1. Ken Brown – Letterkenny Institute of Technology - ken.brown@lyit.ie
Myths, Rhetoric and Opportunities Surrounding New Teaching Technologies: Engineering Mathematics Education
Ken Brown – Letterkenny Institute of Technology -
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

2. Overview Myths, Rhetoric and Opportunities Digital Divide and Literacy
Perceptions of the technologies
Comparison between Ireland and Russia
Successful Interventions
Potential of New Technologies
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

3. Myths E-Assessment of Mathematics is easy1
Academics are confident with e-Literacy
Students are digital natives
Students are experienced with online assessment
Going beyond the simple recall and calculation requires the ability to assess abstract concepts – this is problematic. Reference ECER Aug 2016
Interviews and discussions have revealed that a great deal of unease exists amongst academics regarding e-tools
We assume students are digital natives because they can use SnapChat, etc. Academic tools are not native!
Responses to questionnaires and interviews reveals that many students have not experienced online assessment until 3rd level.
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

4. Rhetoric Students’ confidence will see them through the system2
Quiz results tell me that students don’t need help
Efforts are not rewarded through e-Assessment
Lecturers believe that students are more confident than they actually are
Depending on the outputs from simple quizzes online may not reveal the real needs of students.
Many students see MCQ as a quick and easy method but begin to struggle when more complex questioning is employed. The rewards for their work may not be what they expect when automatically assessed.
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

5. Opportunities Shared Education Potential personalized education
Better understanding of students
Wider participation
Shared for international collaboration, peer to peer, mentoring
Learning analytics to determine optimum delivery to students
Wider participation – MOOC’s, open, distance
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

6. Digital Literacy Media Information Communications ICT Learning Skills
Various forms of media – video, audio, text, graphical
Researching skills, analysis of information – deeming what is false
Writing, Presenting, Speaking, Sharing
Going beyond the browser and using ICT correctly in the educational context
Engaging metacognitive processes to move to the next level using digital tools
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

7. Digital Divide Internet Access Technology Access
Economic Quality and Growth
Social Mobility
Is Internet Access available to all students on an equal basis
Do all students have access to the required technologies such as PCs, Tablets, Smartphones, Software
If there is an imbalance in access to technologies the effect on Economic Quality and Growth may be visible
Social Mobility dependency on digital skills and access to correct technologies
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

8. Perceptions Overestimation of impact of feedback3
Confidence of students in e-Assessment situations4,5
Technical literacy of academics in use of new Technologies
Many lecturers overestimate the effects of feedback on students particularly during the initial phases in 3rd level. The meaning of feedback is not well understood during this time and students need to be trained in its role in the assessment process
Many lecturers allude to the assessment process and in many cases it is purely mechanical. Lecturers have demonstrated (Veenman, 2006) on many occasions that they are not fully aware of metacognitive needs within the assessment process. Also there is evidence (Van Rooij, 2016; Maloshonok, 2016) that students are given an inflated sense of confidence at 2nd level and this does not translate well to 3rd level.
Set aside the early adopters and progressive groups of academics – mainstream academics are not very literate in a technical sense – intermittent use of technologies amplifies problems in use of technologies
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

9. The Student? Confidence Self-efficacy Perceptions
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

10. Comparisons @Ken_M_Brown 27 April 2017, EdCrunch
CBT comparisons – students appear more confident in URAL than URAL coming from 2nd level but both sets seems to feel just as prepared for 3rd level CBT
CBT Barriers – both sets of students either experience or perceive some barriers to the use of CBT – this needs to be explored further
Maths Confidence
Prior Maths ability – URAL students believe their abilities in maths prior to 3rd level are very good compared to those in LYIT and yet both sets now consider their abilities to be of equal standing and both sets of students are equally confident that they will complete the current maths programme successfully.
Maths Self-efficacy
LYIT students give the appearance that they are struggling less with mathematics and that they have greater belief they will complete their current programme in comparison with URAL students.
Maths Expectancy
Both sets of students consider that the amount of effort they have to put into completing maths assignments is about right and that the rewards received are at the correct level. However, the LYIT students perceive that their maths instructor is more aware of their abilities in maths than the corresponding instructor(s) in URAL are of their students.
Overall Programme
Considering the assessments engaged in by the students in their overall programmes, the students in both LYIT and URAL believe that the amount of effort required for assignments and the perceptions they have of their instructors are very similar. Some difference exists for LYIT students who feel that they are more poorly rewarded for their efforts in the overall programme than their counterparts in URAL.
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

11. Successful Interventions
Considered Pedagogical Design6
Engagement of Students in assessment processes7,8
Permission to explore
Value added to educational process
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

12. Future Potential Ability to assess mathematics via Natural Language
Conduit in redesign of learning spaces
Change Driver in methods of assessment9
Promotion of creative student participation
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

13. Keep the Human in the loop
Pedagogy must not be overlooked
Humans are not algorithms
Increase opportunities for those with educational needs
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

14. Summary
New Technologies have potential to add value to the educational processes and experiences
New Technologies will have a positive impact on quality of education
Instructional Designers must remain cognizant of the pedagogical role of the technologies
Protocols should be in-situ within the programme of study to minimise negative effects of the Digital Divide and subsequent effects on Digital Literacy
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch

15. References @Ken_M_Brown 27 April 2017, EdCrunch
Brown, K., Hurme, J., & Lally, V., 2016, Realities in rhetoric of online testing: A higher education case study, European Conference on Educational Research, Dublin
Van Rooij, E., Jansen, E., & Van de Grift, W., 2016, Ready for University? Profiling Secondary School Students on University Readiness, European Conference on Educational Research, Dublin
Brown, K., Hurme, J., & Lally, V., 2017, The rhetoric of online testing in higher education: A mixed methods longitudinal study, European Conference on Educational Research, Copenhagen(accepted for publication)
Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P., 2006, Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations, Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), pp 3-14
Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E., 2016, Match between student educational expectations and realities and predictors of student satisfaction and academic achievements, European Conference on Educational Research, Dublin
Beetham, H., 2007, An approach to learning activity design, in H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (eds) Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: designing and delivering e- learning, OXON, Routledge
Lohani, V. K., 2014, Technology enhanced pedagogy in engineering instruction, in P. Doolittle (ed) Pedagogy in Practice , pp 16 – 21, Virginia Tech
Brown, K., & Lally, V., 2017, Self-efficacy and expectancy of engineering students in higher education: a case study of the perceptions and beliefs of lecturers, 11th International Technology, education and Development Conference Proceedings, Valencia
Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Freeman, A., & Rose, K., 2017, 2017 NMC Technology Outlook for Nordic Schools: A horizon project regional report, Austin, Texas: The New media Consortium.
@Ken_M_Brown April 2017, EdCrunch