Reflective Synopsis - Analysis of Digital Technologies

Information and communications technology (ICT) refers to any digital device. E‑learning refers to the use of instructional strategies enhanced by technology to improve teaching and learning (Waterhouse, 2003, p. 3).

E-learning can transform learning by supporting and enhancing learning content, process and context. E-learning is transformative in terms of its ability to simultaneously achieve seemingly contradictory objectives - freedom and control, independence and collaboration, openness and cohesion and the integration of personal and public aspects of learning (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 3).

Despite this, I tend to agree with the suggestion by Garrison and Anderson (2003, p. 1) that we are yet to fully experience the transformative effects of ICTs. Too often, ICTs are integrated into traditional pedagogy, with a narrow focus on the ‘information’ or mechanisms of communicating information, rather than about the powerful opportunities they offer. ICT is most effective when it is integral to learning, that is, when learning is facilitated through the implementation of sound digital pedagogies in ways that are not possible without ICT (Fasso, 2012). Mishra and Koehler (2006) articulate this through the conceptual technological pedagogical concept knowledge framework.

E-learning does much more than engage ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2001; 2005). It enhances teaching and learning, connects teaching content to the real world, provides multi-modal resources and connects students to each other and a community of inquiry. ICT knowledge, understanding and ways of working are articulated in the Queensland Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Framework and the Australian Curriculum.

By emphasising the role of social interaction in cognitive development, encouraging real-world simulations and providing immediate access to knowledge resources, e-learning draws on constructivist learning theory (Vygotsky, 1978; Mergel, 1998; Lein, n.d.). E-learning is also connectivist in nature, as learning arises from the connection of information sources (Siemens, 2004).

I have explored a range of ICTs to familiarise myself with their technical affordances, understand their applications and assess their potential to transform learning. This reflective synopsis summarises these explorations and considers number of digital technologies in detail, including wikis, blogs, images, Glogster and Google Earth.

Scaffolded Wiki Activity

The mobile phones wiki activity required learners to respond to the topic using de Bono’s ‘Six Thinking Hats’ (Kurwongbah State School, undated).

Constructivist theory is underpinned by the notion that learners construct meaning based on their perceptions of social encounters and experiences. The design of the wiki activity was constructivist in that it aimed to stimulate social interaction and encourage learners to actively share their personal interpretations of the topic. The experience of negotiating these interpretations resulted in the construction of knowledge.

Typical of constructivist learning design which is generally more facilitative than prescriptive (Mergel, 1998), the role of the teacher was to provide initial scaffolding. The scaffolding provided the context for the wiki activity and supported the way learners thought about the topic. For example, by providing information about the six thinking hats routine, the teacher ‘set the scene’ for the wiki by making learners aware that they should use different thinking modes to come up with a range of perspectives. By introducing wikis and providing instructions on how to edit the table displayed in the wiki, the scaffolding facilitated the collection of the perspectives offered by the learners. As a result, the responses added to the wiki were relevant, reasonable and varied.

Participating in this scaffolded activity was valuable, as I was able to put myself in the shoes of my own learners. The wiki made the activity ‘fun’ and reminded me that we were talking about a real issue with real implications. As I was participating, I was conscious of the fact that the six thinking hats routine encouraged me to consider wider perspectives than I typically would. I was aware that the collaborative nature of the wiki took this one step further by adding the input of my peers.

The wiki activity allowed me to reflect on the topic individually, which is usually the way I prefer to learn. However, I was also able to more fully understand the complexity of the issue by acknowledging a number of other responses added by my classmates. The wiki helped me to articulate and solidify my own views as some of the other ideas added prompted me to think and read further.

I was also able to gauge some sense of my peers’ personalities through reading their responses. By either aligning myself with their position or questioning their ideas, I was simultaneously constructing meaning about the content, myself and my colleagues.

The activity encouraged problem-based higher order thinking, a move towards the most complex categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy of the cognitive domain (Big Dog, Little Dog and Knowledge Jump, 1999).

Participating in this activity taught me a lot about the value of effective scaffolding and thinking routines. I plan to use the six thinking hats routine in my teaching practice to investigate perspective and support critical thinking. More detailed reflection about this activity is provided in the Reflection on Wiki Activities posting.

Group 1 Tools – Blogs, Wikis and Websites

The first group of digital technologies I explored was web logs (blogs), wikis and websites. I experimented with creating my own wiki and website and reflected about the process and/or the potential applications of wikis and websites. Although there are conceptual and technical differences between these tools, they are all essentially connectivist as they facilitate the contribution of information to the internet by users and continual learning focussed on information currency and maintaining connections (Siemens, 2004).

I focussed on blogs because this is the tool I am most familiar (and competent) with. I’ve found blogging to be a useful way of refining and consolidating my learning. The personal experience of having to set up and populate my own blog has provided an invaluable insight into how I would design learning experiences using this technology. Based on my experiences, I would suggest to students that they blog freely and frequently as my own capabilities have developed immensely through being forced to practice.

Blogs provide a platform for authors to publish sequential ‘posts’ (e.g. updates, reflections etc.). Within each post, the user can embed multi-modal content, either from their computer or the web. I experimented by creating this blog and adding images, video, links etc. Blogs allow students to work interactively and collaboratively and are a great way of engaging different styles of learners (Felder & Silverman, 1988).

I envisage blogging transforming learning in a number of ways. Firstly, a class blog could be established by the teacher to communicate with students (e.g. to provide assignment information, homework, class news, reminders), communicate with parents (e.g. routines, homework, class trips, school events) and archive student work. The class blog would initiate collaboration between the classroom and home environments and allow students to develop familiarity and observe appropriate online behaviour. By involving parents in the dialogue, students would have increased support at home and parents could assist with monitoring online behaviour.

Once familiar blogging, each student would then set up their own blog. Student blogs would serve a multitude of purposes (e.g. diary, information store, mechanism for sharing show‑and-tell photos/videos and recalling, recording, evaluating and reflecting on learning). It is important however, that students are given stimulus and are guided towards higher level thinking by appropriate scaffolding (e.g. thinking routines like SWOT or PMI charts).

On their blogs, students would share information about their interests and likes/dislikes, construct assignments and record learning/work examples. This sharing of information fosters a cooperative learning environment (Ashman & Elkins, 2012) and allows the teacher to tailor the design of learning experiences to cater for the range of learning styles and multiple intelligences within the class (Gardner, 1983; Felder & Silverman, 1988).

Group 2 Tools – Images, Video and Audio Tools

The second group of digital technologies I explored was images, digital video, vokis and podcasting. With the exception of images, the creation of these artefacts was very new for me. Although these tools use different modes, essentially they promote connectivist learning which occurs as a by-product of experiencing artefacts created by others (Siemens, 2004).

I focussed on images because I believe developing students' visual literacy is important and I find imagery and interpretation of digital images fascinating. I particularly value images for their ability to engage learners (especially visual learners) and encourage critical thinking/thinking about emotional responses (The New Media Consortium, 2005). Thinking routines like the See, Think Wonder routine (Harvard Project Zero, n.d.) are important to scaffold students' responses to images.

Photographs are useful for recording classroom activities (field trips, student work), archiving student work and personalising the learning experience (e.g. time lapse photos of individual science experiments, illustrated student stories etc.). Classroom photos can be shared or used in a variety of ways.

However, in order to move from lower to higher level thinking, the key objective should be for students to manipulate and create images themselves. Although images are not new, digital images transform learning by giving students the opportunity to be media creators and manipulators, rather than just viewers and analysts. I experimented with these roles by resizing and uploading digital photographs and creating new images using ArtRage Studio.

ArtRage Studio would be fantastic for art and creative responses to literature. In my blog post about images, I provided an example of a sketch done while listening to the audiobook of the Twits by Roald Dahl. Using ArtRage Studio in this way encourages and develops effective text-participant literary practices (Winch et al., 2010).

Manipulating and using digital photos online is a great way of teaching students about referencing and legal/ethical implications of using online materials. As a teacher, I would model appropriate use of images and establish rules around photography (e.g. no photographs of other learners etc.).

Group 3 Tools – PowerPoint, Prezi, Glogster

The third group of digital technologies I explored included PowerPoint, Prezi and Glogster. I had issues with PowerPoint and Prezi in terms of either their functionality and/or application. I have used PowerPoint quite extensively in my professional career (as well as experienced it as a student), and find that it is too often used to facilitate teacher-centred message transmission.

I chose to focus on Glogster as this was a new tool for me and I really enjoyed using it. Glogster provides a platform for creating and sharing 'Glogs' (a form of interactive poster). Glogs are multi-modal artefacts, containing text, graphics, music and videos. Glogster is a connectivist tool which encourage users to source and view digital artefacts from a range of sources.

The Metiri Group (2008) suggests that students engaged in learning that incorporates multimodal designs tend to outperform students who learn using traditional single-mode approaches. Adding visuals to verbal learning can result in significant gains in basic and higher-order learning (Metiri Group, 2008).

My personal experience as a new Glogster user provided invaluable insight into how best to design learning experiences using this tool. The introductory video provided a solid foundation, and most of the tool’s functions were self-explanatory. Although Glogs can be used for a variety of purposes across the key learning areas (KLAs), in my blog I suggested some potential applications including for authentic real-world projects and as a mechanism for students to get to know each other.

As with any online tool, Glogs pose legal and safety issues. I would reinforce the importance of abiding by online rules and model appropriate attribution of other people’s material.


Group 4 Tools – Animations and Simulations

The final group of digital technologies I explored was animation and simulation tools (e.g. online concept mapping using Bubbl.us, Froguts Virtual Dissections and Google Earth). I chose to focus on Google Earth, as although I found Bubbl.us and Froguts very engaging, their applications in the learning context are somewhat limited.

Google Earth really does have the potential to enhance the learning context, content and process. It is a learner-centred, connectivist tool which facilitates a kind of learning and a level of understanding which is not possible without ICT. In a previous posting, I developed a learning activity for Year 4 Science using Google Earth, although the dynamic and flexible nature of this tool makes it ideal for use across all KLAs.

Conclusion

Interestingly, as many of these tools were unfamiliar to me, I simulated the process that students would go through when using these tools. I experienced first-hand the value of quality scaffolding, experimented with each tool and creatively adapted it to meet my learning needs. Critiquing the tools was an important part of the process, and I felt some offered more scope than others for transforming students’ learning. Although it was challenging to take in so much new information, I feel I am now competent at using these technologies and confident that I can incorporate them into effective digital pedagogy.

I intend to use my understanding of the learning theories and my observations/conclusions about these technologies as a basis for more detailed design of learning experiences in order to maximise learning gains.

References

Ashman, A. & Elkins, J. (2012). Education for inclusion and diversity (4^th Ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.

Big Dog, Little Dog and Knowledge Jump (1999). Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains, March 14. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive

Fasso, W. (2012). EDED20491: ICTs for Learning Design (Term 1, 2012). Retrieved from CQUniversity e-courses, EDED20491 ICTs for Learning Design, http://moodle.cqu.edu.au/course/view.php?id=19580

Felder, R. & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engr. Education, 78(7), pp. 674-681.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21^st century: a framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Harvard Project Zero (n.d.). See Think Wonder Routine, March 25. Retrieved from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/vt/visibleThinking_html_files/03_ThinkingRoutines/03c_Core_routines/SeeThinkWonder/SeeThinkWonder_Routine.html

Kurwongbah State School (n.d.). Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats, April 11. Retrieved from http://www.kurwongbss.eq.edu.au/thinking/Hats/hats.htm

Lein, K. (n.d.) Elearning pedagogy: constructivist approach, April 12. Retrieved from http://www.elearningpedagogy.com/constructivist.html

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional deisgn & learning theory, March 25. Retrieved from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Metiri Group (2008). Multimodal learning through media: what the research says, April 11. Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/Multimodal-Learning-Through-Media.pdf

Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), pp. 1014-1054.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 1-6.

Prensky, M. (2005, September/October). “Engage me or enrage me”: what today’s learners demand. Educause Review, pp. 60-64.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age, April 11. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

The New Media Consortium (2005). A global imperative: the report of the 21^st century literacy summit.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waterhouse, S. (2003). The power of elearning the past, the present, and the future, June 15. Retrieved from http://ritim.cba.uri.edu/wp2003/pdf_format/Wiley-Encycl-Internet-Diffusion-v12.pdf

Winch, G., Johnston, R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L. & Holliday, M. (2010). Literacy: reading, writing & children's literature (4th Ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.

Appendix

The reflective synopsis contains hyperlinks to supporting documentation. The links to the compulsory posting and four additional postings on tools from the Groups 1 to 4 ICT tools are provided below.

Compulsory Posting       Reflection on Wiki Activities

Group 1 Tools                A Blog About Blogging…

Group 2 Tools                Group 2 Tools - Images

Group 3 Tools                A Reflection on Glogster

Group 4 Tools                Group 4 Tools - Google Earth