Having spent the last few weeks exploring various information and communication technologies (see Blog postings in Appendix 1), I can see how easy it could be for teachers to be attracted by the entertainment and novelty values of some available tools. Fisher’s oft-displayed hierarchical pyramid (Visual Bloom's, n.d.) seems right on point here. It is oft-displayed as it looks good, just like another attractive, oft-displayed image: Edgar Dale’s Learning Pyramid (Dale, 1954, p. 42). The problem here is one of presentation vs. content. The addition of unsupported percentages to Dale’s pyramid has lead to it being taken as fact: whilst an attractive, even useful visual, the percentages are “myths” (Metiri Group, 2008, p. 3). Fisher’s attractive visual reflecting digital tools’ use alone as a reflection of Bloom’s Taxonomy is just as misleading. As Fisher states, he wanted “the visual representation to be more fluid...where web tools can live on different levels and change levels, depending on their usage. I'm sure we could make a case for each of the tools to live in each realm of the hierarchy” (Visual Bloom's, n.d.). For example, Blogger is at the top of the ‘static version of Fisher’s image, but blogging can be at the bottom of lower order thinking: listing; describing; collating (see Andrew Churches’ “Bloom's Digital Taxonomy Summary Map” (Educational Origami, n.d.)). It all depends on how you use the tool.
Modern ICTs do have the capacity to transform learning if used well, enabling exploration of subjects in ways that would be impossible or cost-prohibitive, but for technology. Retention rates can be dramatically increased and higher order thinking can replace the traditional lower order practices of memorising and regurgitating.
Advantages
1. ICTs can be used to transfer more of the learning onto the pupils themselves, engaging them in their own learning; identifying their preferred learning methods; meta-cognition leading to life-long learning skills. ICTs are not the sole use of teachers, to look at different ways of delivering content. As set out in the QCARs ICT Cross-Curriculum priorities, ICTs have the power to drive student learning up Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), to encourage higher order thinking (HOT) by having pupils use technologies themselves, not just operating ICTs, or inquiring or communicating with ICTs, but creating: designing, planning and producing their work using ICTs.
2. ICTs can support the entire learning environment, not simply direct learning in class. Access to eLearning in remote areas, where traditional schooling is not practicable, is essential; however, ICTs also permit (often) free international communication to encourage appreciation of cultural diversity and global awareness, as well as collaboration - a 21st Century “essential” rather than a “skill” (Educational Origami, n.d.). ICTs also support teaching practice by offering:-
· professional development opportunities anytime, anywhere;
· repositories of teaching resources, materials, content, lesson plans, etc;
· database facilities (such as OneSchool) for pupil records, profiles, assessment results, histories, personal details and difficulties, leading to a better understanding of pupils and their learning needs.
3. The variety and speed by which content can be presented to pupils gives great advantage when dealing with a diversity of pupils with a diversity of learning styles, preferences and speeds. Rather than run a single class task at a single pace (usually aimed at the ‘average’ pupil, thus risking leaving behind the ‘slower’-learning pupils and disengaging the gifted and talented students), learning experiences can be multi-layered, multi-speed and multi-faceted, as well as freeing up teacher time to focus on above and below average students.
4. Most 21st learners, particularly Gen Z, are “Digital Natives”, having grown up with digital technology. They have a familiarity with and an interest in it. It can provide multi-sensory and fast-paced stimulation which many young students require to remain engaged. These pupils can easily become “enraged” (Prensky 2005, p. 60) with teaching practices which do not accord with their ideas of currently stimulating technology. “Twas ever thus”, it can be argued: young learners frustrated by what they see as old-fashioned or boring teaching styles and curriculum content. ICTs offer teachers the chance to make even dry content more engaging, simply by using more exciting, modern, relevant delivery methods.
Disadvantages
1. Use of ICTs in education, particularly for younger children, raises concerns regarding legal, ethical and safe practices. The trade-off to accessing appropriate, stimulating information across the web is the increased exposure to inappropriate content, unsavoury characters and practices and a Pandora’s Box of legal and ethical issues from copyright to plagiarism, disability, racial and cultural discrimination to health and safety issues. See my blog: Legal, ethical and safe ICT practices (LESIP).
2. ICTs in education require a substantial investment of both time and money: hardware, software, licences, training, IT helpdesk staffing, structural integration in classrooms, etc. Where is this extra money coming from? What will be dropped to make way for ICTs? Sport? Language? Art? How long will it take, and when will it be out of date again?
3. Accordingly, access to ICTs in schools (cf. state schools and private schools (many of the later with a digital device on every pupil’s desk) and at home, particularly in remote areas (availability of broadband) or lower socio-economic groups, can lead to further diversity (and disharmony) in classrooms (Thrupp, 2009, p. 1), as well as increasing the divide between publicly- and privately-educated children.
4. As ICTs develop at a startling rate, those whose teaching practice does not keep up with such developments may become as discouraged as their pupils become disengaged.
5. Whilst digital tools are being developed to cater for pupils suffering disabilities, such as visual, auditory or physical impairment, there is a danger that ICTs may widen the gap and further highlight physical diversity in students.
Specific tools
Group 1 Technologies - Online Spaces: blogs, wikis and websites.
The applications of these online spaces in reality blur the distinctions between them. Web 1.0 or “read only” websites are generally ignored as Web 2.0 enables amateurs to create their own webspaces. Collaborative connectivism has lead to the realisation that the whole is greater than the parts (Vygotsky cited by Hua Liu, 2005, p. 392). The web has become a repository of practical (rather than just academic) teaching resources and peer-group collaboration. I focussed on wikis as they have the positives of a website and can easily be made a more secure and private environment for children (by limiting access to relevant pupils, parents, etc). So too the disadvantages of wikis (the desire to avoid certain content being amended) can be managed by locking certain pages, effectively cancelling out websites’ advantages.
My focus was a Class Wiki. Initially teacher-designed, particularly for younger primary school pupils, once pupils develop more of an understanding of ICTs, progress up Bloom’s Taxonomy can be made, leading to less teacher-prescription; more student-creation, construction and collaboration, as well as engagement and relation - by choosing real-life, relevant content (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998). Whilst my Class Wiki is aimed at Grade 7 pupils, I envisage teachers starting a wiki in Grade 1 with the possibility of each teacher enhancing and developing a more complex class wiki in each school year, once junior learners have got the hang of it.
Recognising pupils’ learning difficulties (or preferences) and adapting teaching styles to engage pupils is essential to ensure engagement. Knowing your pupils reduces the likelihood of behavioural issues (Ashman & Elkins, 2005). Creating a class profile can greatly assist both the teacher and pupils (‘though the teacher’s version will obviously have more - and private - details). Pupils want to feel accepted by others and to feel comfortable, which leads to greater application in class (Marzano & Pickering, 1997, p. 16). Access to a Class Wiki facilitates information exchange and assists pupils getting to know each other. Scaffolded profile templates where pupils complete their likes and dislikes, favourite books, etc. would be provided, along with learning styles pop-quizzes. Pupils with insufficient IT skills to enter this information could be assisted by the use of interactive quizzes on PowerPoint (e.g. using Mouse Mischief see my Presentation Tools blog), imported into the wiki by the teacher.
Wikis can be used to enhance education by engaging parents to use the Class Wiki, by say, posting homework there, having a blog and posting upcoming events, such as volunteering opportunities, grandparent’s week, class trips, etc. Parents could also provide the requisite ICT skills until such time as their children developed sufficient computer-literacy, or better still, learn and work together. They can watch out for safe, legal and ethical practices, alongside the teacher, with the teacher posting information sheets as to what to look out for - see my LESIP blog.
Group 3 Technologies – Presentation Tools: PowerPoint, Prezi and Glogster.
I am taking these groups out of order as these tools can utilise tools from the next two groups discussed below. Despite the controversy surrounding unsupported percentages re. Learning Pyramids, it is incontrovertible that people retain more information when words (oral or written) are accompanied by pictures. Presentation tools enhance learning by combining not just images and words, but also video demonstrations and become the basis for discussions. Of the tools themselves, younger children would enjoy Glogster’s variety and colour, whereas older children may prefer the sophistication of Prezi. The tools’ use by under-age students is considered in my LESIP Blog.
I reflected on PowerPoint (ppt), not because I think it is a better tool than Prezi (though I prefer it to Glogster), but because:-
a) I am more familiar with it, thus avoiding the time to learn Prezi;
b) there are no restrictions with using it for delivering lessons in EQ classrooms (and it is particularly enhanced when coupled with IWBs as my Prac school is);
c) the relative lack of gimmicks should promote increased focus on content rather than bells and whistles.
d) It is backed by Microsoft therefore support and enhancements are more likely.
e) It is universally accepted and known (as part of the Office suite), offering a shallower learning curve for most.
For a relatively small technological step forward from whiteboards, ppt’s ability to present multimedia and hyperlink to websites is revolutionary: classroom time (and pupil boredom) is saved by pre-preparation of slides; auditory, visual and even kinaesthetic learning styles can be catered for by embedding images, audio and video files (subject to copyright and proper attribution, of course - see my LESIP blog); if the content itself is not engaging enough, pupils can be made to engage the use of Mouse Mischief, requiring them to answer quizzes, click and drag images, identify, create or deconstruct geometric shapes (for example), turning even a standard projection screen into an IWB. At the end of the lesson, ppt slides can be uploaded to the Class Wiki, thus enabling slower-learning students the opportunity to revisit and reflect, and for revision for all students at a later date.
It is perhaps the ease of ppt to combine with, and build lessons upon, online tools, simulations, animations (as will be seen in the next two sections) that makes it so able to facilitate, enhance and transform learning for any age-group. Prezi appears to do everything that ppt can, and more. Perhaps pupils should be encouraged to use Prezi, then lead the way and teach the teacher how to get the most out of it, illustrating HOT by devising instruction sheets and inventing examples: inverting, rather than simply transforming learning.
Group 4 Technologies – Other Digital Tools
There are simply too many “other” tools available; too many ways to use them for one to explore. Even with the tool chosen, Google Earth (GE), it is not possible to be up-to-date, as companies and GE users are always developing add-ins and individual content. There is no reason why my pupils cannot join the GE users and head straight to the highest order Bloom’s behaviours by collaboratively constructing and uploading content to GE, from 3D buildings to images, from videos to overlayed maps. Allowing (guided) choice of their content enables pupils to relate, engages them to create and finally, GE enables them to donate, to a world-wide audience, bringing the best efforts out of pupils (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998).
Developing a pupil’s profile on the Class Wiki could easily include an exposé of, say, their town, state, or just neighbourhood. Using digital tools other than computers, pupils could take digital photographs (or videos) on phones or cameras, could plot GPS data from their parents’ car navigation system (or iPhone!), or from their own bicycle trip computer. My Google Earth blog post sees pupils developing HOT from interpreting to applying, organising and evaluating, in an example HPE project. See also Appendix 2.
The interactivity of GE sets it apart from non-digital maps and atlases. Pupils can digitally plot their own maps and points of interest, including multi-media examples, but they can also print off and transform maps inexpensively. This resource transforms learning, saving both cost and time (spent creating from scratch). From youngsters colouring in the different states, to creating a “treasure map” in a real location, to charting the rise of the British Empire, to plotting the journey of cultural civilisations across the planet, GE covers all grades and offers faster learners the opportunity to delve in to almost unlimited content and depth.
Dependant on the broadband speed at school, the ‘minus’ of having to download GE and associated programs and the size of the screen are cancelled out when using GE in class on the IWB. The minor issue of incorrect or unavailable data is a drop in the ocean when compared to the detailed information available for the earth and heavens (and the ocean).
Group 2 Technologies – Multimedia: images, audio and video
Multimedia enhances student learning being both stimulating (Hoogeveen, 1995) and easy to create, thus ensuring an early, speedy ascent up the HOT learning ladder. Video was chosen as (except in limited circumstances - see podcast blog), videos can encompass and surpass both the other tools. They also, however, attract the same legal risks, in terms of copyright and attribution, and possible exposure to inappropriate content.
Major barriers to learning in primary schools are the diversity of pupil abilities and teacher: pupil ratios. Rather than focus on examples of pupil-generated videos (see video blog post for these), I focussed on the delivery of lessons by video, as these can truly transform learning (utilising the available online exercises alongside), as shown by the Khan Academy (KA).
Pupils cannot pause, rewind and replay teachers’ live lessons to support their different learning styles and speeds. KA offers pupils the option to solve problems alone, or receive hints; to use a pen and paper to work out answers, or use an online sketch pad; to print out problems (or teacher can publish questions to the Class Wiki and can respond to blogged queries and problems (or peers can)) or work online.
Teachers cannot currently spend all their time ensuring the entire class has understood a concept before moving on to the next lesson. Currently, when a student scores 80% in a test, they are congratulated and moved on to the next lesson, without necessarily understanding the 20% they got wrong. Accordingly, valuable foundation stones of learning processes may not be formed correctly, making further learning less solid. The KA system scaffolds pupils to move on to the next lesson only when they have shown they have grasped the current lesson. The KA dashboard shows teachers if pupils have skipped foundation stones before moving on.
Development of NAPLAN over the last couple of years, coupled with ICTs offer an opportunity for teachers to backwards-plan, designing learning experiences, the learning outcomes of which should be to ensure their pupils’ preparedness for NAPLAN. Videos covering such learning outcomes can be sourced and any gaps filled by the teacher.
Transferring standard lessons to videos to be reviewed as homework frees up classroom time, enabling the teacher to coach, rather than lecture; to tailor their teaching to the individual pupil and reduce passive learning. Involving the stronger students in this coaching process will see them checking and evaluating their peers’ work, detecting mistakes and collaboratively working on solutions to problems, as well as speeding up their peers’ progress. Increased time spent helping those struggling students catch up will enable the whole class to move on at a quicker pace. The KA dashboard illustrates when a section of (or the entire) class are struggling with a concept, enabling targeted further assistance; focussing valuable teacher: pupil time where it is needed most, rather than constantly writing up lessons and examples on the whiteboard.
Conclusion
As part of a “whole curriculum” strategy (encompassing physical, practical, hands-on activities) ICTs truly do have the ability to enhance, facilitate and support student learning. It is, however, the integrated use of such technology (used in a framework of content, knowledge and pedagogy (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)), not the technology itself, that will lead to eLearning transforming the student learning experience. Such integration will alter traditional teacher-pupil relationships and change the organisation of classrooms placing emphasis on the learning process rather than outcomes, on social learning rather than individual learning and should lead to life-long learning skills (European Commission Report, 2003, p).
References
Ashman, A & Elkins, J. (2005). Educating children with diverse abilities. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co Inc.
Dale, E. (1954). Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York, NY: Dryden Press.
Educational Origami (n.d.). Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom's+Digital+Taxonomy.
European Commission Report (2003). Improving Human Research Potential & the Socio-economic Knowledge Base: Monitoring and evaluation of research in learning innovations (MERLIN). Retrieved from http://www.ub.edu/euelearning/merlin/docs/finalreprt.pdf.
Hoogeveen, M.J. (1995). Towards a New Multimedia Paradigm: is Multimedia Assisted Instruction Really Effective? In: ED-MEDIA 95 Proceedings, June, Graz, Austria.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20–23.
Marzano, R.J. & Pickering, D.J. (1997). Dimensions of Learning Teacher’s Manual. Alexandria, VA: ASCD McRel.
Metiri Group (2008). Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the research says. Report commissioned by Cisco. 3-6. Retrieved from http://moodle.cqu.edu.au/mod/resource/view.php?id=163843.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Prensky, M. (2005). “Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE review, September/October, 60-63.
Thrupp, R. (2009). ICT created diversity in the classroom: The contemporary learner. In ACEC 2010: Digital Diversity Conference. Melbourne, Vic.
Visual Bloom's (n.d.). A visual representation of Bloom's Taxonomic Hierarchy with a 21st Century skills frame [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://visualblooms.wikispaces.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment