Comparison results from PRE-INSTRUCTION QUIZ and POST-INSTRUCTION QUIZ. GROUPS A and B.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 47 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
4.6 PART VI: Follow-up Focus Groups
One week after implementation, follow-up interviews were conducted with two Focus Groups as
described in the Inquiry Process Section. Student Key is as follows:
Student A: High-performing student from HI TECH CLASS
Student B: average-performing student from HI TECH CLASS Student C: Low-performing student from HI TECH CLASS
Student D: Low-performing student from LOW-TECH CLASS Student E: Average-performing student from LOW-TECH CLASS Student F: High-performing student from LOW-TECH CLASS
Transcribed comments of student interviews can be found in the following section. A summary
of pertinent questions and answers are shown in the table below.
GROUP A (LOW) GROUP B (HIGH)
Were you engaged in the lecture?
Yes Yes
Where you engaged in the inquiry activity?
Yes Yes
What was your overall interest level?
Med to High High
When you took the quiz, what did you think about or remember?
The PMAT handout The Computer Activity + PMAT handout
Which method would you enjoy better?
The Arts and Crafts The Internet/PowerPoint Activity
Table 4.6. Follow-up Focus Group Interviews. General response to student focus group questions.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 48 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
5.0|Interpretations and Implications
5.1 DOES POWERPOINT AND MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY HELP IN
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT?
5.1.1 Note-Taking and Discussion during Implementation and Delivery Day
In comparing notes between my aid and I, and reviewing student notebooks as well as
monitoring student’s work with the inquiry assignment, a common thread emerged. Many
students were engaged in the delivery of the material, whether High-tech or Low-Tech. Nearly
all students were actively taking notes. Upon stamping each note page for completion, over 95%
of students had adequate, accurate notes of each step of Mitosis. Drawings and illustrations were
accurate. Students copied the board or PowerPoint presentation verbatim.
All things being equal, Note-taking is perhaps the lowest of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students who
are taking notes are simply copying information. Whether or not this is delivered in a high-tech
or low-tech method, students automatically seem to have no problems copying notes. Students
can choose to be engaged in the material while completing their notes, however, according to
Consuelo, a student from group B:
“The mitosis lecture with the PowerPoint was cool. It was easy to
copy and follow and big enough for I could see it. What was difficult
about this was the fact that I had to draw a lot and I didn’t know what
some of the parts of the cell were doing.”
Much of the engagement in the delivery of information was due simply to rote copying. This is
unfortunate and, while I try my best to engage students throughout the lecture by asking
questions and reiterating important parts of the concept, I cannot insure that all students are
synthesizing information while taking notes. Another common thread emerged in classrooms
like these is that the same students answer questions. Though, as recorded in our notes above,
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 49 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
many more GROUP B students actively answered questions than group A, however it was the
same group of students involved in the discussion.
5.1.2 Scientific Inquiry Assignment
The inquiry activity in this instructional component was designed to help solidify the concept of
Mitosis. Both students in GROUP A as well as GROUP B, as described in the observation notes
from both myself and my IEP Aid, seemed to be actively engaged in the activity. This is an
obvious reaction to any activity which provides students the outlet to either be creative (GROUP
A: Arts and Crafts) or work with computers (GROUP B: Internet). Students always seem to
enjoy shifts in teaching methodology. Students jumped at the fact that they were to do arts and
crafts. In addition, students’ eyes broadened when they read “3. Laptop Mitosis Lab” on the
agenda for the day.
Low-Tech. During the follow-up interview with the focus group from GROUP A, students
expressed a general enjoyment with the activity.
Teacher: Do you remember the activity we did
for mitosis? What did you like about that
activity?
Student D: I thought it was alright, pretty
good. Figuring out how you can shape it and
which materials you wanna use…like straws, or
string, how you want to shape it
Teacher: What did you like about it?
Student E: It was fun and hands on. We took a
lot of notes the day before and it was
something else to do.
Teacher: Just something else to do?
Student E: yeah, well it was fun like arts and
crafts.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 50 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student F: Because, like all we had to do was
make paper plates look like your cells.
During the follow-up interview with the focus group from GROUP A, students expressed a
general enjoyment with the activity.
High-tech. During the follow-up interview with students from GROUP B, it was expressed that
they were actively engaged in the activity for three main reasons:
(1) Vibrant, simplified pictures. Students noted that the pictures on the cellsalive.com website
were vibrant, yet simplified so that the main concept of mitosis could be remembered. The
website also compared the real cell with the cartoon version of the process.
Teacher: This question is for both of you: How was
that particular website helpful in showing you the
entire process of mitosis?”
Student A: Because it shows you when it
forms…because I’m like the type of person that I
need pictures…so I need pictures like up on the
board so I can understand it better.
Teacher: So you like it when I draw it on the board?
Student A: Yeah, but like right there on the website
it’s better because it looks like its showing you in
three dimensions, the pictures are better.”
Teacher: What else helped you in the animations?
Student B: Also because in the computer it shows you
a cartoon form, and like there’s a little box where
there’s the real cell and chromosome.
Student A: Yeah it would be confusing if we just saw
the real thing…like your real cells.
(2) Personal Interaction lowers the affective filter. The high-tech inquiry project helped students
to teach themselves the concept without the fear of having to ask a question and interrupt class.
Student A:…and right there it’s like if you don’t
get it you could go back and push the ‘next’ and
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 51 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
keep going back. And here (on the board) when we ask
you to go back, it’s harder because it gets
confusing. But on the computer, it’s less confusing
because we can go back on our own. And, we won’t
confuse the whole class. Because if you don’t get
it, you push on your computer and you can just see
it again…so we’re not embarrassed to ask questions.
Both students were engaged with the inherent interactivity provided by this website. Students
were able to explore the cell and the mitosis cycle on their own initiative without the fear of
missing information and interrupting the whole class during a lecture. This is, in essence
lowering the affective filter to allow for learning to occur.
During the inquiry activity students were definitely engaged in completing the worksheet. A
large percentage of the students which I helped in the inquiry were students who never raise their
hands during a whole-class discussion.
(3) Detailed animations. Students were engaged because of the nature of the animations.
Student A: Well you’re actually watching it split.
Teacher: So it’s moving?
Student A: Yeah, it’s like a movie, it’s
interesting. It makes you pay attention to what
you’re watching. Not like when you’re writing on the
board and talking…it’s not like that. It’s like
you’re looking at a movie—it catches your eye.
The students interviewed mentioned that the reason for their interest and engagement was that
the pictures moved. Students are naturally inclined to watching animations and moving pictures.
When asked what kinds of movies peaked their interest they mentioned:
Student B: I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I like
movies with a lot of special effects.
Student A: yeah me too. It’s just cool to watch
and it kept my attention so that I could learn.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 52 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Comparison between groups:
A question on a dispatch was asked as a follow-up to the instructional component: “If there could
be a better way to teach this lesson (remember the survey I gave you at the beginning of the
quarter), which way would’ve been better and why?”
“I wouldn’t change anything Mr. Aguda. You taught just fine. I liked the
lecture, because you made it fun. I also like making the cells out of paper
plates, it wasn’t boring.”
Female Student, Group A “I wouldn’t change the activity. I liked it because it was fun and easy.”
Male Student, Group A “The computers were cool. I liked how they pictures moved. I wouldn’t change
a thing.”
Male Student, Group B “I think Mitosis was better to understand when we used the computers. I liked
it, don’t change anything!”
Male Student, Group B
A majority of the responses in each group expressed their enjoyment of their group’s particular
method of teaching. Only two other students suggested other activities that they had experienced
in other classes: a Mitosis Flipbook and building mitosis models out of trash found outside to
help alleviate the litter in the environment. After I collected these dispatches, I informed the
students of the differences in instruction between both groups. From an informal discussion,
many students still seemed content with having completed the component using their period’s
method of delivery.
Engagement comes quickly with students who are eager to learn and from teachers who are
eager to teach.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 53 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
5.2 DOES POWERPOINT/MULTIMEDIA AFFECT A STUDENT’S OVERALL
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPT?
5.2.1 Assessment during Delivery
In-class discussion. It was difficult to assess understanding simply by asking questions during
the lecture. Though students seemed engaged in the note-taking, I could not gauge whether or
not they adequately understood the concept. Even the students who answered the questions
seemed not to have a complete grasp of the concept.
During lecture in both groups, I pointed at the spindle fiber numerous times and asked students
to name the structure as well as to tell its function as it relates to Mitosis. Numerous times, even
after delivery of the information, I had to coach them to provide the correct answer.
To both classes, I provided the analogy of Spindle fibers being similar to Spider Man’s spider
webs. I assumed this would make it easier for students to understand the function of the fibers.
However the following day, many students still had difficulty responding to the dispatch
question, “What is the purpose and function of the spindle fibers during mitosis?”
Notes. As discussed above, all students from both groups had taken adequate notes. Please see
example notes from a low-performing student and a high-performing student in the Appendix.
The Inquiry. Low-Tech:
They were all asking me questions about what parts to include in the
different stages as oppose to asking me about what was happening. They
were all concerned with including the proper components of each stage
but placed little importance on the significance and role of the
components. They didn’t seem to be concerned with trying to understand
what was occurring within each stage nor with understanding the overall
concept. – IEP Aid
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 54 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
It seemed that students were 100% engaged in the arts and craft
activity, however they were lacking in the big picture concept of
mitosis. I knew this would happen and so I turned to asking students
questions about the process of mitosis. This took time, and many
students seemed antsy wanting just the answer so that they could
complete their assignment. – My reflection
Students from GROUP A seemed to be more concerned with the structure of the cell model
rather than the process itself. This was assessed simply by the fact that the majority of the
students’ questions were regarding what each material should represent. Apparently, during the
inquiry students were busy piecing together a cohesive analogy between common materials used
in arts and crafts and the actual process of mitosis which occurs in a real cell. This was also
apparent in the fact that most students did not complete the narrative portion of the worksheet.
Approximately 15% of the students turned in their worksheets, the rest of the students took their
worksheets home to complete them. Note that these worksheets were not intended to be done for
homework, but to assess whether or not students had conceptual knowledge of Mitosis, not
simply structural knowledge.
Teacher: Did it help you understand the entire
process of mitosis?
Student D: In some way…mostly the shapes.
Teacher: The shapes, so when you were making
your paper plates, what were you thinking of?
Student D: Mainly what colors, I thought about
what the straw should be.
Teacher: How did you know what the plate should
look like, what did you think about?
Student: I was thinking about the mitosis
handout sheet
Teacher: So you copied from the handout sheet?
Student D: Yeah.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 55 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Teacher: Did you finish the worksheet?
Student D: No, I was mainly trying to finish
the plates.
According to this student, the primary task to complete was to finish the plate models. Like most
of his class, he did not complete the worksheet that was provided to assist students in recalling
concept and process along with structure. Instead, much of his time and resources was spent
building the model and making connections between the analogy and the structure. When asked
about what he thought about during the post-instruction quiz he responded with:
Student C: I really didn’t think about the
activity. I mostly thought about PMAT.
Another student from group A had similar sentiments during the post-instruction quiz:
Student E: The activity didn’t help me during
the test because some of the test questions
asked about what those things—the parts like
the—what are those things when I used the
pipe-cleaner things?
Student C: (answering) Chromosomes?
Student E: Yeah that, when I did the
activity, I was just making sure I made the
paper plate look like yours, Mr. Aguda. So I
didn’t know what was happening to those
things…
It would seem that the hands-on activity designed to help them make connections between
concepts and analogy provided little assistance to their recall of the process. Most students seem
to remember what the pictures looked like, however they could not reproduce a coherent “story”
of what was really going on in Mitosis.
When I asked students from GROUP B regarding whether or not they would have learned if they
participated in the paper plate activity they responded with:
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 56 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student B: No, I don’t think I would have
learned better because I would be focused on
making the arts and crafts. Yeah it would be
fun, but I would just be making a model and I
don’t get to see it happen.
It would seem that a thorough grasp of the concept and process of mitosis could be lost within
the effort of making a model. This is obvious, since much of the resources of a student are
filtered into making a product rather than learning a concept. Students are able to hone their
skills in arts and crafts while subconsciously putting the “process of mitosis” on the wayside,
even when reminded that they would be quizzed on the lecture, not the activity.
After the activity during the following day, the students were asked to complete a dispatch that
was to assess understanding both structure and concept. One of the questions asked was “Draw
the before picture for Prophase.” Many students drew the after picture assuming that the
picture that was shown on the board and the model that they had completed was the before
picture. The discussion that ensued after the dispatch also made it clear that students many
students made no distinction between before and after pictures, that something was indeed
happening to the cell during a particular phase.
The Inquiry. High-tech:
During the activity in which the students were given laptops and
directed to an internet website, the students’ attention seemed to be
captivated by the animations. As the students were analyzing the
animations of the cells during different stages of mitosis, they were
making attempts to interpret them. They would then ask me if their
interpretations were correct. The students seemed to be getting a
clearer understanding of stages as well as the overall process. – IEP Aid
This group spent most of its resources completing the worksheet as they interacted with the
internet website. Since nothing was being built, students spent their time figuring out what was
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 57 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
really going on. Students like Students A and B below enjoyed the fact that they were able to
explore on their own initiative.
Student B: When we did that project on the computer,
I played it at least twice for each step. So
like…the next time (tomorrow) I could remember…
Student A:…and right there it’s like if you don’t
get it you could go back and push the ‘next’ and
keep going back. And here (on the board) when we ask
you to go back, it’s harder because it gets
confusing. But on the computer, it’s less confusing
because we can go back on our own. And, we won’t
confuse the whole class. Because if you don’t get
it, you push on your computer and you can just see
it again…so we’re not embarrassed to ask questions.
Teacher: so you can explore on your own?
Student B: yeah, like when I didn’t understand it
the first time, I could just hit play again…over and
over again.
Teacher: So what did you do first if you didn’t know
what was going on?
Student A: like I made sure to watch the movie a
couple of times before I raised my hand…besides, Mr.
Aguda you told me to watch the movie last time I
asked a question to you.
As a result of this interactivity, students were focused on the task—specifically the concept of
Mitosis. Further, 99% of the students in the class completed their worksheets and as a result, had
a complete picture of mitosis on paper on which to study from.
Teacher: If I were to ask you a question now about
mitosis, what would you be thinking about?
Student B: PMAT.
Student A: Yeah PMAT
Teacher: Why not the activity?
Student A: Well, yeah the activity too…but PMAT
helps me remember the steps better.
Teacher: Helps you remember their order?
Student B: Yeah
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 58 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
Student A: Yeah
Teacher: Ok, how about if I were to ask you to draw
for me what happens to the chromosomes in between
Prophase and Metaphase, what would you use to
remember?
Student B: Yeah I would remember the activity for
that one because of the motions.
Also, because of the level of engagement, students were able to recall specifics of their activity,
whereas the students, who completed the 2-dimensional, static paper plate model, did not have
such detailed recall.
Test Scores. The results of the post-test were rather surprising and inconsistent with my
hypothesis that students in the high-tech group would understand the concept better. According
to the data in Table 4.5a and 4.5b, the results of the post tests for both classes were similar.
Group A students scored an average of 50% in the post-test, while Group B students scored an
average of 55%, with standard deviations of 17% and 22%, respectively. I expected a higher
average for GROUP B students because of their high-tech experience. Also, in the light of the
follow-up interviews, since students from GROUP B seemed more engaged and able to grasp
conceptual knowledge far beyond the students in GROUP A, it would be expected that they
perform much better. However, they scored an average of only 5% higher than GROUP A
students. Also, the standard deviation for GROUP A and B are quite large, implying a wide
distribution of scores for both classes. These students perhaps did not yet have a firm grasp of
the concepts.
Despite the spread of scores, students did improve in both classes (see figure 4.5c). The percent
change between the pre and post tests for both classes were similar, implying that
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 59 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
implementation did facilitate learning in both groups. Students from GROUP A had a +14%
change with a standard deviation of 19%, while students from GROUP B had a +16% change
with a standard deviation of 19%. The high standard deviations do however imply that this may
be due to random chance and that students not yet having mastered the topic of mitosis.
Recall during post-test.
During the student focus groups, students answered the following two questions designed to
provide basis for their recall methods during the exam.
(a) When you were completing the quiz on Friday, were you thinking about the activity? (b) When I ask you a question now about Mitosis, what will you think about to help you remember?
All three students from FOCUS GROUP A stated that they recalled only the lecture handout
given after the initial delivery of information.
Student F: PMAT too, but I was trying to think of
the pictures on the handout
Student E: Yeah, me too.
Student D: Yeah, the handout was very important.
That’s what I remembered.
Students from FOCUS GROUP B also stated that they recalled the lecture handout, but they
mentioned that they were assisted by remembering animations.
Student A: PMAT and that handout-but when the
questions asked about where are things moving, I
tried to remember the movies. I tried…but I don’t
know if I totally remembered
Student C: The computers helped
Student B: I remember how they moved. But I thought
the biggest help was the handout.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 60 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
6.0|Inquiry Conclusions
6.1 Students are media-savvy and can therefore be more engaged in this relevant
form of presentation of an abstract concept.
The results from the pre-course survey showed definitely that students in the urban context of
Los Angeles are media-affected—they can and will be engaged by the content if the content is
made relevant and accessible to them. Both focus groups expressed their interest in the topic of
mitosis especially when the content was engaging. Multimedia has a way of making the content
more engaging because it is relevant to the student. Focus group B expressed specific
engagement to the inquiry activity because, “…it’s like a movie, it’s interesting.” Students
equate animation and interactivity to their own use of television and internet at home on a daily
basis. Further, of the top five methods of teaching deemed most interesting by students in both
groups, three of these methods involved multimedia, while the other two involved engagement
by hands-on activity.
6.2 “Engagement” is a relative term.
It became apparent during our observations that the word “engagement” is a relative term. In
order to qualify “engagement,” an adequate definition of the term is needed. Does engagement
simply mean that students are doing their work and following directions? Or does engagement
also encompass a student’s wrestling with the content so as to progress him or her up Bloom’s
ladder of cognitive prowess? If it is simply the former, students in my class are all generally
engaged.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 61 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
6.3 Engagement and the “Pedagogy of Poverty”
However, when faced with Haberman’s ideas of the Pedagogy of Poverty, students in the urban
context will always be engaged because that is what they have been trained to do. This problem
seems to be systemic in the Urban context and is consistent with Haberman’s theory that students
in the Urban context have been so inundated with the “task” of being a student, that the concept
of the content is being lost in the effort to be on task.
In addition, Haberman says that “students in urban schools overwhelmingly do accept the
pedagogy of poverty, and they do work at it!” (Haberman, 1997) Though students are not as
interested in Book Work when compared to Internet access, they do not all dismiss it as ‘not
interesting.’ This is personified by Sarah, a student in my 1st period class. One week prior to
implementation, my first period class became slightly unruly. I presented the class with two
choices: (1) continue being loud during the lecture and we can stop and do Book Work or (2)
settle down so that we can get to the activity after the lecture. With resiliency she retorted with,
“Let’s do book work!” A few students nodded in agreement and the class started laughing.
Though this was meant as a joke, I believe that at least some of the sentiment contains truth.
Many students wouldn’t really mind to do book work, if it meant that doing the work would get
them a grade for the day. When asked later why she said that, Sarah responded with, “all the
teachers give it to us anyway, and it’s easy.” She had bought into this pedagogy of poverty.
6.4 Technology presents content in a relevant manner
If the definition of “engagement” is broadened to include a student’s engagement with the
content then my data suggests that students who had exposure to the high-tech presentation of
content had the best, front-row seats to an experience with the curriculum. Students from focus
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 62 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
group B all agreed that the use of the PowerPoint and the Internet were engaging because they
were relevant sources of information. Students from both group A and group B interacted with
media on a daily basis. It follows that from this notion students are naturally inclined to be
engaged in technology. From the notes and observation that were collected during delivery and
lecture, a large majority of the class spent their time first analyzing the pictures and then taking
notes. During the inquiry activity, focus group B students all mentioned that they were engaged
in the activity because they were able to interact with it. Further, like the Hong Kong study
described in the Secondary Sources section, students were able to explore the cell on their own
initiative, mimicking the actions of a real-life researcher studying mitosis. Students were able to
teach themselves the content. Further there was much conversation between neighboring
students about content rather than structure and analogy (as was the case in the Low-tech
inquiry). A majority of the class (over 95%) of the students were engaged in the activity. Nearly
half of those students interacted with one another regarding the content in a context of
community.
6.5 Multimedia technology helps students make better connections between
structure and concept.
Student A: Yeah, but like right there on the website
it’s better because it looks like its showing you in
three dimensions, the pictures are better.”
A majority of my students, though inundated with media while some being computer savvy, are
not spatial learners and require analogies to facilitate understanding. The PowerPoint
presentation paired with the Internet-based inquiry allowed students who were lacking in spatial
intelligence, to be able to have access to the content in another form. Not only were they able to
see it in a two-dimensional image, but they were also able to virtually manipulate it in a virtual
three-dimensional space.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 63 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
6.6 Assessment and follow-up Both students from GROUP A and GROUP B seemed to have difficulty in recalling according to
the test scores. Though there was improvement in both classes, no class had high enough
averages to constitute a passing grade. Despite this, according to students in focus GROUP B,
both the high-tech inquiry activity and the lecture handout were instrumental in their recall
efforts. In addition, the students in focus GROUP A agreed stated that their low-tech inquiry
activity played little to no role in helping them recall the concept on the quiz.
The concluding quiz was designed to test for recall of simple structural facts as well as to test
specifically whether or not students had an adequate story of the concept of Mitosis. From the
test scores, it would seem that student still did not have an adequate understanding of the concept
of mitosis even if they had been engaged by the technology. Three reasons perhaps account for
the low test scores:
(1) Students did not have enough time to adequately process the content. Implementation
consisted of a total of three days. Students were required to assimilate a series of structural facts
as well as concepts in a short period of time. Much of the time was spent seeing or experiencing
the material for the first time. Very little time was given for students to adequately grapple with
the concept.
(2) The assessment method was inadequate. The post-instruction quiz was almost completely
multiple-choice. Some of the questions had been badly worded leaving room for ambiguities
especially for some of my ESL students. Multiple choice tests, in my opinion, do not adequately
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 64 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
provide a true picture of students’ understanding of the question. During follow-up interviews, a
low performing student was asked to quickly name the steps of mitosis. She was successful in
demonstrating what happens in mitosis. However, her test scores show that she understood very
little.
(3) My lecturing style and differences in delivery and inquiry methods. Furthermore, students
were engaged in the lecture and delivery whether or not they received the low-tech delivery or
the high-tech delivery. I would attribute a majority of this to my own lecturing style. I am
generally up-beat and vibrant during a lecture. This has been a welcome sight to many of my
students who have to endure another lecture on what could be an un-engaging topic. Many
students both in the past and at present have mentioned that they enjoy my class because “you
make your lectures fun.” In my own style of teaching, PowerPoint is a supplement to this up-
beat lecture environment. My observations show that students were just as engaged in this form
of the lecture as the students in my high-tech class. As in all cases, well-planned and developed
lectures can be made engaging whether or not they are shown through a digital projector or
written on the board.
From my observations, students in group A may have perhaps had a better experience with the
lecture material than group B, especially due to their line of questioning and the limited
discussions that ensued. They seemed to have followed the lecture well and benefited from the
way the information was presented piece-by-piece as I drew it along the board with them.
Students in group B were also engaged. According to the observations received from my IEP
Aid, these students were observed to be paying close attention to the pictures and asking specific
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 65 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
questions about these pictures. However from helping students work the review worksheet
(Appendix 8.3.6) immediately after the lecture, it seemed students were still confused about the
concept.
Thankfully, the high-tech activity helped create opportunities for students in Group B to re-learn
and make adequate adjustments to their own mental abstractions about mitosis. Unfortunately,
for Group A, the opposite was the case. Students were more interested in the arts and crafts
assignment rather than the concept of mitosis.
Both classes did similarly in the assessment quiz. It may be possible that the effects of the
abovementioned discussions account for the similarities in the quiz scores. However, despite the
inconsistencies between the quantitative and qualitative data in light of the test scores, my data
shows that multimedia technology positively affects students’ learning, specifically in the realm
of engagement. Students seem to be more engaged and find the content more relevant to the
culture that they view with their eyes. I intend to continue to use technology as a primary mode
of delivery in my classroom.
6.7 Implications to the teaching practice
Social Justice. The use of multimedia technology makes content accessible to students of color
in the inner city. It brings the technology found in universities and affluent contexts to students
of low-income, low-resourced areas who are also subjected to the mastery of the same standards.
It levels the playing field in a media-savvy world. We want a society of individuals who have
the skills necessary to keep up with the technologically-advanced society we live in today. Who
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 66 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
will advocate for students in the inner city? Teachers can not only engage students with the
content when technology is in the classroom, but also help spark interest in high-tech avenues
beyond the classroom.
Student Engagement with curriculum. As discussed above, student engagement was enhanced
using multimedia technology and internet. Students of the information age are naturally engaged
to technology and multimedia. Group B students were engaged in both content and activity as
they were able complete the task while making the appropriate connections to content. In the
low-tech classroom represented here, students found the task engaging however they did not
make adequate connections between content and the activity.
Multiple Forms of Delivery. Teachers who primarily use low-tech teaching strategies can present
information in multiple ways. Students who possess less logical and mathematical or spatial
intelligences can benefit from presentation of information in other forms such as PowerPoint and
white and black-board lectures.
Inquiry. Characteristic of the “inquiry-based-instruction” model is the ability for students to
explore on one’s own initiative. The use of internet technology and high-tech simulations
provides the student with the ability to explore, in this case, the cell as it undergoes its mitotic
divisions. Granted, this can be done in a wet-lab at relative expense or by watching a film of a
cell undergoing mitosis. However, these methods, though visual, do not offer the student with
the ability to rewind, play, backtrack, or skip steps in the process. Students can, on their own,
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 67 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
and without the teacher’s or class’ permission, explore further teaching themselves the content
without fear of having to slow the entire class down.
The Future of Multimedia and Teaching. In order for content to be relevant and engaging,
teachers must begin to incorporate high-tech instructional methods into their teaching. Teachers
and school districts alike are realizing the power of multimedia technology. Since the
completion of this research paper, I have learned that our school district has provided a budget
for multimedia projectors and smartboards in each classroom, beginning with science. Though
traditional methods of instruction may not become obsolete in the near future, it behooves each
teacher to acquire the skills necessary to provide multimedia in their classroom.
Other implications. The effectiveness of content retention in the long-run remains yet to be
explored. Does multimedia technology help students recall facts and information when asked
two or three years from first exposure? In my experience with traditional teaching methods, the
recollection of facts from my Sophomore Biology class was limited when I graduated from high
school. Further, students in my own biology class have difficulty recalling information one week
after exposure. Can multimedia technology facilitate long-term recall in the same way students
recall other forms of media? Students seem to recall images and facts from movies and
television shows that they experienced years before.
Multimedia remains a frontier in education yet untapped by the urban classroom. In a struggle to
be relevant and engaging to a media-savvy generation, multimedia has shown to meet these
needs.
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 68 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.0|References
Baxter, G. P. (1995). Using computer simulations to assess hands-on science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(1), 21-28. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc. Brumbaugh, Andrea. (2001). The Copernican Plan: Changing the School Schedule. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from School Renewal Web center Web site:http://www.schoolrenewal.org/strategies/i-4x4-ab.html Gentner, D. (1983), Structure Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 1983. Krashen, Stephen D. (2006) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice-Hall International, 1987. Retrieved April 21, 2006. Website: http://www.sk.com.br/sk-krash.html Haberman, M. (1991). The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching. Phi Delta Kappan. Dec 1991, 290-293. Hsiao, Jy Wana Daphne L. (n.l.) Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning . Retrieved March 22, 2006, from University of Texas Department of Education. Website: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/Dhsiao/theories.html Valencia, Richard. (1997). Conceptualizing the notion of defict thinking. In R. Valencia (ed.) The evolution of deficit thinking (pp. 1-12). London: Falmer Press. Veenema, S., Gardner, H. (1996), "Multimedia and Multiple Intelligences," The American Prospect vol. 7 no. 29, November 1, 1996 - December 1, 1996. Website: http://www.prospect.org/print/V7/29/veenema-s.html Yan Yueng, Yun, et. al. (n.l.). Using the Internet for Education: Training for Student-Teachers. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from Hong Kong Institute of Education. Website: http://www.ied.edu.hk/has/webauth/4hkws/ US Census Data (2000). Retrieved April 26, 2006 from US Census Website. Website: http://www.census.gov. US Department of Education (2006). The Smaller Learning Communities Program. Retrieved April 22, 2006 from US Department of Education Website. Website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/slcp/index.html
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 69 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.0|Appendices
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 70 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.1.1 PART I: PRE-COURSE TECHNOLOGY SURVEY (page 1 of 2)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 71 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.1.2 PART I: PRE-COURSE TECHNOLOGY SURVEY (page 2 of 2)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 72 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.2.1 PART II: PRE-INSTRUCTION MITOSIS QUIZ (page 1 of 1)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 73 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.3.1 PART III: DELIVERY LECTURE (LOW-TECH) teacher notes (page 1 of 1)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 74 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.3.2 PART III: DELIVERY LECTURE (HIGH-TECH) teacher notes (page 1 of 3)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 75 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.3.3 PART III: DELIVERY LECTURE (HIGH-TECH) teacher notes (page 1 of 3)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 76 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.3.4 PART III: DELIVERY LECTURE (HIGH-TECH) teacher notes (page 2 of 3)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 77 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.3.5 PART III: DELIVERY LECTURE (HIGH-TECH) teacher notes (page 3 of 3)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 78 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.3.6 PART III: POST DELIVERY WORKSHEET (LOW AND HIGH-TECH)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 79 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1 PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (LOW-TECH)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 80 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.2 PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (HIGH-TECH)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 81 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.3 PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (HIGH-TECH)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 82 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.4 PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY (HIGH-TECH) www.cellsalive.com screen shots
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 83 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.5a PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY (LOW-TECH) Paper Plate Cell-modeling (student
work) “Anaphase”
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 84 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.5b PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY (LOW-TECH) Paper Plate Cell-modeling (student
work) “Telophase”
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 85 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.5.1 PART V: ASSESSMENT (POST-TEST) High and Low-Tech (Page 1 of 2)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 86 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.5.2 PART V: ASSESSMENT (POST-TEST) High and Low-Tech (Page 2 of 2)
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 87 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1b PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (LOW-TECH) Student Sample A
Student turned in late – not completed during activity
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 88 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1c PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (LOW-TECH) Student Sample B
Student turned in late – not completed during activity
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 89 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1d PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (LOW-TECH) Student Sample C
Student turned in late – not completed during activity
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 90 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1e PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (HIGH-TECH) Student Sample D
Student completed this assignment on time
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 91 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1f PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (HIGH-TECH) Student Sample E
Student completed this assignment on time
High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Teaching in the Urban Classroom
- 92 - UCLA TEP Inquiry Project Theory to Prac t ice
8.4.1g PART IV: INQUIRY ACTIVITY WORKSHEET (HIGH-TECH) Student Sample F
Student completed this assignment on time