Assessment 2 Reflective Synopsis

Classrooms of the twenty-first century have become knowledge seeking environments.  The environments are created with the inclusion of eLearning in the classroom to allow for more acquisition of knowledge not only from the Learning Manager (LM) but rather from many outside sources. As LMs it is our responsibility to embed eLearning into the classroom to assist students in gaining this knowledge in a safe, ethical manner that empowers them to become lifelong learners. Whilst the Australian Curriculum guides the learning, LMs are the facilitators of authentic learning within the classroom.

When there is change people often feel uncomfortable. Teachers who have used specific learning theories throughout their careers may feel threatened by connectivism. Older style teaching required teachers to ‘know the answers’. Connectivism explores the idea that it is not necessary to know the answers but more about the processes and ways to find them (Siemens, 2005). This is supported with the use of technologies in learning (Downes, 2006). Another learning theory that endorses student learning with the addition of technology is social constructivism. Social constructivism explores human interaction with each other and the environment; when using digital technologies students can have meaningful collaborative learning (Kim, 2001). As students progress through their lives in the 21^st century, it is highly likely they will change careers, learn more informally and hopefully be lifelong learners. In order to be lifelong learners, ICTs can assist students to develop these skills to acquire credible knowledge from many sources in an infinite number of ways. Understandably, assessment will need to change as students discover their own way of doing, seeing and exploring. Teaching roles will become more facilitative as students acquire knowledge from outside of the classroom.

The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework (TPACK) adds technology to content knowledge and pedagogy in learning. In this instance technology is defined as any tool or device of a technical nature that will enhance the students learning experience (Archambault & Crippen 2009). Content knowledge is knowing the subject matter and pedagogy is the way the content is taught (O'Donnell, Dobozy, Bartlett & Bryer, 2012).  The TPACK framework outlines the overlapping of these three areas to create more contemporary classrooms that invite students to participate in their own learning (Archambault & Crippen 2009).  In order to do this successfully, teachers of the twenty-first century are required to be competent in all the aforementioned areas. Research shows that when LMs deliver lessons using a balance of all three components, more engaged students achieved higher levels (Chittleborough, Jobling, Hubber, & Calnin, 2009). Many teachers are competent with content and pedagogy; however there are also a number of teachers who are hesitant to venture into the use of technology in the classroom (Archambault & Crippen 2009).

Whilst research into twenty-first century or namely generation y and z students is limited, we are aware of the environment they are growing up with (Schroer, 2004). These students are familiar with an infinite number of technological tools and will expect them in the classroom along with pens and paper (Prensky, 2001, 2005 & Schroer, 2004). As the technology becomes imbedded in the curriculum along with worthy content and knowledgeable pedagogy, students may have opportunities to peer teach in mixed ability groups (Tomlinson, 2001). With the incorporation of ICTs, students may also work independently at their own pace or with teacher direction to assist optimum learning outcomes (Tomlinson, 2001). Finally, students who require accelerated and remedial instruction may benefit from technology in the classroom (Snowman, Dobozy, Scevak, Bryer & Bartlett, 2009 & Asman & Elkins, 2008). This more personalised instruction allows for all students to work to their best abilities. For this reason, when LMs balance appropriate content and proficient pedagogy with safe and legal technologies, they are able to meet the needs of a diverse range of students.

Fortunately, there are sites available for all stakeholders in school communities to create safe environments for students to work with digital technologies. eSmart is a web site that explains and encourages cyber safety as the norm to empower students to make safe, responsible choices when using digital technologies (eSmart, 2010). Cybersmart is another Australian Government website that explores safe usage of the internet. It contains resources for all stakeholders including professional development for teachers and challenging activities for students to encourage positive rewarding learning in this area (Austarlian Government, n.d.). This site also contains much research on safe practices when on the internet (Austarlian Government, n.d.). Education Queensland provides and encourages teachers and the school community with technological tools to assist students until they have reached a level of proficiency to enable them to work autonomously with safe, legal and ethical practices (Education Queensland, 2011). LMs are responsible ensuring students can navigate suitable, ethical material using technology with correct citing within set parameters which allows for opportunities to  accomplish worthwhile authentic learning using digital technologies.

Initially, the eLearning course allowed students to participate in a wiki forum on the usage of mobile phones in the classroom. Using de Bono’s hats for a guiding tool, opinions were posted to the wiki. De Bono’s hats explore different attitudes on a particular subject to create a well-rounded opinion (de Bono, n.d. & McAleer, 2011). Sadly, students may lose data when more than one contributor is expressing opinion online. On a more positive note, students can increase their knowledge with the opinions of others students and possibly work collaboratively for higher outcomes.

Digital tools and technologies are many and varied and with every moment passing a new tool emerges. In the Group 1 tools investigated during eLearning; blogs, wikis, and weeblies were created to investigate and elaborate on their use in the classroom. The use of these tools can be beneficial in the classroom as outlined in the blog post assessment two. To create blogs, wikis and weeblies it appears we have to transform our thinking into a binary thought process. It either works or it does not.The blog became the site for reporting and recording researched information. It was approached with childlike enthusiasm along with frustration when unable to manipulate ideas and goals. The weebly became the platform for the visual diary of ‘Visual learning and innovation’ (another course). Both these tools are static platforms that can be edited and added to by the creator, however viewers can leave comments. Finally, the wiki was barely used as it had been used before. Wiki can have multiple users and facilitate collaborative work.

In the classroom, teachers may create or assist students with the creation of any of the above-mentioned tools for living journals for reflective work, homework sites that may include printable graphic organisers, cursive fonts, excursion notices, assignments, criteria sheets, exemplars, newsletters, parent and carer information and homework. The  downside of this concept is students without internet access or computers at home will not be able to complete the tasks in this manner. Alternatively, these students may have to access at these at school.

Students may also complete scaffolded, inquiry based tasks using any of the above mentioned platforms to develop competent skills in researching, analysing and creating their findings which may enable them to make meaning with the learning (Gutherie & McKracken, 2010). The assessable work would be in their site. When schools adopt a holistic approach including community and more importantly parents and carers, the students will benefit with a more rewarding rounded learning experience (Education Oasis, 2011). With teacher direction and guidance, students can discover that their research will require more than one source to validate their inquiry and that not all web sites are trustworthy or credible. All students’ websites and participation in online technologies must be password protected to respect their privacy so they can interact safely with their research and peers.

Group 2 tools were embedded into group 1 tools to enhance the sites with engaging materials. These tools include images, audio and video. As an amateur photographer the process of resizing and digitally altering images was stress-free because of familiarity. However recording an audio or video of one’s self can be uncomfortable. In my opinion, this is a valuable task as students may improve verbal skills and become more fluent in verbal tasks. This life skill can assist students into their adult life and in the workplace. When students make meaning with the aforementioned tasks they may perceive the communication skills as worthwhile; this in turn can help build their self-esteem (Ewing, Lowrie & Higgs, 2010).  Many sites assist students in recording, creating and designing; befunky.com for images, audacity, archive.org for audio, movie-maker for video creation. Of course there is an infinite more number as technology is evolving every minute of the day.

Group 3 tools are most successfully utilised as presenting tools. Prezi is a more dynamic single slide show that uses a fast paced method for showcasing. Glogster is a single page that is very limiting with animations and appearance. In my opinion, PowerPoint is still a far better option for presentation as it avails itself to an infinite number of styles and can include still or moving images, animations, audio, manual or automatic settings. The classroom may benefit from the use of PowerPoint with engaging hooks, student created presentations and web stories to guide student learning. 

Finally, the group 4 tools were explored with much trepidation. After witnessing iPads used in the classroom for presenting, recording and group rotations, it was easy to applaud their benefits. However, teachers will need to be mindful that these tools are used for authentic learning iPads can be an asset to the classroom (Abilene Christian University, 2012). Pedagogy must still play a role in the digital learning to ensure learning is still the focus (O’Neill & Knight, 2007).  Sadly, without adequate knowledge of iPad abilities, teachers may use iPads for nothing more than the app games as time fillers and rewards. On the other hand, smart phones and the like have not convinced me they have a place in the classroom. It is my belief that these tools require more training, research and investigation for the correct usage to reduce the risk of cyberbullying and similar violent acts on students (Australian Government, n.d.).

As students navigate their way through the use of digital technologies one may ask the question, “Who is guiding who?” For this reason, it is imperative that all stakeholders share in ongoing knowledge seeking to help create a safe authentic environment for students to explore with what is known as eLearning. Learning Managers will not know all the answers, however they can assist students to seek valid information as they develop lifelong skills they may take into adulthood.

References

Abilene Christian University (2012). Project Based Learning & iPad Integration [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm64SiTjwPA

Archambault, L., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 71-88.

Ashman, A. & Elkins, J. (2008). Education for inclusion and diversity (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

Australian Governemnt (n.d.). Cybersmart. ACMA. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.cybersmart.gov.au/

de Bono, E. (n.d.) Six thinking hats. Retrieved from http://www.debonothinkingsystems.com/tools/6hats.htm

Chittleborough, G., Jobling, W., Hubber, P., & Calnin, G. (2009). The use of Web 2.0 Technologies to promote higher order thinking skills. VIC: Deakin University. Retrieved from: http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/chi08664.pdf

Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks andconnective knowledge. Retrieved from it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html

Education Queensland (2011). Keeping Queensland schools safe. Queensland Schools alliance against violence. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://education.qld.gov.au/studentservices/behaviour/qsaav/docs/keep-school-safe.pdf

ESmart (2010). Alannah and Madeline Foundation. eSmart schools. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from https://www.esmartschools.org.au

Ewing, R., Lowrie, T., & Higgs, J. (2010). Teaching & communicating: Rethinking professional experiences. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Guthrie, K. L., & McCracken, H. (2010, July). Reflective Pedagogy: Making Meaning in Experiential Based Online Courses. The JEO. Retrieved from http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume7Number2/GuthriePaper.pdf

Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved 7 November 2012, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/epltt/SocialConstructivism.htm

McAleer, F. (2011). The opportunity thinker - de Bono for schools. Retrieved from http://www.debonoforschools.com/asp/six_hats.asp

O’Neill, P., & Knight, B. A. (2007).  E-learning: a catalyst for a futures orientation. In Smith, R., Lynch, D., &  Knight, B. A., Learning management: Transitioning teachers for national and international change (pp.44 – 56). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.

Prensky, M (2005) Engage me or enrage me: what today's learners demand. Education Review, 60-62 Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky_Engage_Me_or_Enrage_Me.pdf

Prensky. M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.vol.9no5, on the horizon MCB, university press.

Schroer, W. (2004). Generations X,Y,Z and the Others. The social librarian, Retrieved from http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Alearning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Snowman, J., Dobozy, E., Scevak, J., Bryer, F., & Bartlett, B. (2009). Psychology applied to teaching. (1st ed.). Milton, Qld: Wiley &​ Sons Australia.

 Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.