STUDENT AND TEACHER: A MODEL AND CRITERIA TO UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE AUTHORITY ISSUES IN THE TECHNOLOGY CLASSROOM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By ROBERT MATTHEW KLEIN ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Patti Brosnan, Advisor Professor Douglas T. Owens _________________________________ Professor Linda Condron Advisor College of Education Copyright by Robert Matthew Klein 2003 ABSTRACT Electronic computing technologies have been part of an immense change in the ways that groups communicate and represent knowledge. As interaction changes, so too do the rules within which interactions occur. Education, the arena of much rhetoric regarding technology and change has welcomed the computing hardware into schools, but in many respects seems to have made few changes to educational processes in response to the changes surrounding new technologies. Assessment, pedagogy, and the status of knowledge and its creation/exchange have moved little with changes in technology. In this document, the adequacy of traditional models of authority are called into question in light of the growing presence of technology (especially computers) in the classroom. A new model of characterization based on the work of John Dewey, Michel Foucault, Michael Apple, and others is developed to better suit the ways that electronic technologies have redistributed knowledge, and therefore power. A set of probative questions (or criteria) is then elaborated as a guide to inquiry into authority issues in the classroom. Data from two computer-based, university-level calculus courses are used to ii demonstrate the need for a new model of authority, to test the appropriateness of the new model, and to exemplify the utility of the inquiry questions. A vision for rethinking authority in mathematics classrooms is offered, suggesting that complexity theories and the principles of collective intelligence offer one way for developing new approaches to mathematics education that reflect new ways of thinking about authority. iii DEDICATION To Jenny. Siempre fuiste la razon de mi existir Adorate para mi fue' religion... -Carlos Almara'n, “Historia de un amor” iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A dissertation so long in coming begs acknowledgment (if not forgiveness) of a great many people. Suzanne Damarin helped me to grow as a critically-minded professional and her intellectual curiosity and suspicion of that which is taken for granted has been a model for me. Diana Erchick, Linda Condron, and Peter Appelbaum have inspired and supported me as I worked to find my professional community. Doug Owens' door has never been closed to me – he is an academic gentleman of the first order. My many friends and colleagues at Capital University have been a constant source of support. The amazingly caring, gifted, and dedicated professors of the math department have set an example for me of what it means to care for students. Cheryl Ney's encouragement and summer support has helped me not only to keep food on my table, but to persist in the face of challenges. My friend and colleague, Erica Brownstein, was an advocate beyond reproach and helped me to find the space and energy to complete this project. Thank you, Cap Family. v Thank you to all of the people involved in teaching, creating, taking, and discussing C&M courses. Their energy and commitment to thinking about calculus learning using computers deserves more credit than I can give it here. Cindy Bernlohr, Joe Ferrar, and the Mathematics Department at The Ohio State University has paid for nearly all of my graduate schooling by granting me the privilege of teaching with and for them. I am extremely grateful. Patti Brosnan is the heroine of my Ph.D. The first time I met Patti, it was part of an assignment in my first doctoral seminar to interview faculty. In one short hour, Patti taught me many things that remain a part of who I am professionally. Principal among these is that research is about doing good things for others. In that same meeting, she helped me to see that some research questions could not be “measured.” It was my honor and my privilege to graduate as Patti's student. Thanks, Patti. My family has patiently supported me, encouraged me, and celebrated my victories along the way. Thank you especially, Mom and Dad. Thank you, Dan and Judy. Thanks to all of my family. Thank you, Beth – a better friend was never had. When I started the Ph.D. program, my oldest daughter was only two months old. During that time, our family expanded to two daughters whose beauty and light were truly inspiring – thanks Hannah and Ellie! vi Jenny, even if I worked every minute of my life to repay the love and joy you have given me, I would fall far short. You are my muse and I shall never know a better, more beautiful human being. Thank you most of all. vii VITA June, 15, 1972 . Born – Albuquerque, NM June, 1994 . B.A. - Mathematics Oklahoma State University June, 1996 . M.S. - Mathematics The Ohio State University June, 2000 . M.A. - Mathematics Education The Ohio State University 1994 – 2002 . Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University. 2001 – 2003 . Instructor, Capital University. viii PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. Klein, R. (2001). Calculus and the wired classroom: Exploring the interstices of social technologies. In Speiser, R. Maher, C. & Walter, C. (Eds.) (2001). Proceedings of the twenty-third annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1). : ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, pp. 1019-1020. 2. Klein, R. (2001). Integrating social technologies with respect to calculus: “Active” learning and the group as units of change. In Marlena Herman (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Spring Conference of the Mathematics, Science, and Technology Educators & Researchers. Columbus, OH:ERIC. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Specialization: Mathematics Education Critical and Postmodern Studies Minor Field: Statistics ix TABLE OF CONTENTS P a g e Abstract. .ii Dedication. iv Acknowledgments . v Vita . viii List of Tables. xiii List of Figures . xiv Chapters: 1. Introduction . 1 1.1 “The Problem” . 3 1.2 Why it is Important . 3 1.3 Ways to Address the Problem . 5 1.4 Implications of Looking at the Problem . 7 1.5 The Structure of the Dissertation . 8 1.6 Research Questions . 10 2. Theoretical Frameworks and Contextual Motivation . 11 2.1 Introduction . 11 2.2 What is Technology? . 12 x 2.3 Authority as a Model of the Student-Teacher Dynamic . 16 2.3.1 Dewey . 19 2.3.2 Power . 22 2.3.3 Apple . 26 2.4 Conclusion . 31 3. Methodology and Methods . 33 3.1 Introduction . 33 3.1.1 So Where to Now? . 36 3.2 Ethics . 38 3.3 Site . 40 3.3.1 The Physical . 40 3.3.2 Moving Away From the Physical . 41 3.3.3 Beyond the Physical . 42 3.3.4 Ethically . 44 3.4 Subjects and Objects, Subjectivity and Objectivity . 45 3.5 Discourse and Method(ology) . 48 3.6 Research Questions – Methods . 53 3.6.1 Reflexivity and Ethics . 53 3.6.2 Especially Relevant Methodological Literature . 56 3.6.3 Student Interviews . 60 3.6.4 Advisor/Counselor Interviews . 74 3.6.5 Observations . 77 3.6.6 Document Analysis . 79 3.6.7 Grounded Survey . 82 3.6.8 Member Checks . 84 3.7 Timeline for Data Collection and Analysis . 85 3.8 Methodological Obstacles . 88 3.9 A Few Words on “Criticism,” “Critical,” and “Critique” . 89 3.10The Dissertation Format: Analyzing the Medium . 90 3.11Conclusion . 92 4. Authority . 94 4.1 Teacher and Student Roles . 94 4.2 Enter the Computer . 97 4.2.1 Authority and Officiating Knowledge . 97 4.2.2 What the Computer Does to/with Authority . 99 4.2.3 What the Computer Could Do to/with Authority . 105 4.3 Towards a New Model of Authority, Knowledge, and Power . 108 xi 4.4 Criteria for Evaluating Effects of Technology . 111 4.4.1 Criterion 1 . 112 4.4.2 Criterion 2 . 112 4.4.3 Criterion 3 . ..