Conference Proceedings

Conference Proceedings
Conference Proceedings
Conference Proceedings of the Australian Computers
in Education Conference 2014
ISBN: 978-0-646-92095-5
Welcome to the conference proceedings for ACEC2014
The ACEC2014 Now IT’s Personal conference explores the three themes of Innovative Learning,
Inspiring Leadership, and Redefining Education. The conference has been organised by
EdTechSA (formerly CEGSA) for, and on behalf of, Australian Council for Computers in
Education (ACCE). The Conference Program Chair Dr. Trudy Sweeney together with
Program Executive Sue Urban have edited the proceedings.
The first iteration of the conference proceedings is on USB and available to all delegates on the
first day of the conference. After the conference the ACEC2014 website will be available as an
"up-to-date" conference proceeding.
All reviewed papers for this conference have been "full paper, double/blind" refereed, and the
editors would like to thank all of our reviewers for their time, energy and dedication to the task.
List of reviewers
Peter Albion
Wing Au
Glenn Auld
Peter Beamish
Gina Blackberry
Julie Boston
Greg Carey
Nicola Carr
Paul Chandler
Julie Clark
Martin Cooper
Garry Falloon
Wendy Fasso
Glenn Finger
Andrew Fluck
Ruth Geer
Gretchen Geng
Robyn Gibbes
Michael Henderson
Jane Hunter
Romina Jamieson-Proctor
Nicola Johnson
Anthony (Tony) Jones
Kathy Jordan
Therese Keane
Mutuota Kigotho
Jenny Lane
Margaret Lloyd
Page i of 487
Esther Loong
Jennifer Masters
Paul Newhouse
Lindy Orwin
Efrat Pieterse
Sarah Prestridge
Chris Reading
Petrea Redmond
Nick Reynolds
Rose-Marie Thrupp
Bruce White
Noeline Wright
Jason Zagami
Sponsors
Welcome Reception
Silver
Exhibitor
Media
Supporter
Theatrette Sponsor
Name Badge Sponsor
Page ii of 487
Referreed papers:
Principal and Teacher Beliefs About
Online Technologies
Instructional Writing Strategies Using
Text-to-Speech Technology
Developing Early Learners’ Creativity and
Collaboration Using iPads
Web 2.0 projects and 21st century learning
Observing And Assessing Children’s
Digital Play In Early Childhood Settings
Personalising the Professional Learning
Journey
Learning in Digitally Augmented Physical
Spaces
Making the Space for Space: The Effect of
the Classroom Layout on Teacher and
Student Usage and Perception of One-toOne Technology
Redefining the development of pre-service
teachers’ intercultural competence through
an online teaching environment
The impact of long-term ICT projects on
student attitudes and capabilities
Redefining Education 1:1 in 3 Vic Schools
Abdulmajeed Alghamdi and Sarah
Prestridge
Elizabeth Andrew and Trudy Sweeney
1
Jane Batham, Romina Jamieson-Proctor
and Peter Albion
Peter Beamish and Bobby McLeod
Jo Bird and Suzy Edwards
23
Gina Blackberry
50
Julie Boston, Martin Masek, Mark Brogan
and Chiou-Peng Lam
Terry Byers and Wes Imms
59
Nicola Carr and Richard Johnson
77
Paul Chandler
87
Ted Clark, Peter Twining and Dianne
Chambers
Jill Colton
98
Is the 21st century learner still relevant in
2014?
Students Online During Mathematics Class John Dekkers, Maria Mojica-Casey and
Rose-Marie Thrupp
Investigating 3-5 Year-Old’s Parents’
Leigh Disney and Gretchen Geng
Attitudes Towards Use of iPads
Developing Quicksmart Online To Engage Helen Doyle, Stephanie Belson, Lorraine
Learners
Taber and Chris Reading
iPads in the Primary School: Emerging
Gary Falloon
Findings From Research
MOOCs and Quality Issues: A Student
Glenn Finger and Lisa Capan
Perspective
Calculus for Kids
Andrew Fluck, Christopher K.H. Chin,
Dev Ranmuthugala and Irene Penesis
eExams transforming curriculum
Andrew Fluck and Mathew Hillier
Page iii of 487
12
30
39
68
109
118
127
135
143
157
170
178
Redefining Education: 1 to 1 computing
strategies in Tasmanian schools
Integration of technology in Higher
Education: transitional friction in the
implementation of UDL
Use of the ‘third space’ in interventions
with students with special needs
Conceptual Understandings of novice
programmers
Tweeching: Learning That Is Personal And
Social
Teachers connecting with students through
games
Appraising Mobile Maths Apps: The
TPACK Model
RPL ePortfolios: Recognising quality EC
teaching
Ethics of Teaching with Social Media
Technology enhanced feedback on
assessment
High Possibility Classrooms: IL in Action
Flowcharts: A tool for computational
thinking
Redefining education for the digital age: A
snapshot of the state of play in three
Queensland schools
Adapting an instrument to measure teacher
TPACK
iPads in a 1:1 Program: The Dilemma of
Challenge
Become your own personal videographer
ICT in teacher education in the age of
AITSL
Digital portfolios for summative
assessment
Redefining Education: Sustaining 1 to 1
computing strategies in Western Australian
schools
Team teaching with technology
Andrew Fluck and Peter Twining
186
Frederic Fovet
195
Frederic Fovet
207
Roland Gesthuizen and Paul D. Chandler
221
Roland Gesthuizen and Amanda Rablin
231
Robyn Gibbes
243
Boris Handal, Chris Campbell, Michael
Cavanagh, and Kashmira Dave
Carolyn Harkness
251
Michael Henderson, Glenn Auld and
Nicola Johnson
Michael Henderson and Michael Phillips
277
Jane Hunter
Cruz Izu and Amali Weerasinghe
295
305
Romina Jamieson-Proctor, Petrea
Redmond, Jason Zagami, Peter Albion and
Peter Twining
Kathy Jordan
314
Therese Keane
329
Jenny Lane
Margaret Lloyd
339
348
Paul Newhouse
357
Paul Newhouse, Jenny Lane, Martin
Cooper and Peter Twining
365
Michael Phillips, Greg Lancaster and Bec
Cooper
Michael Phillips
Sidonie Pors
372
TPACK and workplace learning
Participatory Culture And Student
Knowledge Sharing In An Online Learning
Environment
Social networking and professional
Sarah Prestridge
development
What do Australian Universities want in
Janet Price, Andrew Fluck and Darren
Student ICT Skills?
Pullen
Page iv of 487
270
284
322
380
388
397
407
Building Social Capital Through Blended
Learning
Professional Learning in 140 Characters
Proposing A Model Of pedagogical
reasoning with technology
Deadly remote teacher Education by
mobile devices
Redefining education: 1:1 computing
strategies in English schools
Project 600: Inspire, Connect And
Transform
Evaluating a 1-to-1 iPad Project: Beyond
Rose Coloured Glasses
COWPads: Findings from a project using
iPads as shared devices in a secondary
school
Page v of 487
Nicholas Reynolds
416
Carol Skyring
Vicky Smart, Cheryl Sim and Glenn
Finger
Philip Bruce Townsend
422
430
Peter Twining
448
Glen Watt, Glenn Finger, Vicky Smart,
Fiona Banjer
Brendon Willocks and Petrea Redmond
458
Noeline Wright
478
439
470
PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER BELIEFS ABOUT ONLINE LEARNING
TECHNOLOGIES
Abdulmajeed Alghamdi
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Sarah Prestridge
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
This paper explores the link between principals’ and teachers’ pedagogical beliefs regarding
the benefits of integrating online learning technologies into language teaching and learning
contexts. Principals who have the leadership ability to carry out the pedagogical requirements
for technological change in teaching and learning approaches can direct the use of technology
to enhance the school learning environment (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Ertmer & OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010). The paper reports on the initial phase of data collection for a PhD thesis at
an Australian University. Two surveys were developed and conducted for this study to
determine principals’ and teachers’ existing pedagogical beliefs regarding online learning
technologies. The participants included 67 principals and 82 Arabic language teachers across
33 secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. The results show a strong alignment between principal
and teacher beliefs in that both indicate positive constructivist beliefs, particularly regarding
the ability of online learning technologies to improve teachers’ and students’ research skills,
promote students’ learning both inside and outside school and convert teacher-centred
teaching approaches to student-centred teaching approaches. The study also shows that
principals’ beliefs were consistently stronger than teachers’ beliefs.
INTRODUCTION
Online learning technologies are at the forefront of recent advanced educational technologies (Heirdsfield,
Davis, Lennox, Walker, & Zhang, 2007). In this study, the use of online learning technologies refers to
the use of the Internet and other types of information communication technology (ICT) to assist teaching
in the classroom and to enhance and facilitate student learning. Examples include the use of online
communication tools (e.g. email, thread discussions, instant messengers and text messages), digital
resources (e.g. online dictionaries, YouTube videos, e-books and online literature libraries), oral/written
presentations, audio recordings, social networking (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), Web 2.0 tools (e.g. wikis
and blogs) and online learning management systems (e.g. Blackboard and Moodle). The use of online
technology tools such as these has become a significant component of pedagogy in many parts of the
world (Suanpang & Petocz, 2006). Educators and parents now consider integrating online technologies
into classroom teaching and learning activities as an effective and essential part of providing high-quality
education and increasing opportunities for lifelong learning (Heirdsfield, Walker, Tambyah, & Beutel,
2011). In comparison with traditional learning or non-technology use, teaching through online
technologies has several advantages, particularly in allowing for “learning anytime and anywhere”
(Peerapat, 2010). Classroom teaching and learning can be effective when online technologies are used as
interactive learning tools that support student-centred education and knowledge construction, allowing
students to obtain disciplinary knowledge while accommodating their personal learning preferences (Tu,
2005).
In the last decade, a number of studies in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia have been
conducted regarding the use of online learning technologies (Jones, 2008; Kennedy, Judd, Churchward,
Gray, & Krause, 2008; Kvavik & Caruso, 2009; Lenhart, Madden, Smith, & Macgill, 2009). In Saudi
Page 1 of 487
Arabia, the government has allocated a large portion of its recent national budget to the development of
public education. Attempts are currently being made to encourage teachers in Saudi public education to
use online learning technologies as an integral part of traditional education; this method is being applied
in some schools located in major cities (Hamed, 2012). In spite of these significant endeavours, using
technology in the classroom remains a big challenge for teachers because they have to learn how to use
technology, know how to identify and cope with the strengths and weaknesses of technology and select
the most appropriate form of technology for lesson activities (Al-Abdullatif, 2012). Online learning
technology implementation implies changes to the planning and delivery of lessons and, subsequently, a
change in teaching approaches. It also involves changes in the student assessment processes. Rather than
merely passing on knowledge, teachers are facilitators who show students how to use technology and
engage in a more self-directed learning process (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005). Therefore, the need for this study
stems from the potential usefulness of exploring the beliefs of principals and teachers about teaching
through online learning technologies and examining to what extent their beliefs can affect classroom
practices of online pedagogical approaches in Saudi Arabia. This study may also contribute to developing
research-based understanding of the actual experiences and beliefs of principals and teachers as they
manage the teaching and learning processes at their schools.
The research literature on how teachers effectively apply online learning technologies has primarily
catalogued the availability and considerable increase in technology and online pedagogical approaches in
higher education institutions (Bowen, Chingos, Lack, & Nygren, 2014). The majority of research has been
conducted at the higher education level, focusing on the use of learning management systems, particularly
in areas such as faculty participation (Maguire, 2005), involvement, adaptation (Baran, 2011; King, 2002),
satisfaction (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009), perception about the value and effectiveness of online learning
implementation (Al-Abdullatif, 2012; Ulmer, Watson, & Derby, 2007) and approaches to teaching
postgraduate online distance courses (Gonzalez, 2009). There is less research on the extent of the use of
online pedagogical approaches as an integral part of public school education.
An organisation’s leadership beliefs can shape the use of online learning technologies and affect the
willingness of college faculty members to teach using online technology (Harrison, 2011). A survey by
Mitchell and Geva-May (2009) indicated that online technology implementation can be affected by the
administration’s attitude. This is because the majority of administrators are inclined to encourage staff to
teach using online technologies to enhance student learning. Therefore, a study linking principals’ beliefs
and teachers’ beliefs may be able to identify the convictions influencing the role and application of online
learning technologies in educational processes.
While the study of teachers’ beliefs is in itself important, it is more significant to identify a connection
between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs and their impact on classroom practices, whether positive or
negative. In addition, there is a lack of research in Saudi literature on the relationship between principals’
beliefs and teachers’ beliefs about the benefits of integrating online technologies into language teaching
and learning contexts. The current study seeks to fill this gap. Particularly, it seeks to explore (1)
principals’ and teachers’ beliefs regarding the benefits of online technology integration and (2) how
teachers’ beliefs regarding online technologies relate to principals’ beliefs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Online Technology Use and Constructivism
The literature seems to be in agreement that teaching in integrated online learning environments differs
from traditional or non-technology classroom teaching and, as such, requires the development of its own
pedagogies (Kreber & Kanuka, 2006). Kenny (2003) and Porter (2004) demonstrated that implementing
online learning systems was likely to be most effective when used in conjunction with other face-to-face
pedagogical approaches. Collaborative learning techniques, long-term problem-based exploration and
greater use of online learning environments are the key features of pedagogical approaches in online
environments (Lim, Hung, Wong, & Hu, 2004). These approaches represent the constructivist view of
Page 2 of 487
learning and teaching. The constructivist approach gives the learner an active role in meaning and
knowledge construction; students can create knowledge, hypothesise, inquire, investigate, imagine and
invent, rather than passively receive knowledge from the teacher.
Johnson and Aragon (2003) pointed out the importance of associating learning theories with a new
philosophy of teaching and learning in online learning environments. There is a close relationship between
technologies and constructivism; various benefits can be obtained from this relationship, such as
encouraging both teacher and student to search through digital resources and encouraging them to read
more to build their knowledge (Gilakjani, Leong, & Ismail, 2013). Constructivism is based on the
perspective that “students construct their meaning during learning based on their experiences and through
a social negotiation of that meaning during the learning process” (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen, 2006,
p. 45). This learner-centred approach focuses on encouraging ongoing interaction between students and
actively engages them in constructing their own learning. Although constructivism is considered a form
of cognitive theory, it differs from cognitivism in two ways: it focuses on learners constructing their
knowledge and depends on social settings in the teaching process (Davidson-Shivers & Rasmussen,
2006). In the context of online technology use, constructivism is employed in teaching when teachers
encourage students to become active constructors of their own knowledge within the context of
experience.
Constructivism has generated a number of teaching approaches based on the following principles: (a)
active learning by encouraging students to participate in learning activities, (b) learning through
opportunities to search for information and experiment and (c) scaffolded learning and collaborative
learning (Harasim, 2012). Online collaborative learning groups informed by constructivist theory can be
an appropriate pedagogical approach for some features of online technologies, including online seminars,
discussions and group assignments that require students to work together. In collaborative theory and
pedagogy, the teacher’s role is to involve students in the language and activities associated with building
discipline as well as the language and processes of the knowledge community. The teacher is also
responsible for establishing the processes of discussion and the problem to be discussed, providing
students with feedback or analytical terms that lead them to discuss and understand the topic deeply, and
supporting students to reach a level of intellectual convergence and come to a position on the topic or a
resolution of the problem(Coll, Rochera, & de Gispert, 2014).
Benefits of Online Technology Use
The benefits of online technologies can have a significant impact on classroom teaching and learning.
Jones (2004) wrote a report on the results of BECTA’s online survey of 170 participants’ perceptions on
the barriers to ICT use in education. The report identified the lack of perceived benefits of ICT use as one
of the obstacles to implementing ICT in the teaching and learning process. Research exploring the impact
of online learning has identified several benefits that could overcome some shortcomings of traditional or
non-technology classroom teaching and some learning barriers. One of these benefits is providing students
with a creative learning experience and removing the limitations of time and place (Alaugab, 2007) to
support classroom-learning activities. This could be achieved by enabling students to broaden their
knowledge and experience outside of school using available online resources, taking into account their
desired learning styles (Gail & Terry, 2011).
Mason and Rennie (2008) identified additional benefits of the use of online learning technology such as
social media in the classroom. They found that the use of online technologies enabled students to
participate, think, contribute and become active in their learning. In addition, using online learning
technologies in the classroom allows the teacher not only to incorporate multimedia but also to share
information quickly and easily, providing a collaborative learning environment where students can
communicate at any time. Other benefits of online technology use are related to facilitating self-directed
learning, problem-solving skills, higher-thinking skills and research skills for students, along with
collaborative feedback from other students and the teacher in learner-centred environments (Seok, 2008).
Page 3 of 487
The use of online learning technologies places high expectations on students, since they are able to
monitor the quality of their responses in online activities until they are confident enough to submit them
to their teacher. They have more time to think before answering questions, and they can do more research
and review materials before submitting or discussing their work with their classmates. Online learning
technologies can help students keep up with their classmates and discuss lessons they do not understand
in the classroom. They can also ask questions via email or e-learning communication features
(Trangratapit, 2010).
Finally, Hsieh and Dwyer (2009) concluded that using various learning styles and approaches increases
student achievement, self-esteem and self-confidence. Online technologies provide an opportunity for
communication between the teacher and students, as well as among students, about the lesson content.
They communicate either in real time (synchronous) using teleconferences or in chat sessions with no
preset times (asynchronous), which allows students to participate in class at their preferred times (e.g.
through email and online discussion forums).
Principals’ and Teachers’ Beliefs
Since beliefs are thought to influence and shape classroom practices (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
Prestridge, 2012a), it is important to identify the beliefs of teachers and principals of the school
community. A principal can play a critical role in facilitating teacher change when he/she believes in the
significance of supporting teachers and giving them an opportunity to try new technological approaches
to effectively implement modern educational technologies in the classroom (Somekh, 2008). The school
leadership should create change-oriented environments supporting experimentation and innovation, as
well as include teachers in the decision-making process (Sociocultural, Reio, & Lasky, 2007).
School principals who have the leadership ability to initiate and carry out the pedagogical requirements
of technological change in teaching and learning approaches can also direct the use of technology to
enhance the school learning environment (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Facilitating technology use in classrooms, having a plan, articulating the vision, sharing leadership and
rewarding teachers as they strive to integrate technology are significant indicators that may affect
teachers’ classroom practices (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002).
However, a misalignment between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about online technology use is likely
when principals ignore teachers’ beliefs or when principals’ beliefs are incongruent with teachers’ beliefs.
Haney, Lumpe and Czerniak (2003) stated that teachers with a constructivist philosophy regarding
effective classroom teaching and learning may be impeded by school community members who hold
views that are incongruent with their own beliefs. Therefore, the belief structures of both principals and
teachers must be investigated to guide extant efforts in online technology integration.
METHODOLOGY
Research Context
This paper reports the results of the first stage of a PhD research project at an Australian university. This
project aims to explore the beliefs of Saudi school principals and teachers about teaching in online learning
environments. It will also examine the connection between the beliefs of principals and teachers.
Secondary school principals and teachers of Arabic-language literature were selected to participate in this
study for two reasons. First, the current project of the Saudi Ministry of Education pertaining to integrating
online learning technologies into Saudi Arabian public education focuses more on secondary schools, and
some secondary classrooms now have access to the Internet. Second, Arabic literature was selected
because the impact of the teachers’ beliefs on classroom instruction has been noted in other disciplinary
fields such as math and science, yet little research has been conducted to identify a similar link to teachers’
classroom use of online learning technologies. The teaching of Arabic literature in Saudi schools focuses
on literary arts such as articles, novels, poetry and plays from both classical and contemporary literature.
Page 4 of 487
The Ministry of Education has encouraged teachers to use the following teaching methods: discussion,
role-playing exercises and collaborative learning and research, along with integrating online technologies
into classroom practice (Ministry of Education, 2005). Each school is provided with two teacher
guidelines (Developing Teaching Strategies, Teach Me How To Learn), which cover all those teaching
methods. In grade ten, which this study will focus on, the contents of Arabic literature include the nature
of Arabic literature, types of literature, eras of literature, textual analysis of literature and examples of
literary arts.
Like most countries, the approach for teaching the Arabic language in Saudi secondary schools is face to
face and requires that students attend classes. In Saudi Arabia, online technologies in secondary schools
are an integral part of classroom activities. Classrooms have Internet access, interactive whiteboards,
smartphones, e-readers and laptops that provide an opportunity for students to use online communication
tools and digital resources. Arabic teachers in secondary schools have approximately 24 Arabic language
classes including Arabic grammar, Arabic literature and rhetoric. Each secondary school has one or more
principals who are responsible for managing all school issues concerning teaching and learning.
Research Design
A survey of principals’ beliefs and a survey of teachers’ beliefs regarding online learning technologies
were used for gathering data. This study analysed the survey results to explore what participants believe
about teaching in an online learning environment. It also examined the connection between principals’
and teachers’ beliefs. There were nine closed questions on principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about the
benefits of integrating online technologies into the process of language teaching and learning in secondary
classrooms. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likerttype scale (where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree).
The survey was constructed based on previous studies conducted by Alaugab (2007), Al-Abdullatif
(2012), Baran (2011), Harrison (2011) and Prestridge (2012b). It was also validated and tested through a
pilot study to ensure its validity and reliability in the context of language teaching and learning. The
survey instrument (items 1–9) had high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.832. Descriptive statistics
were used to present the data on the value of online learning integration.
Procedure
Schools were selected to identify any difficulties they might encounter during the data collection stage.
An invitation to attend a group information session for this research project was distributed by the
Department of Education in Jeddah to each of the selected schools. A total of 33 schools across eight
districts were chosen to participate.
Participation in the survey was voluntary. The researcher conducted eight group information sessions for
each of the eight school districts. At each information session, the researcher provided participants with
a written and verbal description of the research project and explained the purpose of the proposed surveys.
The researcher distributed information sheets along with the surveys to all participants in each information
session. The survey took approximately 20–25 minutes to complete.
The survey was conducted on a sample of 67 principals and 82 teachers. The principal survey included
questions on background and demographic information, followed by questions about the benefits of using
online learning technologies, technical competence for online technology integration and teaching
practices with online learning technologies, focusing on the teachers’ use of online pedagogical
approaches in class. The teacher survey provided descriptions of the participants’ demographic
information and general insights into teachers’ beliefs regarding the benefits of teaching in online learning
environments, their confidence levels with respect to teaching students through online learning
technologies, their personal technical competencies and their classroom practices of online pedagogical
approaches.
Page 5 of 487
Survey data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). A descriptive
statistical analysis of the responses, including frequency distributions, percentages, means and standard
deviations, was performed for each statement of the questionnaire and for the overall responses. All the
participants in this study were native Arabic speakers. Therefore, to ensure the validity of the surveys, the
principal and teacher survey were translated into Arabic by an authorised translation centre in Saudi
Arabia. Furthermore, to ensure validity, the study used a random probability sample and collected data
from various secondary school principals and teachers to effectively examine variations in principals’ and
teachers’ beliefs. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) stated that a random probability sample is one of
the best methods for selecting a research sample because it has less risk of bias compared with a nonprobability sample. Moreover, to ensure validity, the principal survey and teacher survey were evaluated
by a community of researchers and interested and informed individuals.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This paper analyses the connection between the beliefs of Saudi secondary school principals and teachers
regarding the advantages of using online learning technologies. In general, principals and teachers had
positive beliefs regarding online technology use in classroom teaching and learning. All statements
achieved agreement levels of no less than 78.6%. Additionally, the principals’ ratings were higher than
the teachers’ ratings for each belief statement, as shown by the high mean scores for principals’ beliefs
(Table 1).
Page 6 of 487
Table 1. Principals’ and Teachers’ Beliefs (N = 149)
Belief statements:
Participant
I believe that using online learning
technologies
1. accommodates students’
Principal
Teacher
personal learning preferences.
2. promotes students’ learning
Principal
both inside and outside school.
Teacher
Mean
Standard
Deviation
% of
Mean
Response
4.37
4.26
0.573
0.644
87.45%
85.2%
Agree
Agree
4.63
0.517
92.6%
4.48
0.633
89.6%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
3. converts teacher-centred
teaching approaches to studentcentred teaching approaches.
4. maintains high expectations of
students.
5. is more effective than nononline technology-based or nontechnology-based classroom
6. improves the research skills of
learning.
teachers and students.
7. enhances collaboration among
students.
8. improves students’ learning
achievements.
9. helps organise student learning.
Principal
Teacher
4.46
4.32
0.611
0.799
89.2%
86.4%
Agree
Agree
Principal
Teacher
3.99
3.93
0.728
0.828
79.8%
78.6%
Agree
Agree
Principal
Teacher
4.16
4.01
0.914
0.975
83.2%
80.2%
Agree
Agree
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
Principal
Teacher
All
4.63
4.61
4.40
4.09
4.24
4.28
4.27
4.11
4.3499
4.2304
4.2841
0.517
0.583
0.780
0.958
0.818
0.742
0.790
0.737
0.449
0.515
0.489
92.6%
92.2%
88.0%
81.8%
84.8%
85.6%
85.4%
82.2%
87.0%
84.6%
85.7%
Strongly
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree
Grand Mean
Criteria for data analysis: 4.50–5 = Strongly agree; 3.50–4.49 = Agree; 2.50–3.49 = Neutral; 1.50–2.49 =
Disagree; 1–1.49 = Strongly disagree.
The results reveal that the overall belief of principals about integrating online learning technologies into
classroom-based language teaching and learning is positive (M = 4.35, SD = 0.449). Principals strongly
agreed with three statements. The first statement was “using online learning technologies promotes
students’ learning both inside and outside school” (M = 4.63, SD = 0.517). Approximately 92.6% of the
principals strongly agreed with this statement. “Using online learning technologies improves the research
skills of teachers and students” (M = 4.63, SD = 0.517) was the second strongly agreed upon statement
among principals. The third statement was “using online learning technologies converts teacher-centred
teaching approaches to student-centred teaching approaches”. Approximately 89.2% of principals agreed
with this statement. These three strongly held beliefs support constructivist beliefs that focus on meeting
students’ needs and helping them become independent learners. The least agreed upon statement among
principals was “using online learning technologies maintains high expectations of students”.
The overall belief of teachers about the value of integrating online learning technologies in classroombased language teaching and learning is also positive (M = 4.23, SD = 0.515). The first strong belief
indicated by the teachers was that “using online learning technologies improves the research skills of
teachers and students” (M = 4.61, SD = 0.583). Approximately 92.2% of teachers strongly agreed with
this statement. The second strongest belief shown by the teachers was that “using online learning
Page 7 of 487
technologies promotes students’ learning both inside and outside school” (M = 4.48, SD = 0.633). A large
percentage of teachers agreed that online learning technologies convert teacher-centred teaching
approaches to student-centred teaching approaches. The three most strongly held beliefs among the
teachers were the same as those of the principals, which supported constructivist beliefs. The least agreed
upon statement among teachers was “using online learning technologies maintains high expectations of
students” (M = 3.93, SD = 0.828).
The results shown in Table 1 indicate that teachers’ beliefs were consistent with principals’ beliefs. Both
principals and teachers indicated positivist views regarding integrating online learning technologies into
the classroom teaching and learning process. Both groups held constructivist pedagogical beliefs that
online learning technologies improve the research skills of teachers and students and promote students’
learning both inside and outside school. Both principals and teachers agreed that online learning
technologies convert teacher-centred teaching approaches to student-centred teaching approaches. This
supports the findings of Gilakjani et al. (2013), who emphasised the close relationship between technology
use and constructivism, in which students are encouraged to build their knowledge using digital resources.
This finding also concurs with those of Al-shehri (2012) and Peerapat (2010), who argued that teaching
through online technologies provides students with meaningful opportunities to learn inside and outside
the classroom.
The study highlights the important link between principals’ and teachers’ beliefs about the advantages of
online technology in teaching and learning. It is therefore significant to take into consideration the
principals’ views and involve them in the process of integrating online learning technologies into
classroom teaching and learning. In addition, principals’ beliefs regarding the benefits of integrating
online learning technologies significantly impacted on teachers’ beliefs and may also influence the online
pedagogical practices of teachers in the classroom.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The current study is significant for several reasons. First, it explored the beliefs of a group of 67 principals
and 82 teachers of the Arabic language. The number of participants provided a snapshot of what principals
and teachers think, know and believe when they integrate online technologies into the teaching and
learning process. It is interesting to note that the three most strongly agreed upon statements (using online
learning technologies improves research skills, promotes students’ learning inside and outside school and
converts teacher-centred teaching approaches to student-centred teaching approaches) among principals
and teachers are related to constructivist pedagogical beliefs. Tamar and Rivka (2007) stated that such
constructivist beliefs can meet students’ needs and help students become independent learners.
Second, the study offers a significant contribution to the exploration of teachers’ beliefs. The study found
that teachers’ beliefs are consistent with principals’ beliefs about the benefits of integrating online
technologies in the context of language teaching and learning. The theoretical significance is that
principals’ beliefs regarding the benefits of integrating online learning technologies significantly
impacted on teachers’ beliefs and may also affect the online pedagogical practices of teachers in the
classroom. This supports the findings of Baylor and Ritchie (2002), who suggested that technology may
be more widely valued and integrated in the classroom if teachers believe that the administrators value
and promote the use of technology.
Finally, belief identification encourages principals to reflect on their own views and construct their views
with teachers. Additionally, the study shows that principals held stronger beliefs than teachers did. This
may indicate that principals are the active decision makers. Therefore, principals who are strongly
interested in online technologies may reinforce the importance of integrating online technologies in
teaching and learning, thereby directing and influencing its use by teachers in the classroom.
Page 8 of 487
References
Al-Abdullatif, A. (2012). An investigation into the perceptions of university students and instructors on
the effectiveness of online education in a Saudi tertiary environment (Unpublished thesis). School
of Education, Griffith University, Australia.
Professional
Studies.
Retrieved
from
http://griffith.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSEw2BjaC00xMEs0tEy3
MkoyMEpOA7fBU42Qji6Qkw1SUYQuk0txNlEHRzTXE2UMXNmARDx3DiE8CnWNoYg6
sfMQYWID94lQA6BwZYw
Alaugab, A. (2007). Benefits, barriers, and attitudes of Saudi female faculty and students toward online
learning
in
higher
education
(Unpublished
thesis).
Retrieved
from
http://griffith.summon.serialssolutions.com/link/0/eLvHCXMwY2BQSEw2BjaC00xMEs0tEy3
MkoyMEpOA7fBU42Qji6Qkw1SUYQuk0txNlEHOzTXE2UMXVirGpTkxBsCWyAmRiagGS8xBhZgpzgVAJFmF-I
Al-shehri, S. (2012). Contextual language learning: The educational potential of mobile technologies and
social media (Unpublished thesis). School of Education, University of Queensland, Australia.
Baran, E. (2011). The transformation of online teaching practice: Tracing successful online teaching in
higher education (Unpublished thesis). Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State
University, United States of America. Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12206/
Baylor, A., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived
student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers and Education, 39(4), 395–414.
Bolliger, D., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and
learning
in
higher
education.
Distance
Education,
30(1),
103–116.
doi:10.1080/01587910902845949
Bowen, W., Chingos, M., Lack, K., & Nygren, T. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities:
Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
33(1), 94–111.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge.
Coll, C., Rochera, M., & de Gispert, I. (2014). Supporting online collaborative learning in small groups:
Teacher feedback on learning content, academic task and social participation. Computers and
Education, 75, 53–64.
Davidson-Shivers, G., & Rasmussen, K. (2006). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and
evaluation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Ertmer, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence,
beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
Gail, C., & Terry, E. (2011). Designing for learning: Online social networks as a classroom environment.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 1–26.
Gilakjani, A., Leong, L., & Ismail, H. (2013). Teachers’ use of technology and constructivism.
International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5(4), 49.
Page 9 of 487
Gonzalez, C. (2009). Conceptions of, and approaches to, teaching online: A study of lecturers teaching
postgraduate distance courses. Higher Education, 57(3), 299–314. doi:10.1007/s10734-0089145-1
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of e-learning in higher
education. Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 5–29. doi:10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300069
Hamed, A. (2012). The utilization of technology in teaching of the Arabic language in secondary schools
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 594–603.
Haney, J., Lumpe, A., & Czerniak, C. (2003). Constructivist beliefs about the science classroom learning
environment: Perspectives from teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and
students. School Science and Mathematics, 103(8), 366–377.
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge.
Harrison, A. (2011). Identifying leadership styles that influence the willingness of community college
faculty to teach online courses. Capella University.
Heirdsfield, A., Davis, J., Lennox, S., Walker, S., & Zhang, W. (2007). Online learning environments:
What early childhood teacher education students say. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 28(2), 115–126. doi:10.1080/10901020701366699
Heirdsfield, A., Walker, S., Tambyah, M., & Beutel, D. (2011). Blackboard as an online learning
environment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(7), 1–16.
Hsieh, P., & Dwyer, F. (2009). The instructional effect of online reading strategies and learning styles on
student academic achievement. Educational Technology and Society, 12(2), 36–50.
Johnson, S., & Aragon, S. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(100), 31–43. doi:10.1002/ace.117
Jones, A. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers.
Conventry: Becta.
Jones, S. (2008). Internet goes to college: How students are living in the future with today’s technology.
DIANE Publishing.
Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year students’ experiences
with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 24(1), 108–122.
Kenny, J. (2003). Student perceptions of the use of online learning technology in their courses. Retrieved
from http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/166843071.
King, K. P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The
Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231–246.
Kreber, C., & Kanuka, H. (2006). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the online classroom.
Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 109–131.
Kvavik, R., & Caruso, J. (2009). Students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, connection,
control, and learning. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERS0506/ekf0506.
pdf
Page 10 of 487
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. (2009). Teens and social media: An overview.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life.
Lim, C., Hung, D., Wong, P., & Hu, C. (2004). The pedagogical design of ICT integration in online
learning: A case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(1), 37.
Maguire, L. (2005). Literature review–faculty participation in online distance education: Barriers and
motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1).
Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher
education. Taylor and Francis.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Arabic curriculum in the public education in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia:
Ministry of Education.
Mitchell, B., & Geva-May, I. (2009). Attitudes affecting online learning implementation in higher
education institutions. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 71–88.
Peerapat, T. (2010). Faculty perceptions about the implementation of e-learning in Thailand: An analysis
of cultural factors (Unpublished dissertation). Northern Illinois University, Illinois.
Porter, L. (2004). Developing an online curriculum: Technologies and techniques. Hersey, PA:
Information Science Pub.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.028
Seok, S. (2008). Teaching aspects of e-learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 725–741.
Sociocultural, A., Reio, T., Jr., & Lasky, S. (2007). Teacher risk taking changes in the context of school
reform. Standards in Education, 7, 13.
Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In International handbook
of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 449–460).
Suanpang, P., & Petocz, P. (2006). E-learning in Thailand: An analysis and case study. International
Journal on E-Learning, 5(3), 415–438.
Tamar, L., & Rivka, W. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based classrooms: A
developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 157.
Trangratapit, P. (2010). Faculty perceptions about the implementation of e-learning in Thailand: An
analysis of cultural factors. ProQuest LLC.
Tu, C. (2005). From presentation to interaction: New goals for online learning technologies. Educational
Media International, 42(3), 189–206.
Ulmer, L., Watson, L., & Derby, D. (2007). Perceptions of higher education faculty members on the value
of distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 59–70.
Page 11 of 487
INSTRUCTIONAL WRITING STRATEGIES USING
TEXT-TO-SPEECH TECHNOLOGY
Elizabeth Andrew and Trudy Sweeney
Flinders University, South Australia
This paper describes an ethnographical case study about how one primary school teacher
integrated text-to-speech technology into her instructional writing strategies to develop
students’ knowledge-telling revision procedures. The text-to-speech technology enabled the
teacher to personalise writing instruction by providing novice and more experienced writers
with similar writing instruction but with differentiated writing goals. The findings suggest that
text-to-speech technology is valuable for developing students’ understanding about the
relationship between the author and the reader by enabling them to review what they have
written as a cognitive tool to help them revise the meaning and mechanics of their texts. The
use of text-to-speech technology for collaborative class writing activities served to de-privatise
the writing process for response by a larger audience.
All students need to learn to write to communicate meaningfully in today’s world. The Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) claims that students will need to analyse, reason and
communicate their ideas effectively (OECD, 2011). School pedagogical environments are a major
influence on shaping national efforts to “help students to learn better, teachers to teach better, and school
systems to become more effective” (p.4). In 2008, the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for
Young Australians, a framework for Australian schooling recognised Information Communication
Technology (ICT) as a foundation for success in all learning areas and for further learning and adult life
(Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 2008). The opportunities that
technology may provide for educational reform is not going un-noticed by the governments, school
authorities and classroom teachers.
Teachers are experimenting with new and different modes of learning with technologies as they strive to
support students to develop their writing skills. However, writing with the use of technology does not
guarantee that students develop the necessary knowledge and skills to create meaningful texts. There is
debate about how technology can impact positively on students’ writing through changing approaches to
teaching practice, the use of word processors, effective instructional practices, computer meditated
communication and with the use of technological tools to create shared knowledge through collaborative
social practices (Akbiyik & Seferoğlu, 2012; Hakkarainen, 2009; Morphy & Graham, 2012; PetersonKarlan, 2011; Turner, 2011).
This paper investigates how Stephanie (pseudonym), a teacher in the study, designed instructional
approaches using text-to-speech technology within personal and collaborative writing environments,
using the process approach to writing to develop her students’ writing goals. Stephanie was in her first
year of teaching and at the time of the research, she was teaching a composite class of Year 4 and 5
students. She believed she was a competent user of technology, using technology daily for classroom
management processes, to access information and to support her teaching.
Writing to communicate with technology challenged Stephanie to think differently about her current
teaching practice and what it meant for her students to be literate. She had been using technology in her
writing classroom as a typing tool or for students to publish their written texts. One of the challenges for
Stephanie and the implications of the changes in computer technology, is the audiences that students write
for have changed. Written communication is changing in the world and Stephanie understood that she
needed to think about this from a teaching point of view if she wanted her students to become authors for
global audiences. If her students were to use technology in their writing so they could communicate
effectively, then they needed to know about technology and have a different set of writing skills.
Page 12 of 487
Literature Review
A review of the literature suggests that technology can transform and deepen students’ writing experiences
influence teachers’ pedagogy and classroom instruction. There are five main components to consider
when investigating the role of technology in instructional writing strategies. Each of these five
components will now be briefly discussed.
Teaching Reading and Writing to Enhance Literacy Learning. When reading and writing are taught
together student’s literacy learning can be enhanced (Vygotsky, 1978b), student’s comprehension skills
can be developed, and students are enabled to become more critical thinkers (Vygotsky, 1978a).
Researchers suggest that communicating meaningfully through writing can be a collaborative process
between the writer and the reader (Stahl & Hesse, 2006; Vass, Littleton, Miell, & Jones, 2008; Vygotsky,
1978a). Shanahan (1998) recommends that instructional principles can be used to promote the relationship
between reading and writing and that teachers should make the reading and writing connections explicit
to students.
Researchers have shown that there are similar cognitive processes between reading and writing that enable
students to develop their literacy skills (Hattie & Yates, 2014) . The remodelled cognitive process theory
approach to writing by Hayes (2012) provides a means for teachers to focus on the thinking processes
between good and poor writers within the different writing process activities. This especially includes the
monitoring and revising of texts (Graham & Perin, 2007; Peterson-Karlan, 2011). Teachers who have
awareness for how writing concepts can inform their practice, may then design effective scaffolded
learning experiences for students (Bereiter, 1994).
Using Technology for Writing. The impact of using computers for writing has shown positive outcomes
on student learning (Akbiyik & Seferoğlu, 2012; Morphy & Graham, 2012; Riley & A˚hlberg, 2004;
Turner, 2011). This includes commercially produced software and freeware, which is used by teachers
today to individualise classroom instruction (Abell & Lewis, 2005; Brunelle & Bruce, 2002; Lange,
McPhillips, Mulhern, & Wylie, 2006; Lovell & Phillips, 2009). However, the creators of writing software
programs do not generally consider the potential of emerging technologies as a means to promote writing
for communicating in today’s world (Vojak, Kline, Cope, McCarthey, & Kalantzis, 2011). Read&Write
Gold™ is a literacy based software (TextHelp Systems Ltd, 2012) which is an exception, as the creators
of this program did consider how the technology can promote the learning to write process. The different
technological tools within the software can be personally customised in the learning environment and
used as cognitive tools.
While software creators suggest how teachers can best use their products, teachers themselves possess
deep content knowledge about their subject domain and the pedagogical strategies effective for exploiting
the interactions with the features of technology. Researchers suggest that the creators of many programs
promote outcomes that may reinforce traditional classroom practices or testing outcomes (Al-Alaoui et
al., 2008; Brunelle & Bruce, 2002; Englert, Wu, & Zhao, 2005; Garrison, 2009; Silió & Barbetta, 2010).
Learning Theories. Researchers have reported on how teachers can use knowledge about learning
theories and cognitive load theory to develop instructions (Hattie & Yates, 2014; Hollender, Hofmann,
Deneke, & Schnitz, 2010; Kirschner, Ayres, & Chandler, 2011; Roblyer, 2004; Sweller, Ayres, &
Kalyuga, 2011). Findings have shown that effective teaching practices are based on the principles of
learning theories and the human cognitive information processing system. Pressley, Mohan, Raphael, and
Fingeret (2007) described that success in writing instruction is dependent on how teachers enable students
to use technology effectively within the writing process.
Text-to-speech as an Instructional Tool. The functionality of text-to-speech as a technological
instructional tool has been found to be beneficial for individual students to achieve writing autonomy, to
sustain improvement in their literacy skills and the revision of their texts (Englert et al., 2005; Garrison,
2009; Lange et al., 2006; Silió & Barbetta, 2010). The knowledge-telling model of writing typically
adopted by primary school students as novice writers engage in reflective or revision processes, can help
Page 13 of 487
teachers to understand how technology can be used to enhance students’ writing skills (Scardamalia,
Bereiter, & Steinbach, 1984).
Hayes (2012) differentiated the knowledge-telling model three ways: the flexible-focus model, fixed-topic
model, and topic-elaboration model. He proposes that if teachers have knowledge of these three
knowledge-telling strategies, they can differentiate student learning by implementing specific
instructional procedures for individual students. There is a gap in the literature about how text-to-speech
can be used as a technological and cognitive tool to support students to reflect on the ways in which
experienced writers and readers backtrack over their texts as they read and write to plan, write and revise
their work.
Teacher Knowledge about Technology Integration. The technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) Framework is a valuable conceptual lens for exploring the knowledge that teachers need to
integrate technology into classroom learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2011; Wetzel & Marshall, 2011-2012).
It is argued that teachers need to focus on effective technology integration as it relates to teachers’
knowledge of the relationship between technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (Hofer & Swan,
2008). The SAMR Model provides an additional conceptual lens to reflect on how teachers use technology
to design learning activities for students (Kervin & Mantei, 2009; Puentedura, 2008). The model can be
used to guide teachers to consider four different levels of technology adoption from basic substitution, to
augmentation through added functional improvement, to the transformation and redesign of learning
activities where technology facilitates the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable. The TPACK
Framework and SAMR Model have been widely used in research about the integration of technology.
This research does not appear to have included the role of technology in instructional strategies to develop
primary school students’ narrative writing.
Methodology
This study formed part of a larger PhD research project involving eight teacher participants across four
primary schools. This paper describes the case study of Stephanie based on research conducted in her
classroom during a twenty-week teaching time-frame in 2012. The school promoted a flexible learning
approach to education with a focus on Learning Technologies and Science.
An ethnographic approach enabled the researcher to act as a participant of inquiry in the research
(Creswell, 2012b; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Fetterman, 2010) to explore ways of describing and
interpreting what was happening in the classroom when technology was being used (Fetterman, 2010;
Freebody, 2003). Specifically, the ethnographical conceptual framework of Fetterman (2010) guided the
selection of the multiple data collection tools used for analysing and interpreting teacher practice
(Creswell, 2012a; Freebody, 2003; Yin, 2009). The data tools included a teacher and student survey for
each participant, twice weekly field work observations, audio recordings of classroom workshops, the
collection of student writing samples, informal interviews, observations of a whole school staff meeting,
observations of the school’s Learning Design Writing Team (LDWT) meetings, teacher interviews,
documentation collection and informal reflective feedback by the research participants.
Stephanie was encouraged to aim for 10 separate writing samples from each student, to be completed over
the twenty-week period of the study using the Read&Write Gold™ software. Students were to use
computers to write their narratives within a minimum of two, forty-five minute lessons each week.
Stephanie identified her own weekly narrative topics. The study focused on identifying patterns of
technology use during the writing process and collecting data on how Stephanie integrated technology
into the design of student learning activities.
The data was validated through the creation of a categorised case study database. Cross analysis and
pattern mapping processes facilitated the converging of data through the development of matrices,
theoretical modelling and crystallization procedures. This provided a means to develop new insights and
identify the emerging themes. A matrix aligned to the Hayes (2012) writing process model was designed
Page 14 of 487
to map and record the content, pedagogical and technological themes that emerged through a cross
analysis of data related to the case study of Stephanie. The findings were interpreted through the
theoretical construct of the Hayes (2012) writing model, the TPACK Framework and SAMR Model.
Stephanie explained how the use of technology in her writing classroom had made learning to write a
more communal and shared process:
I think your immediate head set is when kids are working on their own with their own story,
that, that’s how it stays. That it is a personal relationship that they’ve got with it and I think
that through group editing we’ve de-privatised that … and opened it up” (Stephanie final
interview, 2012).
During the study, Stephanie explained that she had redefined her teaching practices using a combination
of exploratory, explicit and collaborative practices. She used exploratory practices to understand the textto-speech preference settings and how to use the functionality of text-to-speech as a comprehension tool.
Students were encouraged to play with the preference settings of speak by sentence, continuous reading,
listening by three sentences, three words or a paragraph. Stephanie explicitly modelled how to use the
functionality of text-to-speech as a comprehension tool, by backtracking over texts to listen for meaning.
She also used collaborative practices to encourage her students to share how they were using text-tospeech while they were writing and also to reflect on texts during Writer’s Workshop sessions with the
whole class.
It became evident that Stephanie’s practice was closely related to the leadership provided by her ICT
Leader, and teachers at the school participating in the study. Together, they formed a Learning Design
Writing Team (LDWT) with the aim of collectively understanding how they could explore, implement
and sustain their teaching practices. The team reflected on what they needed to know and how they could
transfer their collective knowledge to their individual classrooms.
Findings: Instructional strategies for writing using technology
This following section reports on how Stephanie used technology to support students’ instructional
writing strategies and how she thought about this in relation to her pedagogy. In particular, it highlights
the role of technology in instructional strategies within the writing process. The strategies are expressed
through the conceptual lens of a plan, write, revise approach to writing.
The Writers’ Environment. The school’s Learning Design Writing Team decided that they knew how
to teach writing, however they needed time to understand how they could approach the teaching of
narrative writing with technology. Stephanie wanted her students to develop a level of competency in
using the functionality of text-to-speech technology before developing students’ narrative writing skills
and knowledge. She spent three weeks in establishing a technological writing environment. This
encompassed developing students’ organisational skills and understanding of using text-to-speech
technology, the distribution of computers, creating folders to save and retrieve written texts,
understanding how to organise text on a screen, creating student’s personalised Read&Write™ tool bar
settings and developing student’s comprehension competencies and typing skills.
The Tool Bar. The text-to-speech toolbar (refer Figure 1), is a software system within the Read&Write
Gold™ software that can read texts aloud (TextHelp Systems Ltd, 2012). Text-to-speech technology can
be an enabling tool to support students when composing and revising their writing to facilitates their
development as independent confident writers (Englert et al., 2005; Garrison, 2009; Silió & Barbetta,
2010).
Page 15 of 487
Figure 1. The Text-to-Speech Tool Bar used by Stephanie to teach narrative writing
(TextHelp Systems Ltd, 2012).
The icons from left to right represent: backwards; read on or go; pause; forward reading and stop.
The last two icons relate to the setting of the software preferences.
Stephanie modelled how to set the tool bar to only use the functionality of text-to-speech with the
Australian voices of Tim and Tina. This included voice settings of 75% pitch of voice and 40% speed of
voice. When listening to texts being read aloud, some of Stephanie’s students preferred to set the text-tospeech function at ‘speak each sentence’, while others preferred continuous reading. Novice students who
wrote at a letter-by-letter or word by word level, preferred to use text-to-speech on a ‘speak each sentence’
setting. When Stephanie used text-to-speech as an instructional tool with the whole class, she set the play
back speed at a slower instructional level than students used when composing. Student feedback
highlighted how this enabled them to focus on the prompts Stephanie used to guide them to develop
meaning in their stories.
Developing Comprehension Competencies. Stephanie found the sample comprehension texts on the
Read&Write™ website useful to bridge the gap between writing with paper and writing on a screen
(TextHelp Systems Ltd, 2012). Her students used the comprehension texts to practise how they wanted
to personalise and use the text-to-speech technology for planning, writing and revising texts.
Developing Listening Skills. Developing student’s listening skills was important for being able to reflect
on the meaning of texts while writing and reading. Stephanie encouraged her students to listen for what
she termed ‘run on sentences’, (Stephanie Writer’s Workshop 2, 2012). These were the sentences where
students continued to write without using full stops. She provided instructional prompts to support
students to develop meaningful listening skills. These included the following questions:
1. Is this what your story should say?
2. Is this what you meant?
3. Do you want to change it?
4. Does that sound right?
5. Is this your story?
6. Is this what you want?
Touch Typing. Touch typing was an important teaching activity for establishing the writing environment.
Stephanie used touch-typing freeware as a 10 minute ‘finger warming’ exercise at the start of every
writing lesson (Dance Mat Typing, 2012). She explained that many of her students were able to type
without looking at their fingers in a very short time.
Print Appearance. When Stephanie observed her students engaged in learning how to use text-to-speech
with texts, she realised that line spacing was important for print appearance on a screen. Her students were
listening and watching text-to-speech as an editing tool, rather than focussing on the meaning of what
they wanted to write. To focus students’ attention on the screen, Stephanie used the Interactive White
Board (IWB) to model the narrative genre. She scaffolded students through an understanding for how to
set paragraphs with white spaces to emphasise genre structure. Stephanie also explained where and how
the tool bar could be placed on the screen and then set the text size to Arial 16. As students became
Page 16 of 487
familiar in viewing the texts on both the IWB and on their laptop screens, they reduced the font size to
Arial 14.
Working with technology provided opportunities for Stephanie and her students to focus on the
relationship between the reader and writer while they were composing their texts. Stephanie designed
instruction to enable her students to develop critical and evaluative thinking skills so they could
understand how the different functions of text-to-speech could be used to achieve their writing goals.
Stephanie focused on reflective thinking and explicit instruction with the plan, write, and revise process
in student’s personal writing time and within whole class discussions.
There were five different instructional approaches that Stephanie used to develop her students’ thinking
skills when they were composing texts in their personal writing time.
Personalise Text-to-speech. At an individual student level, Stephanie worked with her students to
explore the advantages of the text-to-speech tool bar preference settings. This included settings of: speak
by sentence, continuous reading and listening to sentences and paragraphs to comprehend written texts.
When students were listening to their stories, Stephanie prompted them to focus on the print appearance
on the screen, by looking for white spaces to facilitate ease of thinking.
Comprehension Strategy. Stephanie explicitly modelled how students could use text-to-speech to create
meaning in their texts. She prompted students to use questioning and screen reading skills, by
backtracking to check over what they had written to check for meaning. She developed a ‘Read, Filter,
Understand and Reapply’ strategy to scaffold student thinking about developing meaning in their texts.
This strategy facilitated students to plan, write and revise their texts using a cyclic approach to enhance
how they could re-skim and re scan over their texts.
Language Development. When Stephanie focused on editing texts and the development of descriptive
language, she used the text-to-speech technology to focus was at a word or chunks of words. She adjusted
the text-to-speech settings to slow the speed and support students to relect on the meaning of their texts.
Editing Process. Stephanie developed a ‘Write, Edit and Print’ process for students to edit their individual
stories as they wrote. The process included two stages:
1. Listen to the whole story, check story structure and listen to individual sentences for spelling.
2. Check for capital letters and full stops, organisation of white spaces and look to see if you have
or can make conjunctions.
Writer / Reader Relationship. To internalise student thinking for how a writer imagines a reader may
respond to a text, Stephanie promoted the use of the text-to-speech technology for problem solving and
revising texts. She used a cognitive apprenticeship approach to scaffold student thinking. She designed
revision strategies for processing words, sentences, and blocks of texts. Her revision approaches reflected
the knowledge-telling writing actions or developmental writing approaches used by novice or more
experienced writers to plan, write and revise their narratives. This approach is characteristic of the
flexible-focused and fixed-topic knowledge-telling strategies described by Hayes, 2012).
Flexible Topic Approach. When using a flexible approach to editing with text-to-speech technology,
Stephanie encouraged her novice writers to revise for meaning using a linear approach from the beginning
of the text through to the end. Changes to the text were made as required. A change could relate to the
mechanics of writing (i.e. grammar, spelling and/or punctuation) and then the next change could relate to
developing meaning. Stephanie encouraged students to listen, pause and then listen to a minimum of two
or more sentences before effecting changes. To facilitate student thinking to focus on the meaning of texts,
Stephanie explicitly modelled how students could personalise the functionality of text-to-speech
technology at a word level. This ensured that the text-to-speech technology correctly enunciated names
and sight words correctly. Stephanie used the ‘say like’ feature of the software to enter the correct spelling
and phonetic playback of proper nouns or more commonly used sight words. She modelled how students
could use a ‘Look Like, Sound Like, Achieve Strategy’, to listen, adjust and reflect on the appropriate
Page 17 of 487
reading of names and individual words. When Stephanie focused on teaching sentence length, correcting
texts, idea generation and adding detail to texts, she asked her students to,“listen for emphasis and
sentence length”, or “listen to the sound of sentences” (Stephanie, Writer’s Workshop 1 and 2, 2012).
Fixed-Topic Approach. When using a fixed-topic approach to editing with text-to-speech technology,
Stephanie encouraged her students to choose how and when they employed text-to-speech technology as
a revision tool. Stephanie encouraged students to determine how they wanted to revise a text. They could
begin by revising the whole text or sections of a text for meaning, knowing they would ignore any spelling
or grammatical errors as they occurred. They could then backtrack to the beginning of the text or section
and then revise for spelling and grammatical errors. Some students chose to use text-to-speech only when
their first drafts of writing were complete, while others used the text-to-speech technology during the
writing process with suppressed distractors.
Not all students were observed to use the text-to-speech tool effectively in their personal writing time due
to the technology being a distractors of their attention away from composing. Some students also
experienced problems with the use of the grammar and spelling checks in Microsoft Word™ and the
Read&Write™ software. Specifically, the red and green lines that often appeared under their words while
writing confused some students. When this problem was evident, Stephanie encouraged students to turnoff these software features until they were ready to focus on revising the mechanics of their writing rather
than composing and developing meaning. Stephanie encouraged her students to use the text-to-speech
technology at the paragraph or whole text level to support them to backtrack to the beginning of a
paragraph and re-read the whole text using continuous reading.
Stephanie provided students with opportunities to self-regulate their learning, express their ideas and
retain the authorship over their texts through the social construction of texts. This was evident through
the collaborative strategies she used when texts were being read back during the explicit teaching of
language skills on the IWB or during Writer’s Workshop sessions with the whole class. Students’ texts
were used as instructional worked examples and were uploaded onto the IWB as texts to be critically
appraised. Stephanie guided her students to split their attention between focussing on developing
interesting texts and then to attend to the mechanics of their writing (i.e. checking for spelling, punctuation
and grammatical errors). During these sessions, the text-to-speech function was reset to a slower
instructional level.
Topic-Elaboration Approach. Stephanie used a more elaborate or structured approach to using the textto-speech technology when revising texts with the whole class or groups of students. At this time, she
focused students’ attention on the whole text, specific paragraphs or groups of sentences in order to
improve the overall quality or compositional standard of a text. Specifically, during the Writer’s
Workshops Stephanie encouraged students to revise the text from an author’s point of view. Thereby
empowering the author to use the support from the whole class to revise their narrative. To facilitate this
approach, Stephanie taught her students how to upload their texts onto the IWB for whole class review.
She then encouraged the author to control the functionality of the text-to-speech technology to enable the
whole class to listen to the whole text. The author then determined how the reflective process would be
managed before backtracking to focus on a block of text or smaller groups of sentences.
Stephanie used ‘think aloud strategies’ to facilitate student thinking during the Writer’s Workshops to
support the author to retain responsibility for the quality and final production of their story. Authors could
choose to develop ideation and genre creativity or have the class edit for full stops, sentence length,
incorrect word use, spelling errors, grammar and pronunciation, homophone use, typing errors, text
organisation and white spaces. Stephanie’s ‘think aloud strategies’ focused on developing the story
combined with three questions to encourage the author to consider ways to entertain a reader. Stephanie
termed the questions the ‘Big Three’. She believed these questions helped to focus her students’ thinking
on entertaining a reader and maintaining the identity of the author. Stephanie’s Big Three questions were:
Who are you writing to? What are you writing as? How do you want to make the reader feel? Stephanie’s
story development questions were: Who is the main character? Where and when did the story take place?
What do the main characters do? How does the story end?
Page 18 of 487
Discussion and Conclusion
This paper investigated how Stephanie designed instructional approaches using text-to-speech technology
within personal and collaborative writing environments. The findings suggest that Stephanie’s thinking
about the design of instructional writing strategies and learning activities was critical to supporting her
aim to make a difference to her students’ learning (Hattie & Yates, 2014). Through the theoretical lens of
the TPACK Framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2011) and the SAMR Model (Puentedura, 2012), the findings
suggest that Stephanie was able to draw together her technological pedagogical content knowledge to
modify and transform the design of her instructional writing strategies by using text-to-speech technology
as a cognitive tool to support students to compose and revise narrative texts using the three knowledgetelling strategies described by Hayes (2012). Specifically, the text-to-speech technology supported these
three knowledge-telling strategies by enabling students to easily listen and review their text as it was read
aloud to them at an appropriate pace, and this supported students to focus on the relationship between the
author and the reader and check the meaning and mechanics of their texts aligned with their personal
writing goals.
Stephanie designed instructional writing strategies, which used technology to personalise and de-privatise
their writing experiences. Stephanie developed students’ technological skills using the text-to-speech
technology before they were able to apply these to focus on the new cognitive scaffolds and prompts
designed to support students to think about the writing and revision of their texts and seek support from
other members of the class. Writing to communicate with technology challenged Stephanie to reflect and
modify her practice and consider what it meant for her students to be literate in a global society. She came
to understand that it was not the technology itself but her pedagogical practices as a teacher that
determined if the use of text-to-speech technology could develop and improve students’ writing skills.
References
Abell, M., & Lewis, P. (2005). Universal design for learning: A statewide improvement model for
academic
success.
Information
Technology
and
Disabilities,
11(1).
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv11n1/abell.htm
Akbiyik, C., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2012). Instructing ICT lesson in primary schools: teachers' opinions and
applications. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 417-422.
Al-Alaoui, M. A., Ohannessian, M. I., Choueiter, G. F., Akl, C., Avakian, T. T., Al-Kamal, I., & Ferzli, R.
(2008). A pilot project? From illiteracy to computer literacy: Teaching and learning using information
technology. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3(3), 4-9. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v3i3.221
Bereiter, C. (1994). Constructivism, socioculturalism, and Popper's World 3. Educational Researcher,
23(7), 21-23. doi: 10.3310/0013189X023007021
Brunelle, M. D., & Bruce, B. C. (2002). Why free software matters for literacy educators. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 514-518.
Creswell, J. W. (2012a). Analyzing and interpreting qualitative data. In P. A. Smith (Ed.), Educational
research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4 ed., pp. 236-264).
University of Nebraska. Lincoln: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2012b). Research designs. Ethnographic designs. Educational research. Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (Fourth ed., pp. 461-480). Boston:
Pearson.
Dance Mat Typing. (2012). 2012, from http://www/bbc/co.uk/schools/typing
Page 19 of 487
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &
Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), (pp. 1-33): Sage Publications, Inc.
Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of
students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 184-198. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00132.x
Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography. Step-by-step (Third ed., Vol. 17, pp. 1-173). California, United
States of America: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Freebody, P. (2003). Methods and methodologies: Ethnography, case study and action research
Qualitative Research in Education. Interaction and Practice (pp. 74-89). London: SAGE Publications
Inc.
Garrison, K. (2009). An empirical analysis of using text-to-speech software to revise first-year college
students’ essays. Computers and Composition, 26(4), 288-301. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2009.09.002
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.445
Hakkarainen, K. (2009). A knowledge-practice perspective on technology-mediated learning.
International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning, 4(2), 213-231.
Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Visible learning and the science of how we learn: Routledge.
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388. doi:
10.1177/0741088312451260
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study
of middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2),
179-200.
Hollender, N., Hofmann, C., Deneke, M., & Schnitz, B. (2010). Integrating cognitive load theory and
concepts of human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behaviour, 26(6), 1278-1288. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.031
Kervin, L., & Mantei, J. (2009). Using computers to support children as authors: an examination of three
cases. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(1), 19-32. doi: 10.1080/14759390802704014
Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research: The good,
the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 99-105. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.025
Lange, A. A., McPhillips, M., Mulhern, G., & Wylie, J. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondarylevel students with literacy difficulties. Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13-22.
Lovell, M., & Phillips, L. (2009). Commercial software programs approved for teaching reading and
writing in the primary grades: Another sobering reality. Journal of Research on Technology in Education
(International Society for Technology in Education), 42(2), 197-216.
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education,
Employment,
Training
and
Youth
Affairs,
Retrieved
from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_
Young_Australians.pdf
Page 20 of 487
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2011). What does TPACK mean for education in Australia? TTS Teaching
Teachers for the Future Conference. Sydney Australia.
Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: a meta analysis
of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25(3), 641-678. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
OECD. (2011). PISA, 2009 Results: Students on Line: Digital Technologies and Performance Vol. 1.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en
Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2011). Technology to support writing by students with learning and academic
disabilities: recent research trends and findings. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits. Focused
Issue: Assistive Technology and Writing, 7(1).
Pressley, M., Mohan, L., Raphael, L. M., & Fingeret, L. (2007). How does Bennett Woods Elementary
School produce such high reading and writing achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2),
221-240. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.221
Puentedura, R. (2008). TPCK and SAMR. Paper presented at the Maine Learning Technology Inititiative
Fall Teacher 2008 Leader Institutes, Maine, USA.
Riley, N. R., & A˚hlberg, M. (2004). Investigating the use of ICT-based concept mapping techniques on
creativity in literacy tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 244-256. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2004.00090.x
Roblyer, M. D. (2004). Learning theories and integration models Integrating educational technology into
teaching (Third ed., pp. 51-82). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written
composition. Cognitive Science, 8(2), 173-190.
Shanahan, T. (1988). The reading-writing relationship: Seven instructional principles. The Reading
Teacher, 41(7), 636-646.
Silió, M. C., & Barbetta, P. M. (2010). The effects of word prediction and text-to-speech technologies on
narrative writing skills of Hispanic students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 25(4), 17-32.
Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. (2006). Social practices of computer-supported collaborative learning. ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 1, 409-412.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory J. M. Spector & S. P. Lajoie (Eds.),
Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies
doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
TextHelp
Systems
Ltd.
(2012).
Read&Write:
http://www.texthelp.com/UK/our-products/readwrite
Literacy
support
software.
from
Turner, K.C. N. (2011). "Rap universal": using multimodal media production to develop ICT literacies.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 613-623. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.8.6
Vass, E., Littleton, K., Miell, D., & Jones, A. (2008). A discourse of collaborative creative writing: Peer
collaboration as a context for mutual inspiration. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 192-202. doi:
10.1016/j.tsc.2008.09.001
Page 21 of 487
Vojak, C., Kline, S., Cope, B., McCarthey, S., & Kalantzis, M. (2011). New spaces and old places: An
analysis of writing assessment software. Computers & Composition, 28(2), 97-111. doi:
10.1016/j.compcom.2011.04.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978a). Mind in Society. The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Soubermran Eds.). United States of America: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978b). Zone of proximal development: A new approach Mind in Society. The
development of higher psychological processes (pp. 84-91): Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wetzel, K., & Marshall, S. (2011-2012). TPACK goes to sixth grade: lessons from a middle school teacher
in a high-technology-access classroom. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 73-81.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (Vol. 5): SAGE
Page 22 of 487
DEVELOPING EARLY LEARNERS’ CREATIVITY AND
COLLABORATION USING IPADS
Jane Batham
Our Lady of the Rosary School, Brisbane Catholic Education
Romina Jamieson-Proctor
Australian Catholic University
Peter Albion
University of Southern Queensland
Abstract
Continuing developments in technology and consequent societal changes have been
accompanied by calls for education to emphasise 21st century competencies such as critical
thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. These competencies are reflected in the
general capabilities of the Australian Curriculum and are to be developed across all learning
areas. The study from which this paper is drawn investigated how teachers might use iPads to
support development of creativity and collaboration in an early primary classroom. The study
used primarily observational methods to describe the pedagogical practices of a teacher
working in a shared teaching arrangement with 25 Year 2 students and access to 6 iPads. The
focus was on discovering and describing effective approaches to enhancing creativity and
collaboration in young learners. Results suggest that learning activities using iPads can be
successful in separately developing creativity and collaboration among early learners but that
learners were less likely to manifest both creativity and collaboration in the same activity.
Implications of the findings are discussed.
Background
This paper responds to the interplay between two trends in contemporary education. First is the
widespread understanding that, in addition to content knowledge, education must develop what are termed
21st century skills such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity (Partnership for
21st Century Skills, 2011). There is an expectation that teachers will explicitly address these skills in their
classrooms. Second is the surge in availability of powerful mobile computing devices (smartphones and
tablets) and their rapid appropriation for use in classrooms.
While the so-called 21st century skills are not new to education, they have received increased attention in
recent years. The Australian Curriculum (http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au) promotes the
development of 21st century skills by incorporating them as general capabilities (ACARA, 2013). These
skills were highlighted in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
(MCEETYA, 2008), which underpins the new curriculum.
Smartphones are handheld computers with a telephone function. Tablets are larger variants that lack
telephony but have Internet access using WiFi or the phone network. Since Apple released the first iPhone
in 2007, followed by the iPad in 2010, uptake of iOS devices and Android equivalents has been rapid. By
2012, 52% of mobile phones in Australia were smartphones and 58% of smartphone owners used them
daily to access the Internet (Ipsos, 2012). Although tablets are designed for adult consumer use,
characteristics, including their compact and durable construction, day-long battery life, and relative
simplicity of use, have made them popular in schools. “Tablets, smartphones, and mobile apps have
become too capable, too ubiquitous, and too useful to ignore” (Johnson et al., 2013, p. 16) and there are
predictions that by 2015 all K-12 learners in the USA will have their own mobile devices (Norris &
Soloway, 2011).
The host school for this study has been moving toward increased integration of information and
Page 23 of 487
communication technology (ICT) for learning. It has deployed laptop computers and iPads in partial class
sets and has been considering the implications of 1:1 computing. The availability of iPads in a Year 2
classroom afforded an opportunity to explore pedagogies that would support development of creativity
with new hardware and software. Because the number of iPads was insufficient for 1:1 work it was
necessary for students to work in groups thereby prompting exploration of collaboration.
Creativity
According to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2013), creative thinking involves students in learning
to generate and apply new ideas. It includes accepting different perspectives and possibilities and
identifying new connections. The curriculum pairs creativity with critical thinking as distinct yet
complementary dimensions of thinking (ACARA, 2013).
Some theorists, including Csikszentmihalyi (1996), set a high bar for creativity, arguing that an artefact is
creative only when it is recognised by experts in a field as being original and valuable. This accords with
the popular misconception that creativity is a rare gift and not an inherent human ability that can be
developed. Gauntlett (2011, p. 218) offers a broader view, describing everyday creativity as “a process
which brings together at least one active human mind, and the material or digital world, in the activity of
making something which is novel in that context”. The creativity of highly talented individuals has been
characterised as “Big-C” Creativity and everyday creativity as “little-c” creativity. That model has been
extended to include “mini-c” creativity, which describes the innovative thought processes inherent in the
learning process (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).
The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2013) is based on inquiry principles that require students to develop
an inquisitive disposition and intellectual flexibility. Both are promoted and enhanced by the development
of creative thinking (ACARA, 2013). Recognising “mini-c” creativity values the creative thought
processes of students as they learn new subject matter (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). This is essential in
fostering and encouraging creative thinking processes (ACARA, 2013). Kaufman & Beghetto (2009)
suggest that fostering “mini-c” creativity, emphasising creative thought processes within learning, is more
important for supporting creative thinking in young children than the more traditional emphasis on
creative products, or “little-c” creativity.
In spite of observed difficulties in assessing creativity, Amabile (1996) maintained that it is assessable
provided those assessing it are familiar with the domain. The consensual assessment tool (Amabile, 1996)
uses a panel of experts or observers from a field who make judgments about the creative nature of works.
The Australian Curriculum includes a learning continuum for critical and creative thinking capability that
suggests that creative thinking can be both developed and measured (ACARA, 2013). Researchers have
also developed frameworks and tools for describing and measuring 21st century competencies such as
creativity. Jamieson-Proctor and Larkin (2012) developed and used tools for measuring creativity based
on the three components of the creativity systems model: individual, domain and context, described by
Csikszentmihalyi (1996). These tools include an observation protocol to assess creative dispositions, the
Creativity Checklist developed by Proctor and Burnett (2004), and a consensual assessment process based
on the work of Amabile (1996).
Collaboration
Collaborative skills including establishing and building positive relationships, making responsible
decisions, working effectively in teams, handling challenging situations constructively, and developing
leadership skills, have been included within the Australian Curriculum as personal and social capabilities
that are applied across the curriculum in all learning areas (ACARA, 2013). These skills are considered
important for successful classroom and playground interactions and can be taught using a combination of
explicit teaching and opportunities for practice (McGrath & Francey, 1996). Co-operative skills that can
be taught in order to promote collaboration include negotiating, dealing with fights and arguments,
suggesting and persuading instead of bossing, making decisions in a group, respecting other people’s
opinions, sharing, and including others (McGrath & Francey, 1996).
Page 24 of 487
Students can practise and develop collaborative skills through structured collaborative learning
experiences (Gokhale, 1995), which have been found to increase engagement and interest among students,
as well as promote critical thinking skills. It is also thought that co-operative teams achieve higher levels
of thought and retain information for longer than learners who work as individuals (Gokhale, 1995).
The Australian Curriculum includes a learning continuum describing the development of personal and
social skills, including collaborative skills. It provides a useful basis for an assessment of working
collaboratively that would be compatible with the curriculum intent.
iPads for learning
Although the iPad was launched as recently as 2010 it has been readily adopted in educational settings
and informal sharing of teachers’ experiences through social media is widespread. State education
authorities in Victoria (http://www.ipadsforeducation.vic.edu.au) and elsewhere in Australia have
engaged in trials and reported encouraging levels of success. The Victorian trial found that, when
implemented in a supportive environment and by technologically competent, innovative teachers, iPads
were effective in enhancing learning outcomes for students. The devices were particularly well used in
primary school settings and optimal use was attained when students were able to use the device for content
creation, rather than content consumption (Murray & Olcese, 2011).
Although the iPad provides the potential for transformative use of the device in educational settings, an
overwhelming number of software applications being developed and marketed through the “education”
category within the Apple iTunes Store do not take full advantage of the features which would allow for
collaborative and creative use (Murray & Olcese, 2011). Hoover & Valencia (2011) classify iPad apps
using three categories: interactive, reference and productivity. Their preliminary research into the use of
iPads with tertiary students showed that productivity applications were most beneficial in enhancing
learning and that, when students used the iPads collaboratively, learning outcomes were significantly
improved, compared to students exclusively using the devices independently.
Lack of both technical knowledge and pedagogical knowledge has contributed to the limited success with
iPads in some settings (Hoover & Valencia, 2011; Gasparini, 2011). There is a need for research to expand
the pedagogical knowledge for the use of iPads (Gasparini, 2011).
Method
This paper reports selected results from a Master of Education project (Batham, 2014) designed to
investigate and describe pedagogies using iPads that develop creative and collaborative skills in young
children. The overarching question guiding the research was: How can teachers use iPads to facilitate the
development of creativity and collaboration in early learners?
The study was conducted in a Year 2 classroom where the first author was one of two teachers in a job
share arrangement, with access to 6 iPads for use by the 25 children. Data were collected by the first
author, who was also responsible for planning and implementing a series of ten learning activities in which
children in small groups used the iPads to create products in response to set tasks.
The primary source of data was a reflective journal maintained by the first author throughout the period
of the study. It was guided by a set of questions intended to prompt reflection relevant to the focus of the
study on creative and collaborative activity and provide rich qualitative descriptions of classroom practice.
The creativity checklist (Proctor & Burnett, 2004) was modified to record observations of children’s
creative traits during each teaching episode and the creativity of products produced by the children was
assessed using the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1996). Collaborative skills of the children
were measured using a checklist developed by the first author based on the Creativity Checklist published
by Proctor & Burnett (2004), the KSAVE model of the ATC21 Framework (Binkley et al., 2012), Friendly
Kids, Friendly Classrooms (McGrath & Francey, 1996) and the Personal and Social Capability Learning
Continuum developed by ACARA (2013).
Page 25 of 487
Data were used to guide the development of case narratives for each of the ten learning activities with
iPads that formed part of the study. The narratives were examined for patterns that might be used to inform
recommendations about pedagogical approaches to using iPads to develop creative and collaborative
skills in early learners.
Findings
Three vignettes are shared in this paper to illustrate the study’s findings. The first teaching episode,
“Mealworms”, was successful in promoting creativity and moderately successful in supporting students
in working collaboratively. The second teaching episode, “Earth’s Resources”, did not provide the same
opportunities for creativity in spite of the students’ successful collaboration. The third teaching episode,
“Contractions”, was unsuccessful in promoting either creativity or collaboration. Together these three
examples illustrate the range of results from the study and provide material for further reflection and
analysis.
Meet the Mealworms
Students “adopted” mealworms to care for and to observe as part of a science study of how living things
grow and change. An introduction was followed by a closer observation using both handheld magnifying
glasses and the iPad cameras. Students used the iPads to record and share their thoughts, observations and
questions.
Students were organised into six groups of four. Each group was assigned an iPad, but was subsequently
broken into two pairs. As this was an early experience for the students with using iPads for recording
ideas, the activity was quite structured.
The teacher used the data projector to demonstrate the use of the iPad, showing students how to access
the PicCollage app and import their photographs into the app. They were also shown how to crop a
photograph to remove the background, how to add text to the image, and how to rotate and resize the
objects. Students were told that there were other features in the app such as being able to add background
colours and change the font type and colour but these were not demonstrated. Strategies for sharing the
iPad among four students were discussed with the class and turn taking was identified as a useful strategy.
It was made explicit that all students needed to be involved in the activity and different parts of the task
were identified by the students so they had a clear understanding of the different opportunities to
contribute to the group task.
The instructions given to the students were to create two PicCollage images, one by each pair, that
contained a photograph of a mealworm and some text showing what they knew about mealworms from
their observations. They could add other features to their image provided the first two criteria were met.
All of the groups worked together successfully with little extra guidance required. Most pairs who were
not actively involved in the creation of an image at the time were still keen to provide advice and
suggestions to the rest of their group. Students naturally explored the features of the app and once one
group had discovered the ability to add “stickers” such as moustaches and sunglasses, this newfound skill
was rapidly shared among the groups. The teacher recorded in her journal:
At one point, I noticed a group who appeared to be off task, taking photographs of inside of
one boy’s mouth. My initial instinct was to interrupt the group but closer observation revealed
that they had discovered that they could layer the images and were creating the appearance of
a mealworm being eaten. Their caption read: “Mealworms make a great meal”. An interesting
insight into their divergent thinking!
All groups managed to successfully fulfil the criteria of the task and the range of final products reflected
their ability to be creative and add their own ideas to the completed product. More than one mealworm
had grown curly moustaches and developed French accents and groups experimented with patterned
Page 26 of 487
backgrounds and different fonts.
Earth’s Resources
As part of the Earth and space sciences for Year 2, the students investigated the various ways that resources
are used in the school environment. After some initial learning, the students went on a discovery walk
around the school to identify how different resources from the Earth were used. Students worked in an
assigned mixed ability group of four to take photos of resources they encountered on their walk. Each
group was given a particular resource to look for and needed to take at least four photos, of which three
would be selected for inclusion in their presentation. Captions were added using PicCollage and exported
to the camera roll.
Once the images had been gathered, students were given very specific roles for creating a collaborative
presentation about how the resources were used in the school. Student A was to insert the first image (a
standard resource image provided to the students), then Student B (photo taken by students with caption),
C (photo taken by students with caption), and D (photo taken by students with caption). A structure was
provided for the audio recording: Student A was to introduce the resource and source, including other
information the group had learned from previous activities. Student B described the second picture,
Student C the third and Student D the fourth.
Most groups followed the instructions to produce a quality product fulfilling the task requirements
(Amabile, 1996). A few groups also added their own touches such as synchronised greetings at the
beginning or end to say who had worked in their group. Some groups had edited the images to enhance
them using features of PicCollage. The students worked co-operatively with little disagreement as they
all had very specific roles. A few students did need redirection or encouragement to remain patient when
it was not their turn. Some members of the groups displayed leadership in co-ordinating their group to
add greetings or other personal touches to their presentation.
Contraction Surgery
Following a learning experience called “contraction surgery” in which students donned rubber gloves and
masks and “operated” on words to surgically remove letters, students were asked to use the photographs
they had taken to explain their understanding of the process of joining words to form contractions.
Students could use iMovie, Explain Everything or SonicPics to create a movie showing what they knew
about forming contractions. For this activity, the students worked in pairs using the iPads. This
necessitated half the class being involved in a different activity until they swapped activities. Using
AirServer to project the iPad onto the interactive whiteboard, a brief demonstration of how to sequence
the pictures and how to add an oral explanation was given in SonicPics.
The task had a high cognitive load as many students were still unsure of the process of combining words
into contractions. A large number of photos had been taken during the previous activity and these were
not sorted in any way for the students. The relative complexity of the task and content knowledge meant
that many students were confused about the sequence of photos and they did not explain the process of
making a contraction clearly. The students who were successful produced very pleasing results but many
students did not complete the task.
Even though a number of apps had been suggested as options for this task, all of the students elected to
use SonicPics, a familiar app that had been used in the demonstration. SonicPics does not allow the
inclusion of extra creative touches such as sound effects, backing tracks or video. The focus of the teacher
was split across monitoring two distinct activities during this session. Students needed a lot of guidance
to work together on this task as they were often confused about the content. Their level of frustration with
the content may have affected their ability to work together. The pairs were involved in a lot of discussion
about the selection of photographs and the noise level impacted on the quality of other groups’ recordings.
The students not involved in the iPad activity were distracted and needed consistent redirection to remain
on task.
Page 27 of 487
The complexity of the task, the difficulty of the concept and the high level of teacher focus on classroom
management issues, which distracted from supporting students in learning, are all likely to have been
contributing factors to the failure of this experience in promoting creativity or collaboration.
Conclusions
The findings of the research, of which the three preceding vignettes are a sample, suggest that iPads can
be used with young students to promote creativity and collaboration but the pedagogy the teacher employs
can affect the level of success. This echoes the findings of Jamieson-Proctor & Larkin (2012) who found
that the ways in which teachers allowed the device to be used had a significant effect on the level of
creativity displayed by students.
In the ten teaching episodes in this study, it was found that the most successful activities were well
facilitated by the teacher and the subject content of the lesson was readily understood. The most successful
teaching episode, involving hand shadows, was closely facilitated by the teacher and was not cognitively
difficult for the children. When the teacher was heavily involved with the supervision of other tasks,
students tended to have more difficulties collaborating successfully. During the least successful teaching
episode, the contractions lesson, the teacher was working with half of the class completing another task.
This task was also cognitively challenging.
Analysis of the ten learning sequences revealed that the children exhibited fewer signs of creativity as the
cognitive load increased and were more successful at collaboration when teacher guidance was stronger.
The level of teacher direction and the rigidity of the structure were considered. As anticipated from the
results of other studies (e.g. Jamieson-Proctor & Larkin, 2012), highly structured tasks were found to
impede creativity but they were found to facilitate collaboration. It was hypothesised that creativity
typically requires divergent thinking and collaboration requires a degree of convergence. Requiring both
in the same learning activity challenges young learners and it will take time for them to learn how to
balance or switch between divergent and convergent thinking at appropriate times.
During the ten teaching episodes examined in this study, students were given the opportunity to work in
different sized groups using the iPads. Often the students worked in groups of four or with a partner, but
sometimes they had their own iPad. The iPad to student ratio did not have a clear effect on the students’
collaboration. When they worked individually with an iPad, they often spontaneously supported one
another by sharing ideas and assisting each other with technical skills. The iPad to student ratio appeared
to have some effect on creativity, with the highest creativity scores being seen when the students worked
in groups of four. While this study serves to demonstrate that students are able to work creatively and
collaboratively when using iPads, it cannot be stated conclusively that one iPad shared between four
students is an optimum ratio for promoting creativity.
Overall this study has demonstrated the importance for teachers of considering pedagogical decisions
related to level of cognitive complexity, task structure, level of student support, peer groupings and ratio
of students to devices when planning to facilitate the 21st century skills of creativity and collaboration,
especially with young learners.
References
ACARA. (2013). General capabilities in the Australian Curriculum.
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/Overview
Retrieved
from
Amabile. T. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organisations. Retrieved from
http://www.evcimen.com/photography/ENTREPRENEURSHIP_files/Creativity%20and%20Innovation
%20in%20Organizations.pdf
Batham, J. (2014). How can teachers use iPads to facilitate the development of creativity and
Page 28 of 487
collaboration in early learners? (Unpublished Master of Education thesis). University of Southern
Queensland, Toowoomba.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., et al. (2012). Defining
Twenty-First Century Skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and Teaching of 21st
Century Skills (pp. 17-66). Springer Netherlands.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York:
Harper Collins.
Gasparini, A. A. (2011). Touch, learn, play - what children do with an iPad in the classroom. Masters,
University of Oslo. Retrieved from http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-30763
Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education,
7(1). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html
Hoover, D. and Valencia, J. (2011). iPads in the classroom: use, learning outcomes and the future.
Presentation, 2011 EDUCAUSE Annual Conference. Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/sites/default/files/library/presentations/E11/SESS081/iPads%2Bin%2Bthe%2
BClassroom.pdf
Ipsos (2012). Our Mobile Planet: Australia - Understanding the Mobile Consumer. Retrieved from
http://services.google.com/fh/files/blogs/our_mobile_planet_australia_en.pdf
Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Larkin, K. (2012). Transforming learning using iPods and Web 2.0 tools. Paper
presented at the 2012 Australian Computers in Education Conference: It's time, Perth.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC
Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review
of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1037/a0013688
McGrath, H. & Francey, S. (1996). Friendly kids, friendly classrooms. Melbourne: Pearson.
MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved from
http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/mceecdya/melbourne_declaration,25979.html
Murray, O. and Olcese, N. (2011). Teaching and Learning with iPads, Ready or Not? TechTrends, 55(6),
42-48 doi: 10.1007/s11528-011-0540-6
Norris, C. A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Learning and Schooling in the Age of Mobilism. Educational
Technology, 51(6), 3-12.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org
Proctor, R., & Burnett, P. (2004). The creativity checklist: An instrument to measure cognitive and
dispositional characteristics of creativity in elementary students. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 421430.
Page 29 of 487
CAN THE USE OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS HELP DELIVER
21ST CENTURY LEARNING?
Peter Beamish
Avondale College of Higher Education, Australia
Bobby McLeod
Sahmook University, South Korea
Abstract
It has long been recognized that people need to be literate to function optimally within society.
The 21st century has seen technology increase the complexity of environments, so that a literate
person must now possess a wide range of abilities, competencies, and literacies. These have
often been referred to as “21st-century skills” and while many of them are not new, the extent
to which individual success depends on having such skills is new.
The current study seeks to explore ways in which technology can be used to increase literacy
and enhance 21st century skills in students. 1193 students attending Sahmyook University in
Seoul, South Korea were placed in small groups and asked to make a movie in English. This
constructivist, real-world, group-based project required students to collaboratively negotiated
their way through a variety of language, technical and social challenges using a wiki.
We can conclude from this study that collaborative projects, supported by web 2.0 tools, can
deliver worthwhile learning. Students reported that the project; was interesting and rewarding,
improved their relationships with classmates, encouraged teamwork, improved English skills,
facilitated positive attitudes and the development of ICT skills. Students experienced improved
technical, collaborative, leadership, critical thinking and problem solving skills that enhanced
knowledge and contributed to their personal 21st century skill set.
Introduction
Society has been transformed by the ‘democratization’ and ‘consumerization’ of information and
communication technologies (ICTs) and these are reshaping how we work and play (Grajec, 2014). To
function optimally within this society, students need to be equipped with a contemporary set of skills and
competencies. These so-called 21st century skills are not new, but they have become ‘newly important’
and they can no longer be considered ad-ons or optional (Silva, 2009, p.631).
Ubiquitous access to ICTs both on and off school campuses is also opening doors to a multitude of
pedagogical opportunities for teachers and students. Teachers can create classroom environments that are
authentic, engaging, technically opportunistic, meaningful, creative, and student-minded (Kaufman,
2013).
This study seeks to investigate the use of a combination of ICT applications in an authentic, collaborative
project, and how this facilitates student learning through the use and development of 21st century skills
in an English classroom. It is proposed that as students use technology as a learning tool, there will be
high levels of engagement in learning, deep connections to the content, and students will develop social,
technical, and communication skills (Mehdinezhad, 2011).
The present study seeks to use a task that is authentically based, constructivist in nature and
collaboratively done, to engage students in learning. The students involved in this study were placed in
small groups and asked to make a movie in English. This constructivist, real-world, group-based project
required students to collaboratively negotiate their way through a variety of language, technical and social
challenges using web 2.0 tools, including a wiki. This movie task enabled students to develop knowledge
Page 30 of 487
and skills, including 21st century skills through:










having to exercise creativity and innovation in producing a script;
critical thinking and problem solving when it came to deciding on logistical and technical
aspects;
learning to learn through obstacles that required new skills to overcome;
being able to communicate effectively within groups and with the teacher;
developing social skills that enabled them to function well as part of a team;
developing information literacy through sourcing details and knowledge on various aspects
of what at times was a daunting task;
developing ICT literacy to enable successful completion of a variety of technology
dependent facets;
becoming locally and globally aware through using web tools and resources;
constructing personal knowledge that resulted in reflection of life and career goals;
grasping a better understanding of personal and social responsibility through commitment to
the group and its objective.
Of particular interest in this study is the use of a wiki to facilitate group work during the movie project.
Stahl (2012) analyses collaborative projects on three levels (planes): individual learning, small-group
cognition and community knowledge building (Figure 1.). He asserts that sequential small-group
interactions bring in resources from the individual, the small group, and the community planes, involving
students in procedures of shared meaning making. More often than not, the process becomes more
important than the project outcome, and knowledge developed through this kind of collaborative process
is retained longer and has more complex structures.
Figure 1. A model of collaborative knowledge building (Stahl, 2012, p. 470)
Within the present study, students are asked to develop individual skills, and also contribute skills to
benefit the group. Within their group, students are able to question, explore and assess, use authentic data,
and reflect on processes. The group scaffolds weaker members as they navigate their way through the
processes. Group knowledge is then eventually shared with the community through the products the
groups generate. The outcome is a rich learning environment where students learn from each other,
students learn from the group, and groups learn from other groups.
The Study
The current study makes use of a mixed method approach to investigate how web 2.0 tools may be used
to increase literacy and enhance 21st century skills in students. In particular, the study sought to engage
Page 31 of 487
students in an authentic context as they created a movie within their English class. Online questionnaires,
student reflections in blogs, and student-created artifacts in the form of storyboards, movie scripts, video
files and wiki sites were used to collect data from 1193 students attending Sahmyook University in Seoul,
South Korea who were placed in small groups for the task. In addition, 6 in-depth semi-structured student
interviews were conducted with students from the different groups.
The students in the study were enrolled in a compulsory Practical English course, required of all first year
students as English is a second language for these students. The core curriculum for this course is Smart
Choice 2nd Edition Curriculum (Wilson, 2011). The course, involving 4 class sessions a week, has a
digital slant through the use of a “digital” book used by teachers in fully equipped multimedia classrooms.
In addition, students complete part of their course requirements through online exercises and regular
blogging assignments.
The movie project encouraged students to be creative in their use of authentic language. This project
required students to collaboratively negotiate their way through a variety of language, technical and social
challenges and this process was facilitated through the use of a wiki. Participants were randomly grouped
into groups of four or five. They were given an introduction to the project and evaluation criteria in the
form of a rubric, together with links to tutorials on how to use the relevant technology. All students were
provided with clear expectations for the project and access to the ICT tools to complete the task.
An emphasis was placed on the fact that movie scripts needed to be well thought out with relevant and
authentic content that included an equal appearance for all students within the group. Movies needed to
be between five and ten minutes in length and the entire process completed within six weeks.
Variables and Constructs in the study
A model was developed for use in the study that describes the dynamic learning system that operates in a
classroom. This proposed model describes learning in terms of an interaction of background, process and
outcome factors and formed the theoretical basis for this study in the tradition of the ‘3P’ model of Biggs
and Moore (1993).
Figure 2. A General Overview of the Proposed Path Model for the Movie Project
The selection of factors to be included in the proposed model was informed by the literature and variables
and scales were developed to assess the various factors. The variables and scales included in the study
were:
Age – the age of the student.
Gender – the gender of the student.
English Level Background – a measure of student English ability at the start of the project.
Computer Games Experience – a measure of previous student experience playing games on computers.
Blogging Experience – a measure of previous student experience using blogs.
Wiki Experience – a measure of previous student experience using wikis.
Engagement in the Project Process – a measure of student engagement in the movie project and process.
Attitude to the Project – a measure of student attitudes to the movie project.
Movie Project Outcome – the grade that each student received for the movie project.
Attitude to Teamwork – a measure of student attitude to teamwork.
English Level Outcome - a measure of student English ability at the end of the project.
Page 32 of 487
Data was gathered to test the model from student responses to an online questionnaire. Descriptive
analysis, factor analysis and reliability testing were then used to investigate and develop the scales and
variables used in the study. All scales had appropriate item loadings and reliabilities as measured by
Cronbach’s alpha of above 0.8. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to specific variables to
determine their effect on the composite scale variables and multiple linear regression analysis was applied
to the data to examine possible relationships.
Path analysis techniques were used in this study to test the proposed model and AMOS 7.0 was used to
analyze the data. When regression analysis is carried out on large samples, the chi-square measure should
be complemented with other goodness-of-fit measures (Ho, 2006). To test the overall model fit, the
following indexes were applied: The chi-squared test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit
index (NFI), and the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA).
Triangulation of the data occurred through the use of the qualitative techniques and this enabled a deeper
and richer view of the use of web 2.0 tools to emerge. Data was gathered from a number of sources
including: student reflections in blogs, student interviews, and student-created artifacts in the form of
storyboards, movie scripts, video files and wiki sites.
Results
All of the groups completed the movie project on time. An English test designed as part of the Smart
Choice English Curriculum (Wilson, 2011) was administered to all students at the beginning of the course
to determine their English level upon entering the course, and the test was administered again at the end
of the course to determine their exit score. Students averaged a score of just slightly above the midpoint
on the entrance English test (=30.1, =11.2, possible range 0 - 60). By the end of the course their average
English ability had increased significantly (p<0.01) to an average score of 38.6 (=8.5, possible range 0
- 60), with the effect size (Cohen’s d) of the course being 0.85.
Results from the path analysis indicated that the unconstrained model fitted the data well. Although the
chi-squared values were significant (Χ2 [44, N=1095] = 595, p<0.01) for English Level Outcome, and (Χ2
[28, N=1176] = 1756, p<0.01) for Attitude to Teamwork, the incremental fit indices (Normed Fit Index,
Incremental Fit Index, Comparative Fit Index), are all above the 0.90 range (range 0.94 – 0.95), and the
root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) of 0.70 indicates a good fit of the model (Ho, 2006).
The path model (Figure 2) explained 38% (R2) of the variance in the students’ final English score and
52% (R2) of the variance in the students’ Attitude to Teamwork. Significant relationships are shown within
this path model and the size of the standardized regression coefficients give an indication of the strength
and nature of these relationships.
Page 33 of 487
Figure 3. A Path Model for the Movie Project showing significant Paths (p<0.05)
A Closer Look at the Model
Student Background
The students involved in the project came from a low level of use of the web 2.0 tools that the project
required. Only 13 per cent of the students had used a Wiki before. Some of the students mentioned that
they didn’t even know what a Wiki was, and on further questioning, determined that they had not yet used
Wikipedia. 21% of the students had made a movie before, but the majority of students indicated a total
lack of experience in this area. These two factors combined contributed largely to an initial negative
reaction to the project, simply due to the fact that students, could not initially perceive what the project
would entail and how the various digital tools would be used to assist them in completing their work.
A majority of students reported using various forms of social media. Facebook was the most common
with 87% of students indicating that they had created a Facebook profile, and 54% indicating that they
had created a profile on CyWorld. 73% of students indicated that they had used a blog and 62% indicated
that they played online computer games. Overall, students’ use of social media was not huge as they
indicated that they averaged approximately 2 hours a week using social media.
There were gender differences in the students’ use of social media. Girls had significantly (p<0.01) more
experience on Facebook, Cyworld and the use of Blogs while boys had significantly (p<0.01) more
experience in computer gaming than girls.
Engaging with the Project Process
There was a well-defined process for making the movie that was given to students. Student engagement
in this process was important as it had the potential to positively influence their attitudes to the project,
their attitudes to teamwork and their final English level. The movie project process involved students
working in groups and writing a script for a movie in Korean with the help of a wiki, translating it into
English, and then acting out and filming the performance. Much of the translation from the Korean script
into English was done in a group with various students taking the lead in their groups and the others
observing and contributing. Students discussed slang and idioms to be used in the script and from time
Page 34 of 487
to time had to stop and look up words in a dictionary. Once completed, their teacher who identified
grammar, spelling and punctuation errors, and discussed the use of some of the English checked this
version of the script. Before filming, the group would be go over their lines and would model to each
other how to pronounce some of the words more naturally. During filming all students got to handle the
camera, with advice and ideas coming from the ‘tech’ leader of the group. The students then shared the
editing of the movie.
Overall, students engaged in the project reasonably well with an average level of engagement of 2.73
(σ=0.55, scale 1-4). It is interesting to see what factors influenced the students’ level of engagement in
the project. Path analysis (Figure 2) found that initial student levels of English ability positively influenced
levels of engagement (β=0.11), as did their previous experience in using a wiki (β=0.19), and using a blog
(β=0.14). Interestingly, while there were found to be positive influences between Gender and Blog use
(β=0.11), with girls reporting significantly higher levels of use of blogs than boys (p<0.01), and Blog use
positively influencing engagement in the project, there was a direct negative influence from Gender to
Project engagement (β= -0.11) indicating that girls were not as engaged in the movie project as boys. This
may have been due to the more aggressive style of engagement with ICT projects that boys often apply
(Volman, Van Eck, Heemskerk, & Kuiper, 2005).
Student engagement in the project was found to positively influence the students’ final English levels
(β=0.13) and their attitudes to the movie project (β=0.69), and their attitudes to collaborative learning and
teamwork (β=0.12) (Figure 2). The final movies were generally of a good standard with student groups
achieving an average grade of 48.99 (=6.52, possible range 0 - 60). Interestingly, there was no significant
relationship between levels of student engagement in the movie project and the final grade they received
for the project. This may have been due to the fact that the student grade for the movie project was a group
score rather than an individual score.
Student Attitudes to Project
Attitudes play a very important role in education. The relationship between attitudes, engagement, and
achievement is often a recursive one and has been well documented (Tarantino, McDonough, & Hua,
2013). In the current study attitudes have been considered an important outcome of student involvement
in the movie project.
The initial reaction when the project was announced was a negative one, based on the fact that, in general,
most students had little to no experience using a Wiki and very few had any movie editing experience. As
students started working on the project and started developing their digital skills, attitudes changed, and
by the end of the project students displayed a positive attitude, attesting to the fact that they felt a strong
sense of accomplishment and pride and reported an average Attitude to the Project of 3.68 (=0.78,
possible range 1 - 5). Comments from students included:
I can feel very proud of my movie.
It was good. I feel great, we made a masterpiece.
Students reported positive attitudes towards collaborative learning and teamwork and reported an average
Attitude to the Teamwork of 4.08 (=0.86, possible range 1 - 5). Students acknowledged the importance
of being able to function well in a team, and as a team. They also acknowledged developing better
relationships with their teammates, to the point of bridging the gender divide that often exists between
members of the opposite sex within Korean culture. They recognized that functioning optimally in a team
was a skill they needed for their studies and for their workplace in the future. The benefits of developing
better relationships within a team, spilled over into the classroom as a whole, with students reporting a:
better team spirit amongst all my classmates since doing the project.
The gender of the student influenced attitudes to the movie project (β = -0.11) with boys having a more
positive attitude than girls. This negative influence continued between student attitudes to the movie
project and their final English level (β = -0.12) indicating that boys had more positive attitudes to the
Page 35 of 487
project than girls, however, girls scored significantly better on the final English score than boys (p<0.05).
Discussion
The argument for the use of ICT in schools is twofold. Firstly, schools should prepare students for a
productive life in society. Secondly, the use of technology in schools can deliver new ways of teaching
and learning, improving student outcomes (Grajek, 2014). There is a substantive research base to support
that successful approaches to learning incorporate challenging tasks: e.g. reasoning tasks, not just
reproduction tasks, active learning with clear purpose and strong teacher direction, and feedback to the
learner, and to the teacher (Hattie, 2012).
The present study sought to immerse students in an authentic, engaging, technically opportunistic,
meaningful, creative, and student-minded project that was designed to increase their English knowledge
and skills. Initially students were a little wary and apprehensive about the project. This apprehension came
from two main areas; the first being a reluctance to participate in group work and the second was a lack
of confidence due to being unfamiliar with the technical aspects the project required.
I don’t like to work in a group, because as I mentioned some people will not work at all. And
secondly, I’m not good at computer, so I have some much stress on how can I edit the movie,
or how can I film it, or where should I shoot it and all this kind of stuff.
Some of the students were positive and were particularly looking forward to the authentic nature of the
learning task.
Awesome. I really wanted it, because English is too formal, so looked forward to making the
movie.
The students’ attitude to learning projects is very important. Attitudes have been shown to influence
achievement (Michelli, 2013; Tarantino, McDonough, & Hua, 2013; Wasike, 2013) and it is important for
students to be positive about learning tasks in which they are asked to participate.
In the present study, despite some initial anxiety, students’ attitudes were generally positive by the end of
the project. Students’ comments at the interviews reflected this:
I really enjoyed it. I watched the movie like ten times.
Really great. Proud. Because we made it. We didn’t expect that we made the final version
because we don’t know about and didn’t have any experience before, but we made it. So, we
were proud about it.
These positive attitudes were found to in turn have influenced their attitudes to teamwork and their final
English levels. In response to the question “What didn’t you like about the movie project?” students
mentioned insufficient time and lacking in computer skills, specifically with Microsoft Moviemaker.
The authentic nature of the task motivated students to work, and be involved. During the process, the
group was aware that they would have to present their movie to the class, and possibly to the whole
department. With their language and technical skills being used in a public way, extra care was taken to
produce high quality work, even to the point of re-filming some scenes. They reported:
In the group we all knew that we are going to present in front of the class, right? If it wasn’t
for an audience, we probably would just, you know, shoot it and put subtitles in and submit it
for our grade. So, we put a little bit of creativity and art stuff because of the audience.
The project was successful in exposing students to 21st century skills. Students developed and used
learning and innovation skills, digital literacy skills, and career and life skills as described by Trilling and
Fadel (2009). Triangulating the quantitative data, the interview data and the blog responses revealed that
students benefitted from the project through improved relationships both within the group and the class;
they had a growing recognition of the importance of teamwork; they improved their English skills; they
enjoyed the experience; they learned about the importance of participation; as well as developing their
technical skills.
Page 36 of 487
Of particular note is the way students developed their collaboration skills. Group dynamics and
challenges had to be met and dealt with, by assuming leadership roles where their skills surpassed those
of the rest of the group, demonstrating concepts of leadership and project management. Challenges with
group management, technology, filming locations and meeting deadlines required activation of their
critical thinking and problem solving skills. At one point a student commented:
If a team member is not willing to do it, it’s really awkward for me to have to keep telling team
members “Oh, you have to work on this, and you have to work on that; Why do I have to tell
you every single step?”
Effective collaboration was demonstrated by the fact that, not only were they extremely proud of the
movie, but they achieved a really good score and they remain good friends to this day as several of the
students reported an ongoing social interaction with group members after the project was completed.
Within the group students helped, and were helped, by members of the team with new vocabulary,
pronunciation, new idioms and colloquialisms. Members of the group did not initially appreciate the value
of teamwork, but by the end of the project students had gained an added appreciation of the teamwork
aspect and the level at which they could function at through the assistance of a team. In fact, this was one
of the main outcomes of the project.
In the interviews, students affirmed the role of teamwork and the part that they played in their team:
So, and especially in Korea, you have to work in a group. You have to be in a group, like to
survive, you know. It’s so close to each other and you have to do things together, all the
time. And, if you do something individually, they’ll be like “Oh, what’s wrong with her? She’s
like a loner, or outsider.”
I learned the editing skills from Sophie. I didn’t know how to use moviemaker at all, so now if
someone asked me to make a movie, it will be really awful, but I know how to make it. I can
give them a product that I made.
The project did ask both teachers and students to consider new ways of teaching and learning. The
authentic, real world nature of the learning task was both challenging and a little daunting to students.
Teachers needed to conceptualize their role as they became facilitators of a process rather than content
transmitters. The English course did help students to improve their English skills and the movie project
made a significant contribution to that outcome.
Conclusion
The movie project described in this paper was successful in increasing students’ English knowledge and
led to students having a positive attitude to teamwork while facilitating the development of 21st Century
skills. Schools need to continue to develop ways to maximize the effective use of ICT in the classroom to
engage students in learning. The widespread use of ICTs has moved from institutions to the home (Noss,
2012). With ubiquitous access to technology, students have the tools to build knowledge and skills to set
themselves up for a bright and productive future. The results of this project have contributed to the
argument that teachers can use ICTs to establish learning environments that benefit students collectively
and individually.
The project provided a rich environment with students learning from each other, students learning from
the group, and groups learning from other groups. Students should be given opportunities to explore and
develop who they are as individuals (Kaufman, 2013). In today’s global learning community, ICTs have
helped learning to become personal.
Page 37 of 487
References
Biggs, J., & Moore, P. (1993). The process of learning 3rd. ed. Australia: Prentice Hall.
Grajek, S. (2014). Top-ten IT issues, 2014: Be the change you see. Educause Review, 49(2), 10-46.
Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1421.pdf.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.
Hoy, R. (2006) Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS.
Sydney: Chapman and Hall/CRC
Kaufman, K. J. (2013). 21 Ways to 21st century skills: Why students need them and ideas for practical
implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78-83. doi: 10.1080/00228958.2013.786594
Mehdinezhad, V. (2011). First year students' engagement at the university. International Online Journal
of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 47-66.
Michelli, M. (2013). The relationship between attitudes and achievement in mathematics among fifth
grade students. The University of Southern Mississippi Honors Thesis, Paper 126.
Noss, R. (2012). 21st century learning for 21st century skills: What does it mean, and how do we do it?
In 21st century learning for 21st century skills (7th European Conference on Technology Enhanced
Learning). Saarbrucken, Germany.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9) 630-634.
Stahl, G. (2012) Traversing planes of learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning 7 (4), pp. 467-473. doi: 10.1007/s11412-012-9159-7
Tarantino, K., McDonough, J., & Hua, M. (2013). Effects of student engagement with social media on
student learning: A review of literature. The Journal of Technology in Student Affairs, summer. Retrieved
from
http://studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Summer
2013/
EffectsOf
StudentEngagementWithSocialMedia.html
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Volman, M., Van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new differences. Gender
and ethnic differences in pupils’ use of ICT in primary and secondary education. Computers &
Education, 45(1), 35-55.
Wasike, A. (2013). Effects of attitudes of female students on the performance in mathematics in various
types of secondary schools in Teso district, Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(5).
Wilson, K. (2011). Smart choice (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Page 38 of 487
OBSERVING AND ASSESSING CHILDREN’S DIGITAL PLAY IN EARLY
CHILDHOOD SETTINGS
Jo Bird
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne
Suzy Edwards
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne
Abstract
In early childhood education children increasingly have access to digital technologies to play
on and with. Research often centers on using traditional play theories to understand what is
occurring, but some theorists are now using a social-cultural lens to explore digital play in a
way that is meaningful for the children and educators involved. In this paper we present a
new conceptual framework to understand how children learn to use technologies through
play. The framework is called the Digital Play Framework and is informed by the sociocultural concept of tool mediation (1997) and Hutt’s (1966) ideas about explorative and ludic
play. The framework is pedagogically useful because it explains the relationship between
technology-as-tool and children’s play-based behaviours. It is important to understand this
relationship in early childhood because play is the basis for curriculum provision. With play
as the basis for curriculum provision, educators need a way to assess and plan for children’s
digital activities. In this paper we illustrate the potential of the Digital Play Framework for
achieving this goal.
Introduction
Play has long been argued as the way children learn in early childhood education (Wood, 2013). Using
the Early Years Learning Framework (Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations
(DEEWR), 2009), educators are required to observe and assess children’s learning through play. The
increased use of digital technologies within early childhood educational settings means that in addition to
observing and assessing children’s more traditional learning through play, they now also need to observe
and asses children’s learning to use technologies through play (DEEWR, 2009). Understanding how
children learn to use technologies through play is the first step towards educators being able to
competently observe and assess young children’s digital play. In this paper, we present a new framework
called the ‘Digital Play Framework’ as a new pedagogical tool for helping educators observe and assess
how young children learn to use technologies through play (Bird & Edwards, in press). Drawing on data
derived from a project involving young children using technologies in a play-based early learning setting
(Bird, 2012), we present a case study application of how the ‘Digital Play Framework’ can be used by
educators to support the observation and assessment of young children’s learning to use technologies
through play.
Assessment in early childhood
While play-based learning has long been argued as the central pedagogical approach in early childhood
education, how children learn to use digital technologies through such learning is still being researched.
In an era in which accountability for the achievement of children’s educational outcomes are ‘high’
(White, 2007, p. 8), early childhood educators require assessment tools that help them to meet regulatory
pressures and recognise the sociocultural context of children’s learning and development in terms of the
increased role of digital technologies in very young children’s lives.
Historically, assessment in early childhood education focused on young children’s developmental
outcomes (Carr, 2001). A developmental approach to assessment described children’s development as a
universal process, with each child moving through the developmental process at a given age. Areas of
Page 39 of 487
development that were ‘achieved’ or still ‘developing’ could be readily identified by determining whether
or not a child was meeting particular developmental outcomes. Recently, early childhood education has
taken on a more sociocultural lens for understanding children's learning and development. This
perspective recognises the role of context and culture in young children’s learning and development
(Robbins, 2005). Approaches to observation and assessment in early childhood education have moved
away from using developmental checklists towards a more sociocultural approach because such lists are
now recognised as providing educators “with relatively little information to guide service delivery,
instructional planning, or progress monitoring” (Snyder, Wixson, Talapatra & Roach, 2008, p. 26).
Instead, contemporary approaches to assessment are based on observations of children’s play and their
interactions with the peers and educators in the context of the early learning setting (McLachlan, Edwards,
Margrain & McLean, 2013).
Rather than being largely summative in approach (Swaffield, 2011), assessment in early childhood
education is generally formative in nature and represents an ongoing process (Karlsdóttir & Garðarsdóttir,
2010). In Australia, “educators use a variety of strategies to collect, document, organise, synthesise and
interpret the information that they gather to assess children’s learning” (DEEWR, 2009, p. 17). The use
of observations in early childhood education is a valuable strategy for collecting information orientated
towards assessing children’s learning through play (Rogers & Evans, 2007). The reasons educators
complete observational assessments of children’s learning through play include: to identify individual
strengths and weaknesses; understand children to guide their behaviour; inform work with parents and
other professionals; extend shared interests within a group; note individual interests that can extend group
learning; reflect on the flow of the day; and evaluate their own teaching (Hatch & Grieshaber, 2002).
Educators observe children’s play and interpret what they see based on their understandings of children’s
learning and development in social and cultural contexts (McLachlan et al., 2013). This approach to
observational assessment is now well established in early childhood education with respect to children’s
more traditional play-based learning, such as pretend play, gross motor play and block play. However, a
recent problem for educators is how to use observational assessment to understand children’s learning to
use technologies through play.
We created the ‘Digital Play Framework’ to help educators observe and assess children’s learning to use
technologies through play. The ‘Digital Play Framework’ understands technologies as cultural ‘tools’
Vygotsky (1997) that children master through two forms of activity, including epistemic and ludic activity
(C. Hutt, 1966). Together, epistemic and ludic activity comprises children’s play. Behaviours associated
with each form of activity are identified in the ‘Digital Play Framework’ as potential indicators for
children learning to use technologies through play. The ‘Digital Play Framework’ builds on existing
research in the use of early childhood digital technologies that has largely established that young children
are regularly users of a range of technologies in their family homes (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2012);
that children integrate traditional and digital forms of play (Edwards, 2013; Goldstein, 2011; Marsh,
2010); and that further knowledge is needed in the early childhood sector regarding appropriate
pedagogical uses of technologies with young children (Aubrey & Dahl, 2014; Marsh et al., 2005).
Theory
The ‘Digital Play Framework’ is based on combination of Vygotsky’s (1997) concept of mediated tool
use and Hutt’s (1966) ideas about epistemic and ludic activity comprising play. Vygotsky’s (1997) argued
that people use tools derived from their social and cultural contexts to mediate the activities they engage
in. The concept of mediated tool use is often illustrated by a triangle with subject (child), object (epistemic
or ludic activity) and tool (technology) located at each point of the triangle. As the child masters the tool
(technology) the object of activity changes. Hutt (1966) investigated children using play to explore a novel
object and categorised their behaviours as either ‘epistemic’ or ‘ludic’. In the ‘epistemic’ play behaviours
children explored “what does this object do?” (C. Hutt, 1966, p. 76, italics in the original). The play
behaviours changed to ‘ludic’ play as the children began to explore “what can I do with this object?” (C.
Hutt, 1966, p. 76, italics in the original). The play range of behaviours identified by S. Hutt, Tyler, Hutt
and Christopherson (1989) helped to define the children’s activity as either epistemic or ludic. Ludic
Page 40 of 487
activity emerges once children have explored the novel object and mastered epistemic activity. By
combining the concept of tool mediated with the epistemic and ludic activity we were able to create a
‘Digital Play Framework’ (Bird & Edwards, in press) that describes the range of play behaviours
associated with each type of activity as children learn to use different technologies as tools (Figure 1).
Object of Behaviours Indicators
activity
Epistemic Exploration Seemingly random use of the
device
play
Locating the operating
functions of the device
Exploring the operating
functions of the device
Digital technologies-as-tool
Problem
solving
Following directions of the
device or other people
Seeking assistance for desired
outcome
Relating actions to the
response/function
Description
Seemingly random footage, images, pressing the iPad,
moving or clicking the mouse.
Locating the on/off button (video camera), shutter button
(still camera), home button (iPad), keyboard (computer)
or mouse (computer)
Exploring the on/off button (video camera), shutter
button (still camera), home button (iPad), keyboard
(computer) or mouse (computer)
Following the directions of the device or other people
Asking adults or peers for assistance to use the device
Pressing the on/off button, relating turning the camera to
what is in the viewfinder (video camera), pressing the
shutter button, relating turning the camera to what is in
the viewfinder, pressing the Home button to change
Apps, scrolling through Apps (iPad), relating mouse and
keyboard to actions on the screen (computer).
Trying different actions to solve
an issue
Intentional use of the operating
functions
Intentional and deliberate use of Being able to view taken footage (video camera) or
Skill
acquisition functions for desired outcome images (still camera), scrolling and tilting (iPad), using
mouse to move cursor, click and double click program
icons (computer)
Sharing learned actions with
Being able to share knowledge of functions of the device
others
with others for the purpose of teaching others (ZPD)
Ludic play
Symbolic
Intentional and controlled
footage of observable people,
events and situations or
manipulating the App or
program for own purpose
Deliberate use of device for
pretend play
Innovation Creating pretend play
deliberately for use of the
device
Using the device to record already established pretend
play or to record re-enacted play (video and still
cameras), selecting an App specifically for pretend play
(iPad), selecting a program specifically for pretend play
(computer)
Creating a pretend play to record (video or still cameras),
selecting an App specifically for pretend play (iPad),
selecting a program specifically for pretend play
(computer)
Figure 1: The ‘Digital Play Framework’ (Bird & Edwards, in press).
Page 41 of 487
Methodology
In this paper we use the ‘Digital Play Framework’ as an observational assessment tool. The data presented
in this paper is a single case study of Rithik taken from a research project that explored children’s activities
on digital devices within a kindergarten classroom. The devices included: digital still and video cameras;
iPads and a computer (Bird, 2012). Both parent and child consent was sought from a class of 27 children,
with 20 consenting children being part of the research (Dockett & Perry, 2007). The kindergarten served
a low-to-middle class suburb of Melbourne, Australia, with families from a range of cultures including
from African, Asian and Western-European descent. The educators included a qualified educator and two
assistants. The digital technologies were available to the children during the three classes each week, with
each class running for approximately five hours. The project ran for five weeks, with data being collected
by both the children, through photographs and video recordings (see for example Bird, 2012) and by the
educators through photographs, video recordings and written observations (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
The digital technologies were introduced to the children during a group time by the educator (who was
also the researcher) with the names of the devices, and safety rules like using the wrist strap were
explained.
Data relating to a particular child – Rithik (male, aged 5 years), was identified to form a single case (Stake,
2006). When engaging in a case study, research questions that ask “how” and “why” are employed because
they “deal with operational links needing to be traced over time” rather than specific incidents (Yin, 2009,
p. 9). The data examined for this paper explores how Rithik was learning to use the digital technologies
(digital still and video cameras; iPads and a computer) through play over a five week period. The aim of
this paper is to illustrate how the ‘Digital Play Framework’ can be used as observational assessment tool
for understanding children’s learning to use digital technologies through play. Accordingly, the data was
analysed using a deductive approach in which data are assigned to pre-existing categories (LeCompte,
2012).
Findings
Thirty-seven observational sets of data involving Rithik using the digital technologies were abstracted
from the larger data set (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). These observations were categorised according to
the play behaviours listed in the ‘Digital Play Framework’ (Figure 2).
Page 42 of 487
Object
of
activity
Behaviou
rs
All devices
Exploration
Epistemic play
Seemingly random
use of the device
Locating the
operating functions
of the device
Descriptions of activities
Observations of Rithik
Seemingly random footage, images,
pressing the iPad, moving or clicking the
mouse.
17/10/11 - Rithik filming the ground and someone's legs
17/10/11 - Rithik filming randomly outside
17/10/11 - Rithik filming randomly outside, Joyen and
Shaheen run past
17/10/11 - Rithik filming randomly outside, Shamone and
Shaheen run past
17/10/11 - Rithik filming tanbark and shadows
17/10/11 - Rithik films a group of children running past
17/10/11 - Rithik filming Shaheen turning around
17/10/11 - Rithik filming random children
17/10/11 - Rithik learns to zoom in and out on the Flip
camera and practices
Locating the on/off button (video
camera), shutter button (still camera),
home button (iPad), keyboard
(computer) or mouse (computer)
Exploring the
Exploring the on/off button (video
operating functions camera), shutter button (still camera),
of the device
home button (iPad), keyboard
(computer) or mouse (computer)
Following directions Following the directions of the device or
of the device or other other people
people
Seeking assistance
Asking adults or peers for assistance to
for desired outcome use the device
Page 43 of 487
8/11/11 - Rithik filming and asking an adult questions
8/11/11 - Rithik films Mr Potatohead and zooms in and
out
17/10/11 - Rithik asking why the numbers on the Flip
camera are changing
8/11/11 - Adult explaining to Rithik how to stop and start
the Flip camera
8/11/11 - Rithik asking an adult how to watch his movie
8/11/11 - Rithik asking an adult how to know if the Flip
camera is working
Problem solving
Relating actions to
the
response/function
Skill acquisition
Trying different
actions to solve an
issue
Intentional use of the
operating functions
Intentional and
deliberate use of
functions for desired
outcome
Sharing learned
actions with others
Intentional and
controlled footage of
observable people,
events and situations
or manipulating the
Page 44 of 487
Pressing the on/off button, relating
turning the camera to what is in the
viewfinder (video camera), pressing the
shutter button, relating turning the
camera to what is in the viewfinder,
pressing the Home button to change
Apps, scrolling through Apps (iPad),
relating mouse and keyboard to actions
on the screen (computer).
17/10/11 - Rithik asks his educator to show him the
letters he needs for his name on the keyboard
20/10/11 - Rithik playing on the iPad pressing the Home
button to change Apps
20/10/11 - Rithik playing Talking Gina on the iPad and he
tries different actions to complete the activity
17/10/11 - Rithik zooms in and out at children playing
Being able to view taken footage (video
camera) or images (still camera),
scrolling and tilting (iPad), using mouse
to move cursor, click and double click
program icons (computer)
Being able to share knowledge of
functions of the device with others for
the purpose of teaching others (ZPD)
17/10/11 - Rithik films children eating their snack
17/10/11 - Rithik filming himself telling a story
17/10/11 - Rithik filming an adult filming him
20/10/11 - Rithik playing Ant Smasher on the iPad
20/10/11 - Rithik is playing RF Alphabet on the iPad and
manipulates the puzzle pieces
25/10/11 - Rithik playing FaceGoo on the iPad and
distorting the image
8/11/11 - Rithik filming Mr Potatohead
8/11/11 - Rithik showing Shaheen the Mr Potatohead
movie he made
14/11/11 - Rithik explains to other children how he is
making a video
25/10/11 - Rithik playing Reader Rabbit on the computer
and deliberately doing the wrong action for the
computer's response, laughing each time
Symbolic
Innovation
Ludic play
App or program for
own purpose
Deliberate use of
device for pretend
play
Creating pretend
play deliberately for
use of the device
Using the device to record already
established pretend play or to record reenacted play (video and still cameras),
selecting an App specifically for pretend
play (iPad), selecting a program
specifically for pretend play (computer)
Creating a pretend play to record (video
or still cameras), selecting an App
specifically for pretend play (iPad),
selecting a program specifically for
pretend play (computer)
8/11/11 - Rithik filming the children packing up the
blocks on the mat
14/11/11 - Rithik films two adults packing up the shed
15/11/11 - Rithik filming an adult reading a book
15/11/11 - Rithik filming himself singing a song
8/11/11 - Rithik films Lara's spaceman movie
8/11/11 - Rithik films as he asks Tiffany questions about
her favourite things at kindergarten
8/11/11 - Rithik creates a spaceman story so an adult can
film it
Figure 2: The ‘Digital Play Framework’ used as an observational assessment tool for understanding Rithik learning to use digital technologies
through play.
Page 45 of 487
Discussion
Using the ‘Digital Play Framework’ as an observational assessment tool for Rithik suggests that
children’s learning to use technologies through play can be observed in the context of the early
childhood setting. For example, observations of Rithik are located in the epistemic and ludic aspects
of play using different technologies as cultural tools. Rithik’s learning is illustrated in terms of how
he explored the various functions of the devices through play (e.g. locating the viewfinder of the still
camera; learning to zoom in and out on the video camera; using the Home button on the iPad™ for
the selection of a new App). Importantly, the extent to which social interactions featured in this
learning are identified (e.g. Rithik asking an adult how to watch a movie he has recorded; asking how
to use camera; asking how to use the keyboard). The points at which he seemed to master the
epistemic play and move into ludic play are also evident (for example: 14/11/11- Rithik films two
adults packing up the shed; 15/11/11-Rithik filming an adult reading a book; and 15/11/11- Rithik
filming himself singing a song).
Existing approaches to observing and assessing children’s learning through play in early childhood
education highlight the need to determine contextual aspects of activity (McLachlan, Fleer &
Edwards, 2010). The ‘Digital Play Framework’ aligns with these existing approaches by providing
space for contextual description. Educators can use observations in relation to the indicators of
children’s learning to use technologies through play as identified in the ‘Digital Play Framework’.
This suggest potential for using the ‘Digital Play Framework’ as assessment tool in early childhood
education as it helps educators identify the most appropriate pedagogical response to a child learning
to use technologies through play. This addresses a pressing need in early childhood education, as there
are very limited options available to early childhood educators wanting to observe and assess
children’s learning to use technologies through play (Aubrey & Dahl, 2014; Flannery & Bers, 2013).
In this case example, the ‘Digital Play Framework’ provides a basis for an educator to better
understand Rithik’s learning to use technologies through play - and therefore identify opportunities
for planned future learning. For example, if Rithik is observed spending his time in exploration and
problem solving it would be counterproductive for an educator to plan experiences for him focussed
on the generation of digital content. Instead, more time and opportunity for continued exploration of
the functions may be needed. Here, an educator might engage in intentional teaching on how to use a
given technology, or even pair the child with a more capable peer in using the technology so that there
is continued opportunity for social learning. At the same time, wanting to stretch the child towards a
greater understanding of the potential usage of the technology, an educator might provide Rithik with
examples of differently generated forms of digital content so that he can become aware of what the
functions he is exploring are able to achieve. In this way, the educator can simultaneously plan for
current learning to use the technology through play, while promoting awareness of how the
technology can be used once the epistemic activity is mastered. Such practices would be orientated
towards existing approaches to play-based learning, observation and assessment (Carr & Lee, 2012;
Wortham, 1998) and while also fostering a deliberate focus on the use of technologies in early
childhood education (McLachlan et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Digital technologies are increasingly accepted as an important aspect of early childhood education. A
problem for early childhood educators is to how best observe and assess children’s learning to use
technologies through play. This is particularly important in early childhood education settings because
play-based learning is the accepted pedagogical approach. In addition, current policy initiatives such
as the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009) and National Quality Framework
(Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2013) note that assessment
should be orientated towards the achievement of learning outcomes for young children; and include
the play-based use of digital technologies. In this paper, we have applied observational data associated
Rithik’s learning to use technologies through play to the ‘Digital Play Framework’ to determine the
Page 46 of 487
potential of the framework as an observational assessment tool for understanding children’s
technology learning in play-based contexts. This early use of the ‘Digital Play Framework’ indicates
that it may be useful for helping educators to identify how children are learning to use technologies
through play, and therefore for identifying appropriate avenues of future learning. In this way, early
childhood educators can work actively towards achieving the goal of enabling children’s technology
use in terms of ludic activity. Further research is now needed to evaluate the use of the tool with a
broader population of children and educators to determine its efficacy in helping educators observe
and assess young children’s digital play in the early years.
References
Aubrey, C., & Dahl, S. (2014). The confidence and competence in information and communication
technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the Early Years Foundation Stage. Early
Years,
34(1),
94-108.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2013.792789
doi:10.1080/09575146.2013.792789
Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2013). Guide to the
National Quality Standard. Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA)
Retrieved from http://www.acecqa.gov.au/Quality-Areas.
Bird, J. (2012). The rabbit ate the grass! Exploring children's activities on digital technologies in an
early childhood classroom. (Master of Philosophy), Australian Catholic University, Melbourne,
Australia.
Bird, J., & Edwards, S. (In press). How children learn to use digital technologies in early childhood
settings. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in Early Childhood Settings: Learning Stories. London, England: Paul
Chapman.
Carr, M., & Lee, W. (2012). Learning Stories. Constructing Learner Identities in Early Education.
London, England: SAGE Publications.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging,
Being and Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, Australia:
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations.
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Trusting Children's Accounts in Research. Journal of Early
Childhood Research, 5, 47.
Edwards, S. (2013). Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating
technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum. European Early
Childhood
Education
Research
Journal,
21(2),
199-212.
doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080.1350293X.2013.789190
Flannery, L. P., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Let's dance the "robot hokey-pokey!": children's programming
approaches and achievement throughout early cognitive development. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 46, 81+.
Goldstein, J. (2011). Technology and Play. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of The
Development of Play. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, J. A., & Grieshaber, S. (2002). Child Observation and Accountability in Early Childhood
Education: Perspectives from Australia and the United States. Early Childhood Education Journal,
29(No 4), 227-231.
Page 47 of 487
Hutt, C. (1966). Exploration and Play in Children. Paper presented at the Symposia of the Zoological
Society of London, London, England.
Hutt, S., Tyler, C., Hutt, C., & Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, Exploration and Learning. A Natural
History of the Preschool. London, England: Routledge.
Karlsdóttir, K., & Garðarsdóttir, B. (2010). Exploring children's learning stories as an assessment
method for research and practice. Early Years, 30(3), 255-266. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2010.506431.
LeCompte, M. D. (2012). Analysis and Interpretation of Ethnographic Data: A Mixed method
Approach Retrieved from http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=390687
Marsh, J. (2010). Young children's play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood
Research, 8(1), 23-39.
Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S., & Wright, K. (2005). Digital Beginnings:
young children's use of media, technologies and popular culture. Sheffield, England: The University
of Sheffield.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th Ed.). London, England:
Sage Publications.
McLachlan, C., Edwards, S., Margrain, V., & McLean, K. (2013). Children's learning and
development : contemporary assessment in the early years Melbourne, Australia: Palgrave McMillan.
McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2010). Early childhood Curriculum. Planning, assessment
and implementation. Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2012). Extending opportunities for learning. The role of
digital media in early education. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in
Childhood Education and Development (pp. 95-104). New York, NY: Routledge.
Robbins, J. (2005). Contexts, collaboration and cultural tools: A sociocultural perspective on
researching chidlren's thinking. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(2), 140-149.
Rogers, S., & Evans, J. (2007). Rethinking role play in the Reception class. Educational Research,
49(2), 153-167. doi: 10.1080/00131880701369677
Snyder, P. A., Wixson, C. S., Talapatra, D., & Roach, A. T. (2008). Assessment in Early Childhood:
Instruction-Focused Strategies to Support Response-to-Intervention Frameworks. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 34(1), 25-34. doi: 10.1177/1534508408314112
Stake,
R.
E. (2006).
Multiple
case
study
analysis
Retrieved
from
http://primo.unilinc.edu.au/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=ACU&docId=aleph0020
42508
Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic Assessment for Learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Research Method. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The Collected Works of
L.S.Vygotsky (Vol. 4, pp. 27-65). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Wood, E. (2013). Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum (3rd ed.). Los Angles, CA:
Sage Publications.
Page 48 of 487
Wortham, S. (1998). Assessment in early childhood education (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fourth ed. Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications
Hutt, C. (1971). Exploration and play in children. In R. E. Herron & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Child's
Play (pp. 61-81). New York, NY: Wiley.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Research Method. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The Collected Works of
L.S.Vygotsky (Vol. 4, pp. 27-65). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Page 49 of 487
PERSONALISING THE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING JOURNEY
Gina Blackberry
Australian Catholic University, Brisbane
Abstract
Professional development activity is widely accepted as a means of effecting change and
as such IT-related professional development has been recognised internationally as a key
factor in helping teachers acquire IT proficiency. However, neither mandates for the
integration of IT in education, nor the range of professional development activities
available to teachers appear to have significantly impacted on the way or frequency with
which IT is used in our schools. There is a significant body of literature attesting to low
qualitative and qualitative use of IT and evidence suggests many educators are reluctant
to embrace the potential afforded by digital technologies. Empirical evidence has already
established the significance of beliefs for understanding teachers’ behaviour. Given this
strong link, it is curious to note that most current forms of professional development
neglect to acknowledge the 'mental lives' of participants and remain largely transmissive
and impersonal in style. This paper draws on a longitudinal action research study in which
participants’ 'mental lives' were revealed and explicitly addressed in order to support their
IT use and integration into the classroom. An alternative model for professional
development that acknowledges and responds to teachers’ thoughts and feelings is
advocated.
Introduction
There is a silent epidemic in our classrooms… IT works in mysterious ways, sometimes undermining
teachers’ confidence, threatening their sense of self-efficacy and making them feel Dickensian and
out of step with twenty-first century learning. IT preoccupies their thoughts and renders many
frightened to speak up. Others will take little notice of ITs symptoms and carry on as usual. Regardless
of their symptoms, few sufferers will talk about IT. The classroom epidemic to which I refer is that of
teachers’ fear of using IT in their classrooms. Fortunately, the epidemic isn’t life threatening. A
treatment option is available, it works and it is needed urgently!
Background
In my work as a researcher, I ask teachers about the ways in which they incorporate IT into their
classrooms. Often my question is met with rolling eyes and an awkward, almost apologetic laugh.
Some will confess they don’t use IT much because they don’t know how or because IT scares them.
Others admit to using IT for simple tasks like word processing and accessing information. These
teachers’ anecdotes are supported by a body of literature that attests many educators are reluctant to
embrace the potential afforded by digital technologies (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Groff &
Mouza, 2008; Levin & Wadmany, 2008; Pegg, Reading, & Williams, 2007; Sutherland, Robertson,
& John, 2009; Voogt, 2008) or they use it infrequently in low-level ways (Ertmer, 2005; JamiesonProctor, Burnett, Finger, & Watson, 2006; Leung, Watters, & Ginns, 2005). This damning claim is
despite education department mandates and government policy advocating IT integration and widely
accessible IT-related professional development activities. How then can this be?
An education system that embraces new technologies presents a myriad of possibilities, options,
dilemmas, and challenges for teachers. Professional development activity is widely accepted as a
means of effecting change and a key factor in helping teachers acquire IT proficiency (Phelps,
Graham, & Kerr, 2004). However, despite an array of teacher professional development programs
over the past 20 years, Jamieson-Proctor & Finger concluded these efforts “have not empowered
teachers to have the confidence and skills necessary for them to transform their pedagogy….” (2008,
n.p). Ramsey’s (2000) observation that IT was “one of the most significant challenges confronting
Page 50 of 487
teachers’ education, teachers and schools (p.68) appears still to be very relevant and challenges
researchers and professional learning facilitators to remedy the problem.
According to Levin and Wadmany, “teachers are key players in changing the educational world, and
in particular the learning and teaching processes in their own classrooms” (2008, p. 234). Ineffective
professional development that fails to support teachers’ adoption of IT has led to a situation where
the extent to which new technologies will be integrated or adopted hinges on teachers’ thoughts about,
“if, when and how this can be done” (Bate, 2010, p. 1042). Thus, it might be argued that teachers’
beliefs about IT are a more powerful predor of their preparedness to change, rather than policy
mandates. Accepting this position implicates those concerned with raising the depth and frequency
of IT use to listen to and consider teachers’ thinking as an essential part of the professional learning
for change equation.
Senge (1992) suggested that failure to appreciate employees’ mental models has undermined many
efforts of reform because “mental models shape how we act” (p. 5). Blackberry (2012) used the term
‘mental lives’ to describe the relationship between teachers’ thinking (cognition) and affect (feeling).
She suggested an individual’s ‘mental lives’ included well-researched constructs like attitudes,
beliefs, fears, perceptions, motivation, self-efficacy, confidence, self-esteem and personal knowledge.
The link between teachers’ ‘mental lives’ to change is well documented (see Ertmer & OttenbreitLeftwich, 2010; Phelps & Graham, 2008; Phelps, Graham, & Kerr, 2004). Luke argued that in the
process of acquiring new knowledge and skills, firmly held attitudes and beliefs may be challenged
and cause unavoidable dissonance leading to a rejection of the change (as cited in BECTA, 2004).
Given the strong empirical links between teachers’ beliefs and their IT practices, it seems incongruous
that they are rarely acknowledged or considered in IT-related professional learning models.
Diagnosing the ‘ailment’: professional development
Most professional development initiatives (IT-related or not) remain largely transmissive style
workshops focused on skill adoption and ‘re-tooling’ (Jamieson-Proctor & Finger, 2008; John, 2002;
Meredyth, Russell, Blackwood, Thomas, & Wise, 1999). Operating from a deficit perspective, this
type of professional development treats teachers as passive receivers of knowledge delivered by an
“expert” who is often an outsider (Knowles, 1973). There is often little or no differentiation in content
or presentation to account for participants existing knowledge and skills. The “working on” model
(Tafel & Bertani, 2008) is highly inadequate in the context of rapidly changing technology. It does
not give participants the skills to transfer their knowledge to new technologies or situations and it
neglects the multidimensional nature of change including the explicit acknowledgement of teachers’
attitudes and beliefs that is considered essential by Ertmer (2000, 2005), Ertmer and OttenbreitLeftwich (2010), Guskey (2002), Loveless (1995), and Phelps, Graham and Kerr (2004). Only a few
IT-related professional learning programs for teachers that consider teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are
in fact documented in the literature (McNamara, Jones & McLean, 2007; Phelps et al., 2004; Reading,
2010). Difficulties arise when teachers’ beliefs about change and the need for change do not align
with what they are being asked to do (Guskey, 2002). Consequently, “new insights fail to get put into
practice because they conflict with deeply held internal images of how the world works, images that
limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting” (Senge, 1990, p. 174).
Treating the ‘ailment’
In contrast to the knowledge-transmission approach, a reforming (Smith, Hofer, Gillespie, Solomon,
& Row, 2003) or learner-centred approach to professional learning has been shown to effect change
in teachers’ practices and is driven by a philosophical orientation about the purpose of professional
development as being about teachers changing rather than just adopting new techniques (Smith et al.,
2003). Evidence suggests professional learning experiences that are grounded learning that is active,
authentic and collaborative are more successful than the transmissive approach (Knowles, 1973;
Kagan, 1982; Laferriere, Lamon, & Chan, 2006). The ‘deep learning’ and transferability of skills
Page 51 of 487
inherent in such grounding enables teachers to develop lifelong learning strategies (Hoffman, 1986).
‘Deep learning’ comes from “an ecology that grounds teachers’ learning experience in their open
practice, experience and culture (community)” (Laferriere et al., 2006, p. 78). In addition, Tafel and
Bertani (2008) acknowledged the influential nature of beliefs upon teachers’ behaviour and advocated
professional learning facilitators acquaint themselves with participant’s beliefs in order to manage
the change process more appropriately and respectfully for them.
Purpose
Three overarching questions guided this inquiry.
 What were our mental lives about IT at the beginning of the inquiry and how
did our mental lives impact upon the process of acquiring new knowledge about IT?

What impact do our mental lives have on our adoption of TPACK and constructivist
pedagogies?
 What features of action research facilitate the identification of teachers’ mental
lives and contribute to their development of TPACK?
Methodology
Five teachers (three from an independent primary school in Brisbane, one kindergarten teacher and
myself) formed a professional learning community (PLC) with the intention to develop our
knowledge and classroom practice with IT. Each participant (myself included) confessed to
reluctantly using or proactively avoiding using IT in the classroom. In addition, I was the PLC mentor.
An action research approach framed our professional learning. The constructivist, interpretivist, and
non-positivist principles (Cardno & Piggot-Irvine, 1996) underpinning action research supported an
approach to the teaching and learning that was personally relevant and meaningful to each of us. Our
first action cycle involved planning for and implementing the use of some technology in a unit of
work for our classes. Critical reflection occurred simultaneously to teaching the unit and immediately
following completion of the unit. Arising from the reflection, modifications to the original plan were
made in an attempt to strengthen the work or eliminate problems we had encountered. Two teachers
from the primary school left our PLC after the first cycle citing health reasons. The remaining two
teachers, Amanda and Dee continued to work through five action cycles with me for a further two
and a half years. Both Amanda and Dee were experienced teachers. Amanda had been teaching for
over 12 years and Dee for over 40 years at the time we began working together. I had worked
intermittently as both a secondary school teacher and a journalist for 20 years.
The data reported in this paper were collected from the last five action cycles. Evidence was drawn
from planning meetings and classroom observations together with emails, professional and personal
conversations and reflections. The accuracy of data and authenticity of our voices were major
considerations, thus member checks with Amanda and Dee formed an important part of the data
collection process. The data were transcribed and using NVivo software, coded inductively and
analysed for themes.
Findings and discussion
Our findings related to how our mental lives impacted our use of IT were consistent with a
voluminous body of literature that has concluded our actions are determined by our thinking. Thus,
because we all had reservations about using IT, we tended to use it reluctantly or avoid it altogether.
For further discussion of this see Blackberry (2012). An unanticipated outcome from the action
research was the evolution of a new model of professional learning that is the focus for the rest of this
paper. The model, ‘Turning Teachers On to ICT’ depicted in Figure 1 evolved from constant
comparison analysis of the data. It is a holistic approach to professional learning that makes explicit
Page 52 of 487
the features of action research that supported our IT practice changes whilst simultaneously
acknowledging the impact multiple ecologies had on us as we strived for integration.
Microsystem
The model suggests the most powerful influence over our actions occurs at the microsystem level.
That is, our thoughts and feelings directly impact our actions. While many teachers are able to
perceive the need for change and initiate it without the support of other systems, other teachers’
thoughts and feelings may function to prevent the adoption of changes in practice (see Pegg et al.,
2007; Tafel & Bertani, 2008).
We all fell into this category and needed support to restructure our existing cognitive and affective
representations. Although we understood its potential, our thoughts and feeling about IT prevented
us from making significant changes to our practice. We were also united by a common fear; how to
use IT. Amanda was worried about not knowing how to create an animation and the time it would
take while Dee and I were concerned about using IT in educationally sound ways. The model
acknowledges the centrality of our mental lives in guiding our action, and in our case, they were
powerful determinants of our inaction. In order to be able to change our thoughts and feelings, we
needed to acknowledge them, talk about them, identify their origins and reflect on how they prevented
us using IT. We did this in our ‘conversation space’.
The conversation space and reflection
Our thoughts and feelings often remain tacit and invisible to others unless they are challenged. We
Figure 1. Turning Teachers on to ICT Professional Learning model
utilised the conversation space, a metaphor for the situated, sustained dialogue and
reflection that pervaded the action cycles, to challenge our thoughts and feelings.
Metacognitive processing and substantive reflection were powerful agents supporting the
Page 53 of 487
change process.
Metacognition has allowed me to see that uncertainty has characterised much of my
thinking but that it has been practice and reflection on that practice that has allowed me
to replace uncertainty with new knowledge. If we don’t challenge our thinking, how can
it change and develop. (Gina)
Dee summed up the significance of reflection and conversation for her saying:
To be willing to shift one’s thinking, through personal questioning, research and
reflection, empowers unfolding growth and development and my ensuing conversations
with Gina, as we shared conversations around children’s learning, technology and her
own studies, began to provoke my thinking about the possibilities of technology as a
valuable tool and process for education and for learning. (Dee)
The process by which I was simply allowed to think out loud, to express my fears and
concerns and to talk them through until they no longer served as roadblocks, was a great
learning experience. I came to realise that I had nothing to fear from technology and that
I was as capable as anyone else in playing with it and coming up with meaningful ways to
use it to support my teaching and my students’ learning. I expressed my frustrations to
Gina. And, I have to say, just having someone I could do this with was a blessing in itself.
Being able to talk it out gave me the clarity I needed to know I could change things for
myself and for my students. (Amanda)
As we worked through the classic action cycle of plan, act, observe, reflect and revise (Zuber-Skerritt,
2001, p. 15) the conversation space also functioned as an information exchange that became the
platform for identifying and addressing concerns, negotiation and personalising the learning process.
The conversation space also helped us to articulate which steps supported our attempts at change.
These concepts, we called ‘action steps’ emerged during data analysis.
Mesosystem
At the outer edge of the ellipse, the eleven action steps identified in the data as supporting our planned
change are indicated. These extend on the five traditional action research steps outlined above. The
arrows indicate the movement of our action through various ‘action spaces’. While the model suggests
these ‘action spaces’ occurred sequentially, as we moved through cycles we found we sometimes
skipped an ‘action space’. The ability to move in any direction around the model is suggested by the
space above and below the arrows.
Three behaviours, supported by the conversation space, underpinned these action steps and were
found to be critical to supporting the change process and restructuring our mental lives in relation to
IT. Our data suggested intention/commitment, mentoring/collaboration and observation/reflection
pervaded all our work.
Intention/commitment
Policy and school directives suggested we all had a reason to make changes but as this inquiry
demonstrated these directives did not translate into action. We found many obstacles that prevented
us from initiating IT use and integration independently. These barriers included: time, resources and
our mental lives. We were cognisant of the fact that we didn’t know how to and this made us feel
uncomfortable. It was important for us that we recognised it was in our best interest to make changes
and this was accompanied by an intention to make changes.
My own professional growth had led me to consider, wonder about, read and explore the
growing relevance of ICT in early childhood classrooms over the span of my professional
career. Keen to find a strong foundation on which to rest the use of ICT in my classroom
setting to achieve meaningful and credible learning outcomes for children, my
Page 54 of 487
relationship with Gina emerged. When we commenced the process, I was scared... scared
of what I thought I couldn’t do and needed to be able to do to make the learning rich and
interesting. My (natural) fear was also accompanied by an excitement that, here, I had a
valuable opportunity to work alongside another professional. (Dee)
Amanda’s intention to change was supported by evidence she had that indicated her students were
not engaged and motivated. “I’ve also got to have a reason to do it... there has to be a reason to take
on the next challenge.”
A commitment to change represents a deep shift in the level of seriousness with which the challenge
is taken. When the commitment is explicitly stated, in particular to the mentor, there is a concomitant
shift as the participant accepts a degree of accountability for their engagement in and actions during
the action cycles.
Having Gina checking in regularly, demonstrating a keen interest in what I was doing and
questioning me, challenging me and encouraging me, was what held me accountable. It is
one thing to hear of particular programs or websites and tell yourself that one day you
will get around to exploring them in more details, but quite another to actually tell
someone else you will do
it and then have that person check in with you in a week’s time
to see how it went. That accountability was a key issue for me, particularly in the initial
stages. (Amanda)
Mentoring/collaboration
Teachers often work in isolation and are frequently expected to implement change independently or
with minimal support. Our action cycles valued mentoring and collaboration as a means of
continuous, authentic and contextualised support.
Two heads are better than one. With Gina as my sounding board, cheer squad and mentor,
I began investigating other ways in which I could incorporate ICT’s into my classroom.
Having her checking in regularly, demonstrating a keen interest in what I was doing and
questioning me, challenging me and encouraging me, was what held me accountable.
(Amanda)
She was a generous, resourceful and enthusiastic mentor. She was willing to listen and
was capable of extrapolating our differing capabilities, roles and responsibilities and our
need for provocation. She led by example and was aware that each of us would engage as
and where we were able, available and interested. (Dee)
Observation/reflection
Watching students work with computers and their seeming enjoyment and comfort in doing so, was
a powerful agent of change. Our observations of their capabilities, together with their motivation and
enthusiasm provided us with new evidence which directly contradicted Amanda’s early claim that,
“the students will require a lot of support to do that” (ie. work with computers to create an animation).
During cycle two, as a result of using technology-mediated pedagogy, a WebQuest, Amanda observed
positive changes in her students’ motivation and
their ability to work independently.
Today I must admit I’m very excited. I just love not having the kids in my face every five
minutes and feeling frustrated. The students responded so positively to doing a WebQuest.
I originally thought it might just be the novelty of using the computers but I tell you what,
after seven weeks the novelty of using computers has worn off so something else must have
been keeping them motivated and on task. I did not expect to have some students where
they’re at today. And they’re excited and you know that’s the best thing is that they’re
loving it. Before the students seemed to lack any sort of engagement with the topic.
(Amanda)
Page 55 of 487
These positive perceptions permitted Amanda to revise her beliefs about a range of IT related issues
she formerly held and supported her to continue with IT integration.
Exosystem and macrosystem
The exosystem and macrosystem are positioned at the outer edge of the model because for us, they
exerted the least influence on our IT practice. Government mandates and educational department
policy directives had failed to shift our thinking and increase our IT use.
Conclusion
The nuanced and highly personal lives and contexts within teachers’ work deserve a form of
professional learning in which the individual is valued, understood, and supported to make change
possible. This study has highlighted the need for teachers’ mental lives to be made visible and that
the interplay of the meso, exo, and macrosystems of their work environment must be investigated and
addressed during any ICT-related professional learning experiences. A mesosytem that is able to
challenge teachers’ mental lives and support them through experiential and situated learning is needed
to make teachers’ learning personally and professional relevant and to address the malady of IT
integration in our schools.
References
Bate, F., (2010. A bridge too far? Explaining beginning teachers’ use of ICT in Australian schools.
Australasian
Journal
of
Educational
Technology,
26(7),
1042-1061.
BECTA. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers.
Retrieved
from
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1603/1/becta_2004barrierstouptake_litrev.pdf
Blackberry, G. (2012). Turning teachers on to digital technologies: Acknowledging the place of
cognitive and affective constructs in ICT-related professional learning. Retrieved from
https://www120.secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/items/f97242a3-4e31-4cf8-8328-f877456d993c/1/
Cardno, C., & Piggot-Irvine, E. (1996). Incorporating action research in school senior management
training.
International
Journal
of
Educational
Management,
10(5),
19-24.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology
integration?
Educational
Technology,
Research
and
Development,
53(4).
Ertmer, P. A., and Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3),
221-229.
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use.
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(1), 21-46.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Competing paradigms in social research. In N. K. Denzin, &
Lincoln, Y. S (Ed.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 195-220). London: Sage.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational
Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Hoffman, B. (1996). What drives successful technology planning? Journal of Information
Technology for Teacher Education, 5, 43-55.
Page 56 of 487
Jamieson-Proctor, R., Burnett, P., Finger, G., & Watson, G. (2006). ICT integration and teachers’
confidence in using ICT for teaching and learning in Queensland state schools. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology 22(4), 511-530.
Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Finger, G. (2008). ACT to improve ICT use for learning: A synthesis of
studies of teacher confidence in using ICT in two Queensland schooling systems. Australian
Educational Computing, 23(2), 12-18.
John, P. D. (2002). Teaching and learning with ICT: New technology, new pedagogy. Paper presented
at the British Educational Research Conference, Exeter.
Kagan, D. M. (1992 a). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27, 6590.
Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX, Gulf.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Laferriere, T., Lamon, M., & Chan, C. (2006). Emerging e-trends and models in teacher education
and professional development. Teaching Education, 17(1), 75-90.
Leung, K. P., Watters, J. J., and Ginns, I. S. (2005). Enhancing teachers incorporation of ICT into
classroom teaching. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Global Chinese Conference on Computers in
Education, Brigham Young University, Hawaii, USA.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2008). Teachers' views on factors affecting effective integration of
information technology in the classroom: Developmental scenery. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 16(2).
McNamara, S., Jones, M., and McLean, K. (2007). Stories in ICT professional development. In C.
Reading (Ed.), Partnerships in ICT Learning Study Case Studies. Canberra: Department of Education,
Science and Training.
Meredyth, D., Russell, N., Blackwood, L., Thomas, J., & Wise, P. (1999). Real Time: Computers,
Change and Schooling: Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy.
Pegg, J., Reading, C., & Williams, M. (2007). Partnerships in ICT Learning Study. Canberra.
Retrieved
from
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Documents/pictl_full_report1.pdf
Phelps, R., & Graham, A. (2008). Developing technology together, together: A whole-school
metacognitive approach to ICT teacher professional development. Retrieved from
www.epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=educ
Phelps, R., Graham A., & Kerr, B. (2004). Teachers and ICT: Exploring a metacognitive approach to
professional development. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 49-68.
Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical ties, critical choices: Report of
the review of teacher education. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.
Reading, C. (2010). Exploring animation: Professional learning for teachers. Paper presented at the
ACEC2010: Digital Diversity Conference, Melbourne.
Page 57 of 487
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. London, Temple
Smith.
Senge, P. (1992). Mental models. Planning Review, 20(2).
Smith, C., Hofer, J., Gillespie, M., Solomon, M., & Row, K. (2003). How teachers change: A study
of professional development in adult education. Cambridge, MA: National Centre for the Study of
Adult Learning and Literacy, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, California:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sutherland, R., Robertson, S., & John, P. (2009). Improving classroom learning with ICT. London:
Routledge.
Tafel, L., & Bertani, A. (2008). Using adult learning theory to frame and support professional
development. In A. P. Borthwick, M (Ed.), Transforming classroom practice: Professional
development strategies in education technology. Washington: ISTE.
Voogt, J. (Ed.). (2008). IT and curriculum processes. New York: Springer.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis and programs. In S.
Sankara, Dick, B., & Passfield, R (Ed.), Effective change management through action research and
action learning: concepts, perspectives, processes and applications (pp. 1-20). Lismore, Australia:
Southern Cross University Press.
Page 58 of 487
DIGITALLY AUGMENTING PHYSICAL SPACES FOR
PERSONALISED LEARNING
Julie Boston, Martin Masek, Mark Brogan, Chiou Peng Lam
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Abstract
The ubiquity of mobile computing devices, such as phones and tablets has led to their
increased use in education. The ability of these devices to augment physical spaces with
additional content shows particular promise to enable the creation of guided and learner
driven learning experiences. In this paper, we introduce Trailblazer, a software framework
that allows non-programmers to create rich augmented reality experiences. The
framework allows for activities that are composed tasks that include a mixture of
information transmission and knowledge testing through a multi-modal experience. A case
study is presented demonstrating the framework in the cultural heritage space with Year
5 integrated curriculum.
To assist the learning process it can be helpful to journey out of the classroom and into certain places
of interest. For example, visiting a heritage site to learn about the past or attending a significant event,
such as eruption of a volcano. There are, however, barriers to such excursions. The place of interest
could be impractical to get to, dangerous, or the significant event may have already passed. Further,
if the site is visitable, expert guidance is needed in taking a group through the site.
A promising solution to the barriers on physical excursions is to augment them with mobile-based
augmented reality applications (MAR). In augmented reality (AR), a physical place is transformed
by adding virtual content using the mobile device. This is typically implemented by using the camera
on the mobile device to capture a view of the environment, presenting it on the screen with the
additional virtual content superimposed on the actual scene. The content can include written text,
images, video and recorded voiceover through to interactive 3D objects that appear to be a part of the
actual scene. This has several applications. For one, an actual place of interest can be augmented with
guides and information. This information can be directly matched to meet curriculum objectives so
that the experience is both engaging and educationally effective. Further, events from the past and
objects no longer present can be recreated through augmented reality. In addition, a space that is not
connected to the place of interest, but is easily accessible (such as a school oval), can be transformed
with augmented reality to represent the place of interest.
Currently, there is no easy way to create a rich, engaging educational experience using AR. One
current solution is to commission custom AR apps, typically a costly, time consuming process,
resulting in an app where the content is not easy to change. Another solution is to use one of the
existing consumer-accessible authoring tools, such as EveryTrail (2014) or Aurasma (2014). Such
tools are currently limited to serving content rather than letting the user take an active part in the
experience, or having the ability to scaffold learning tasks to build competence. In our work we
address these limitations through an easy to use framework, Trailblazer, where rich experiences can
be built from a set of generic task types that promote exploration and actively engage the participant.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. First, we provide a review of existing work in the
augmented reality space, focusing specifically on learning. We then provide an overview of our
solution, followed by a case study of applying our solution in the cultural heritage space. This is
followed by a discussion of the feedback we have received so far and the conclusion.
Page 59 of 487
Theoretical Framework and Literature review
Innovation in learning with technology depends on individual access to innovative technologies and
the pedagogy and infrastructure that support them. Contemporary theories of learning with
information communications technology (ICT) emphasise socio-cultural and constructivist theories
of learning (Webb & Cox, 2004). Pedagogical approaches to technology integration support studentcentred environments that are characterised by their focus on active participation, collaboration, and
knowledge production rather than knowledge acquisition (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011). One of the
newest technologies currently being explored for its potential to offer interactive multimodal learning
experiences is AR technology (Billinghurst & Dunser, 2012). Physical manipulation of digital content
using AR technology is now possible thus opening up a myriad of opportunities for educators to assist
learners in exploring abstract spatial and temporal concepts.
How the coexistence of virtual objects and real environments might assist learning is the subject of a
rich discourse. Arvanitis et al. (2007) argue that the coexistence of virtual objects and real
environments allows learners to visualize complex spatial relationships and abstract concepts.
According to Klopfer & Squire (2008), such coexistence enables the learner to experience phenomena
that are not possible in the real world and to interact with two and three dimensional synthetic objects
in a mixed reality environment. Both create a context for deep learning. Other researchers (Squire &
Jan, 2007; Squire & Klopfer, 2007) argue that such environments enable the development of
important practices and literacies that cannot be developed and enacted in other technology-enhanced
learning environments. In a literature review of research in AR applications in education, Wu et al.
(2013) state that such benefits make AR one of the key emerging technologies for education over the
next five years.
There is still much to learn regarding how AR can best be used for educational purposes (Folkestead
& O’Shae, 2011). Some recent projects suggest the possibility of AR complementing current learning
models and tools. AntarticAR (Lee, Dunser Nassani & Billinghurst, 2013) investigated the
application of AR to create a virtual tour of Antartica where significant portions of the real world
(such as a school oval) were replaced with virtual content allowing the user to become immersed in
Antarctica’s extreme environment. The Handheld Augmented Reality Project (HARP) (O’Shea et al.
2009), investigated the efficacy of AR curricula for engagement and understanding. This collaborative
project developed two scenario-based AR curricula, targeted towards Massachusetts state academic
standards for middle school math and languages. Prohibitive technological, management and
cognitive overload issues were common across these projects; however, overall these projects
demonstrated the potential usability of AR technology for engagement and understanding.
Introducing Trailblazer
Our solution in the AR space, Trailblazer, is targeted towards the goal of allowing non-programmers
to build engaging augmented reality experiences. In line with this aim, we have opted to develop a
graphical user interface (GUI) based system through which such experiences can be created and
stored on a server. The content stored on the server is then experienced through a mobile app. The
features of Trailblazer were determined using an iterative and incremental methodology using a
participatory design process. In this approach, the system is built in increments of functionality with
each undergoing several iterations.
Feedback on iterations was sought from a wide range of stakeholders, as detailed in the next section
on the case study. Due to the wide range of experience with mobile devices in the potential target
audience, it became important to design a simple, intuitive interface. Some general principles used in
the interface design of the app include: minimal options on each screen, large meaningful icons and
organization of the interface to support one hand interaction. In addition, as it is sometimes useful to
situate AR activities outdoors, a colour scheme was chosen to maximise the contrast of user interface
elements.
Page 60 of 487
The architecture of the Trailblazer system is shown in Figure 1. From the perspective of a learner (or
anyone wishing to partake in the experience), they download a Trailblazer app onto their mobile
device from an app store (such as iTunes or Google Play). The app does not come with any AR content
when initially downloaded, but provides a means of connecting to the Trailblazer server, which holds
a set of experiences that the player can choose from to download and experience through the
Trailblazer app. With this approach, the same app can be used for multiple learning experiences, rather
than having to download a different app for each. This promotes a consistent experience in terms of
the user interface and functionality for various types of learning experiences.
App Store
Download app
Trailblazer
Server
Create and edit
content.
Download content
for app.
Web Browser
Mobile Device
Learner
Author
The Trailblazer framework from the perspective of both a learner and the author of
the learning experience.
From the perspective of an author, they build a particular experience on the Trailblazer server through
a web browser interface. As we envisage Trailblazer to be used to create a wide variety of experiences,
encompassing different content across different locations a flexible structure was needed in which
generic ‘experience’ elements could be placed. This structure, consisting of five levels, is shown in
Figure 2 along with the specific experience built for the case study, described later in this paper and
possible extensions.
At the top level is the trail, which consists of one or more physical places of interest (POI). Each POI
can have a number of quests, which are intended to be thematic groupings of activities based at that
place of interest. An activity is made up of a number of tasks, each task being in a concrete location
at the place of interest. These task locations are anchored either by GPS location or visual marker.
Multiple sequential tasks at the same visual marker are supported, with the completion of one task
causing the next task to appear.
Swan River Heritage
Trail
…
1..*
Place of Interest
…
Tranby House
1..*
Quest
…
Explore
1..*
Activity
Black Swan
Arrival
…
1..*
Task
Task 1
(a)
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
(b)
Figure 2: The five levels of content in the Trailblazer framework (a), along with an example
instance (b).
Page 61 of 487
Activities in a quest can be attempted in any order, and the author of the experience can create a
combination of ordered and unordered tasks within an activity. Several task types have been created
to allow the author to create the activity, summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Types of tasks present in the Trailblazer framework.
Task Type
Information
Panel
Learner interaction involved
Role
Presents a panel of text over a visual Information relevant to the activity
marker.
can be presented to the learner, such
as clues to find the next task or
information about the POI.
Video
A video is played over a visual A more multi-modal experience than
marker. The video pauses when the the text-based information panel. The
marker moves off-camera and video task type can be used to
resumes when the marker is visible demonstrate concepts to the learner.
again.
3D Model
A 3D geometric model is shown with The learner can make observations on
position, orientation and scale to objects that are not at the physical
match the marker. The learner can location. This can be used to engage
manoeuvre around a virtual object is learners with artifacts that may have
if it was in the physical environment. once existed at the place of interest, or
those too valuable to be on display to
the public.
Key
Provides an object that can be Introduces an ‘explore’ mechanic
collected, anchored to a visual where the learner needs to investigate
marker. The author can make other their surroundings in order to unlock
tasks unavailable (locked) until a set a particular task.
number of these objects have been
collected.
Multi-Choice
The learner is provided with three Provides a point for reflection, where
Question
possible answers to a question, one of the learner must make a decision. This
which is correct. The learner selects decision can be informed by other
an answer. Points are awarded for content at the POI, or the learner can
selecting the correct answer, with guess. This means the player need not
points diminishing with the number of be ‘stuck’ on this task, however
attempts before the correct answer is subsequent tasks should not assume
selected.
knowledge of this question.
Written Answer Written text is provided (typically A point where the learner can reflect,
Question
intended to be in the form of a but harder than the multi-choice
question), with blank spaces that the questions in that there is limited scope
learner has to fill in with a particular for guessing. The learner must enter
set of words. The author can elect for the correct response in order to
some of the letters in the answer to be proceed with the activity. Tasks
revealed.
subsequent to this can assume the
learner understands the question.
In addition to the information provided directly with the task, each task can have documents attached
to it that are added to the Items library on the Traiblazer app. These documents can be in the form of
videos, documents (eg. pdf files), or images. Appropriate documents can be selected to help the user
complete the activity, or to act as reference points for work done outside the app, such as reflective
activities back at school for a school-excursion.
Page 62 of 487
Case study: Trailblazer for the cultural heritage space
Working in partnership with the project sponsor, National Trust of Australia WA (NT), we have
created a demonstration of the framework that delivers primary level integrated curriculum at Year 5
level, based around Western Australia’s oldest surviving domestic building, Tranby House (TH).
Curriculum integration refers to curricula that are aimed at making subject matter more relevant to
students’ experiences with less focus on discipline boundaries (Gehrke, 1998). Though literature
highlights barriers to integrated curriculum, such as teachers’ lack of knowledge outside their own
discipline and difficulties in fitting established assessment systems (Lam et al., 2013), Trailblazer
offers the architecture to embed knowledge from multiple disciplines and guide the students through
the AR experience. Toward this end, we have developed two activities, Arrival and The Black Swan,
that include content related to: environment, heritage, sustainability, history, literacy, and numeracy
set in the context of the TH locality, aligning to meet the outcomes of the Australian History,
Geography, Science and Mathematics Curriculum.
Arrival activity
The arrival activity consists of a series of non-linear puzzles associated with the historical artifacts
located in the entrance foyer of TH. To encourage students to explore, they are first required to collect
a number of AR keys ‘hidden’ in the foyer, followed by alternating sequences of information panels
and questions focused around artefacts with information about the journey the settlers of TH took to
arrive in Australia and how TH was started. Challenges include having to calculate the month of
arrival, examining the goods that the settlers bought with them against importance for survival and
examining the size and shape of land allocated to the settlers. A screenshot from one of the tasks in
the Arrival activity is shown in Figure 3 (a).
Page 63 of 487
(a)
(b)
Black Swan activity
This activity was situated outside TH, next to the banks of the adjacent river and positions students
in the role of a biologist. A visual marker, given to students outside TH, triggers this AR experience
which includes a 3D model of a black swan, screenshot shown in Figure 3 (b), accompanied by an
audio narrative detailing the historical context and significance of the black swan as well as
instructions for an inquiry task. Working in pairs the students must then orientate the tablet to gain
different spatial perspectives of this species so that they may draw its key morphological features on
the evidence worksheet. Ultimately this inquiry-based task will challenge students to collect evidence
and form an hypothesis related to why so few of these birds exist now in this location. Here we are
using AR to amplify the real world environment, as the likelihood of observing this particular
indigenous species is very low due to destruction of its natural habitat and the level of watercraft
activity on that particular stretch of the river.
Results and Discussion
Prior to testing with Year 5 students, formative feedback on the Trailblazer architecture and the Arrival
activity was sought via a think tank of stakeholders, including representatives of the NT, teachers and
curriculum experts and representatives of the indigenous community. The think tank was situated on
site at TH, giving participants an opportunity to engage in an authentic user experience of the
activities. A summary of this formative feedback, along with modifications made in response follows.
Page 64 of 487
Our stakeholders perceived the navigation between the various visual markers used by the arrival
activity was not intuitive and would potentially lead to cognitive overload. Consequently the
instructional clues were re-written in a simpler and more targeted fashion. Navigational and user hints,
including how to hold the tablet to trigger the AR experiences, were also added. Contrary to the
evaluative feedback arising from the HARP project (O’Shea et al. 2009), the non-linear nature of the
arrival tasks seemed to invoke a sense of confusion. Suggested improvements included numbering
the tasks or a screen tool added to indicate how much of the quest had been completed. On the visual
presentation of tasks, participants indicated perceptual difficulties as the size of some markers (such
as info panels) was scaled with distance away from the visual marker. This necessitated modifications
to the presentation of makers, increasing their space to fill the screen and increasing the text font size.
A further improvement that was made to the activities was to simplify the readability of the textual
information to align more closely with the typical reading age of a Year 5 student.
Further feedback specific to this POI was to feature more historical events or objects no longer present
as part of the experience. A more multimodal experience, featuring video and audio was also
suggested. The Black Swan activity was created in response to these suggestions. Value was also seen
in students being able to capture video and photographic evidence of the completed quests, which
then could be used back at school. This feature was seen to be innovative in terms of enabling further
opportunities to conduct inquiry based activities with evidence collected on site. Various solutions
exist to enable this, such as the use of cloud-based storage that the students could access from
anywhere. This will be explored in future work.
After the improvements in response to think tank feedback were made, the next iteration of Trailblazer
and the activities were tested with the target audience, 32 Year 5 students from an Independent
metropolitan primary school. The students were partnered up to complete both the arrivals and black
swan activities. Almost without exception these ten-year-old students intuitively were able to use the
swipe features of the tablet and without instruction understood that pressing the home button would
return them to the beginning of the quest. High engagement in this activity was observed; however,
unexpectedly issues arose with some pairs of students experiencing ownership issues over the single
tablet device, which resulted in the NT tour guides and researchers having to strongly reinforce taking
turns. The confined nature of the entrance foyer where the arrival activity was located resulted in
unanticipated management issues requiring intervention by the NT tour guides and classroom teacher.
Almost immediately, the researchers noticed a competitive element arising between pairs of students,
with many students seen rushing to locate all the AR keys and solve the challenges.
Once the students had been situated outside of TH next to the banks of the river gasps of delight were
heard as the students triggered the appearance of the 3-D model of a black swan. Activating the AR
black swan automatically triggered an audio introduction and set of instructions for this task. As these
tablets were not purposefully designed for outdoor use, listening to this information was problematic
due to the ambient background noise and the excited student chatter. The researchers intervened after
noticing this difficulty and offered a verbal explanation for this task instead. Despite being instructed
to remain seated during this drawing activity the students stood up in order to orient the tablet to
achieve a complete view of this bird. Spatially this was a challenging task requiring the students to
simultaneously view the black swan and attempt to draw its features. Without explicitly being
instructed, the majority of students collaborated with their partner to successfully draw the black
swan’s key morphological features on the evidence sheet provided. A number of students were
observed to be so deeply engaged with viewing the black swan that they became disoriented and were
asked to sit down for fear of tripping or bumping into one another. The issue of glare on the screen
was resolved in this particular play testing trial by situating the students in a shaded location, thereby
maximizing screen contrast and clarity in this outdoor based activity.
Conclusion and Future Work
Designing curricula specific learning activities that leverage off the affordances of AR is a continuing
Page 65 of 487
topic of research. In this paper, we have described the Trailblazer framework which we have designed
to allow non-technical experts to craft such learning activities in order to accelerate research in the
field and also to minimise barriers to practical implementation. The framework includes a web-based
editor where the authors of experiences construct sequences of tasks, having the ability to interweave
text-based information with 3D virtual models, videos as well as questions to encourage the learner
to reflect and engage with the material. To demonstrate the framework we have created two
demonstration activities and received promising feedback from the Year 5 audience. In future work
we are aiming to explore a wider set of activities and also to enhance the framework with a wider
array of task types.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by an Edith Cowan University Industry Collaboration Grant with The
National Trust of Australia (WA).
References
Arvanitis, T. N., Petrou, A., Knight, J. F., Savas, S., Sotiriou, S., Gargalakos, M., et al. (2007). Human
factors and qualitative pedagogical evaluation of a mobile augmented reality system for science
education used by learners with physical disabilities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13(3),
243–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0187-7.
Aurasma (2014), Retrieved 22 April 2014 from: http://www.aurasma.com
Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 5663. doi:10.1109/MC.2012.
EveryTrail (2014), Retrieved 22 April 2014 from: http://www.everytrail.com/
Folkestad, J., & O'Shea, P. (2011). An analysis of engagement in a combination indoor/outdoor
augmented reality educational game. Journal on School Educational Technology, 7(1).
Gehrke, N. J. (1998). A look at curriculum integration from the bridge. Curriculum Journal, 9(2),
247-260.
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through constructivist
pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education, 7(4), 1-10. doi: 10.4018/jicte.2011100101
Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives: the development of an augmented reality
platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2),
203–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6.
Lam, C. C., Alviar-Martin, T., Adler, S. A., & Sim, J. B. Y. (2013). Curriculum integration in
Singapore: Teachers' perspectives and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 31(0), 23-34. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.11.004
Lee, G. A., Dunser, A., Nassani, A., & Billinghurst, M. (2013). AntarcticAR: An outdoor AR
experience of a virtual tour to antarctica. 29-38. doi:10.1109/ISMAR-AMH.2013.6671264
Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (2011). New technology trends
in education: seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893–1906.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.003.
Page 66 of 487
O’Shea, P., Mitchell, R., Johnston, C., & Dede, C. (2011). Lessons learned about designing
augmented realities. Int’l J. Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, (1), 1-15.
Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a
place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 16(1), 5–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z.
Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413435.
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications
technology.
Technology,
Pedagogy
and
Education,
13(3),
235-286.
doi:
10.1080/14759390400200183
Wu, H., Lee, S. W., Chang, H., & Liang, J. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of
augmented
reality
in
education.
Computers
&
Education,
62,
41-49.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
Page 67 of 487
ACEC2014 - MAKING THE SPACE FOR SPACE: THE EFFECT OF
THE CLASSROOM LAYOUT ON TEACHER AND STUDENT USAGE
AND PERCEPTION OF ONE-TO-ONE TECHNOLOGY
Terry Byers
Anglican Church Grammar School
Wes Imms
The University of Melbourne
Abstract
Today, a significant proportion of Australian secondary school students have some level
of access to digital technology through one-to-one or BYOD programs. This ubiquitous
access to devices connected through wireless network can create a technology-enabled
learning environments (TELE). The teacher-student connectivity of a TELE has the
potential to facilitate more collaborative and responsive learning experiences in
modalities that may have not been possible before. Despite these significant changes,
many students occupy classroom spaces that have changed little in configuration,
structure and operation.
This paper reports on the first stage intervention of a three stage quasi-experimental
study. The study explored the synergy between technology-enabled and responsive
learning spaces and its effects on teaching and learning in a Secondary school setting.
The stage one intervention sought to determine if a causal relationship existed between
particular layouts and how teachers’ and students’ perceived the incidence in usage and
the influence and effectiveness of one-to-one technology.
A single-subject research design (SSRD) measured the effect of two types of classroom
layouts through an explanatory mixed method design. Results from quantitative analyses
over a one-year period indicated a more responsive and dynamic physical learning space
did have a positive effect on student perceptions of the effectiveness and influence of oneto-one technology on their learning. These quantitative findings were corroborated
through thematic analysis of teacher focus groups. Collectively this evidence suggests
that the arrangement of the physical learning space can assist teachers to better integrate
the affordances of technology into their pedagogical practice.
Introduction
Student access to and usage of digital technology brought about by one-to-one or BYOD programs
has the potential to offer many avenues to improve teaching and learning. This ubiquitous access to
digital technology through one-to-one devices connected through wireless infrastructure can create
technology-enabled learning environments (TELE). The connectivity associated with TELE can
support collaborative and more responsive learning experiences by connecting teachers and students
in modalities that may have not been possible before (Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012). The affordances
associated with this environment can support contemporary pedagogical practices that are believed
to be most powerful in facilitating personalised models of student learning (Bocconi, Kampylis, &
Punie, 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Despite these significant changes Bautista and
Borges (2013) and Chandler (2009) argue that many students operate in a traditional classroom space
that has changed little in configuration, structure and operation.
The traditional layout is typical of a classroom where students are arranged in fixed instruction
settings, facing the teacher at the front-centre focal or display point (Chandler, 2009; Reynard, 2009).
Richards (2006) argues too often the integration of technology into these spaces has been an
afterthought, predominantly added-on to existing structures. This approach characteristically leads
to the technology supporting existing pedagogical modes (Richards, 2006; Rosen & Beck-Hill, 2012).
Fisher (2010) agrees that this lack of alignment between the possible affordances associated with
Page 68 of 487
technology and the common traditional fixed instructional setting points to a deep spatial silence.
This silence is key to understanding how the salient effects of physical learning environments is
enabling or restricting the implementation of technology to support more contemporary pedagogical
practices (Fisher, 2004; Lippman, 2010).
This paper seeks to show how the physical arrangement of the space can either hinder or support the
effective use of one-to-one technology. It reports on a Single Subject Research Design (SSRD) study
that measured the quantitative effect of two classroom layouts on how teachers and students perceived
the incidence in usage, influence and effectiveness of one-to-one technology. These quantitative
findings, further justified by thematic analysis of a teacher focus group, sought to determine if a causal
relationship exists between particular layouts and how teachers and students perceived the incidence
in usage and the influence and effectiveness of one-to-one technology. This study, whilst small in
scale, models an approach with the potential to add dramatically to previously overlooked structures
that can support the adoption and effectiveness of one-to-one technology.
Literature Review
The built pedagogical contract of the traditional classroom
The physical layout of the space contains implicit and explicit physical and psychological cues. These
cues instinctively and visibly instruct both teachers and students how to behave within the space
(Cleveland, 2011; Monahan, 2002). In a classroom that is typical of a traditional layout, these cues
are evident in juxtaposition of teachers and students. The teacher’s front-centre position, reinforced
by a desk and visual display is directly opposed to students arranged in a fixed instructional setting.
The teacher’s positioning, establishes what Reynard (2009) describes as the fireplace syndrome. It
sets clear expectations of the role of the teacher and students in the transmission of knowledge
(Reynard, 2009). Over time this behaviour estatablishes a certain script for the teaching and learning
transaction between teachers and students (Cleveland, 2011; Dovey & Fisher, 2014).
The establishment of this consistent pedagogical script overtime is best described by the concept pf
built pedagogy developed by Monahan (2002). Built pedagogy describes the ability of the obvious
and salient characteristics of the physical space to shape teacher practice and student learning. This
is evident in the preservation of the traditional classroom archetype beyond the learning and
pedagogical theories that it was initially designed to facilitate (Dovey & Fisher, 2014; Hildebrand,
1999). The result is a hidden built pedagogical contract which sets the tone of the teaching and
learning relationship between student(s) and teacher(s) (Hildebrand, 1999). Hildebrand (1999) argues
that any transgression from the conventions and/or the prevailing norms of this contract, results in
resistance from one or both parties. Fullan, Hill, and Crevola (2007) describes how this resistance
could be responsible for the classroom innately perpetuating resident pedagogical culture within
schools to maintain the status quo.
Rationale for the synergy of space and technology
Brown and Long (2006) and Fisher (2006) argue that learning spaces need to become much more
than just tight, static, hierarchical containers of learning. Instead, Oblinger (2005) indicates that
spaces should act as a conduit that enable the convergence of technology and pedagogy. This
translates to designs that must embody spatial qualities that enable technology to support current and
evolving pedagogical practices (Fisher, 2006; Joint Information Systems Committee, 2006). At the
same time, the design, configuration and utilisation of spaces must adapt to and in turn be shaped by
the users of the space.
Dovey and Fisher (2014) describe how the interaction between the users of the space, the technology
(furniture and digital) and the physical layout must enable continual adaptation and flow between
various pedagogical and learning modes (teacher-centred, student-centred and informal). This
requires spaces to be more than just flexible in design. Instead Kolb (2005) and Lippman (2010)
Page 69 of 487
suggest the emphasis should be on responsive design that enables the space to shape the learning
context of the inhabitants, and at the same time, enable these inhabitants influence, moulding the
space to their pedagogical intent. The result is spaces that are able to adapt to and accommodate
emerging modalities, pedagogy and digital technologies.
The Study
Currently there is limited understanding about the interplay between technology-enabled and
responsive learning spaces and how this can affect teacher and student usage and perceived value of
one-to-one technology. The present study explored how the physical arrangement of the space of
different classroom layouts hindered or supported the effective use of digital technology in a
secondary school environment. The aim was to determine if a causal relationship existed between
particular layouts and how teachers and students perceived the incidence in usage and the influence
and effectiveness of one-to-one technology. It was hypothesised that a more responsive and dynamic
physical learning space will better support the affordances of one-to-one technology.
The Spaces
The two classroom types existed within buildings constructed between 1940 and 1960. The first type
is typical of a classroom that would be described traditional in layout. Desks and chairs are set in a
fixed instructional setting, facing a front-centre focal point or teaching position. The second type of
classroom is a retrofitted new generation learning space (NGLS). A NGLS combines the flexibility
of furniture design and use with the integration of digital and visual technologies to create a dynamic
and interactive 360° or polycentric learning space (Lippman, 2013; Monahan, 2002). The aim of this
combination was to break down the traditional fixed instruction setting by enabling flow between
various pedagogical and learning modes within the existing room.
The polycentric layout was to be created using large TVs on Walls/Wheels, or TOWs, Writeable
Walls and multiple teacher data projector inputs (Lippman, 2013; Miller-Cochran & Gierdowski,
2013). This layout has been successfully used in: North Carolina State University’s SCALE-UP,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s TEAL and University of Minnesota’s ALC projects. Each
of these initiatives sought to breakdown the entrenched fireplace syndrome through the de-emphasis
on the front-centre focus (Miller-Cochran & Gierdowski, 2013; Reynard, 2009). This supported the
shift away from highly teacher-centred, verbal-linguistic learning, to more collaborative, active and
student-centred learning approaches.
Page 70 of 487
The Research Design
The aim of the study was to determine if a causal relationship existed between the intervention, the
change in classroom type (independent variable), and how students perceived the incidence in usage
and the influence and effectiveness of one-to-one technology (dependent variables). The
recommendations of Campbell (1957) and Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) around causal
inference was employed to ensure the research design had strong focus on moderating the plausible
threats to internal validity and the spurious effect of confounding variables. However, the nuances
of the schooling environment did not support the random assignment and absolute variable control
that is a requisite of a randomised experimental study. As a consequence, this study synthesised
elements from quasi-experimental and SSRD approaches to moderate these threats and effects.
A quasi-experimental design is a well-established approach to non-randomised intervention studies
(Harris et al., 2006). A key facet of quasi-experimental studies is the emphasis on the design, rather
than statistics alone, to facilitate causal inference (Shadish & Cook, 1999). This study implemented
a design that was able to control a raft of confounding variables, except for the change in classroom
type. The confounding causal variables that were controlled included the teacher, student cognitive
ability, class composition and subject type. This variable control was facilitated through the
application of a SSRD.
Romeiser Logan, Hickman, Harris, and Heriza (2008) and Horner et al. (2005) argue that SSRD is a
rigorous and reliable means of moderating the plausible threats to internal validity and variability. It
achieves this through establishing a functional relationship between the manipulation of the
intervention and the subsequent effect on the dependent variables (Horner et al., 2005). This
relationship was facilitated through the study of the six participating classes, who acted as their own
control, baseline and unit of analysis (Cakiroglu, 2012; Horner, Swaminathan, & George, 2012).
With each class compared and contrasted against themselves, this negated the threat of betweensubject variability (Horner et al., 2005). It also mitigated the internal validity threats of selection and
testing (Campbell, 1957). The addition of a time-series component to the research design moderated
the internal validity threats of maturation and history (Shadish et al., 2002).
A baseline/intervention (A/B) design, collected empirical data through an explanatory mixed method
across three baseline (traditional) and four post-intervention (NGLS) points. The aim was to establish
a stable baseline for each class, to further strength the validity of the study. This would mitigate the
effect of within-subject variability to correlate (Romeiser Logan et al., 2008). In addition, this
correlates the causality between the changes in dependent variables to the effect of the particular
intervention (Shadish et al., 2002). This collectively seeks to overcome the difficulty to establish
singular causality, which is a general criticism of an SSRD.
Data Analysis
Data was collected through a repeated-measures student attitudinal five point Likert scale survey. To
improve the generalisability of findings, questions were incorporated from the Shear, Means,
Gallagher, House, and Langworthy (2009) Microsoft Partners in Learning Innovative Teaching and
Learning survey instrument. Questions relating specifically to dependent variables of the influence,
effectiveness and incidence use of technology were utilised, but rewritten to be suitable for the
research context and age of participants. For example, the question ‘This space improves the
effectiveness of technology as a learning tool’ correlated to the dependent variable of effectiveness.
The survey had high, but not perfect, retention rates (96.7%). To alleviate within-subject variability
the statistical power of the sample size (n = 164) was maintained by the application of Maximum
Likelihood Estimation (ML) to produce a complete data set. ML was chosen because it does not
artificially truncate the variance and covariance around the mean (Peugh & Enders, 2004). This
truncation would abbreviate the 95% confidence intervals about the mean that would negatively bias
the determination of statistical significance that would inform causal inference (Peugh & Enders,
Page 71 of 487
2004). This decision was justified by the data set having Little’s Missing Completely at Random
(MCAR) score greater than 0.05 (0.94).
A Cronbachs Alpha (0.86) enabled each class’s data to be summed and treated as single subject
(Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006). Consequently the visual analysis of class means, with 95%
confidence intervals, evaluated the true effect of the intervention by indicating the plausible range of
values to identify inter- and intra-intervention trends (Baguley, 2009). Bobrovitz and Ottenbacher
(1998) claim that this process is equitable for t-test calculations.
To mitigate the subjective nature of visual analysis and Type 1 errors, additional quantitative analysis
and thematic analysis of teacher focus groups occurred (Kinugasa, Cerin, & Hooper, 2004). Cohen’s
d effect size calculations, were calculated using the method suggested by Beeson and Robey (2006).
This circumvented distributional issues of inferential statistics to justify the determination of
statistical significance (Beeson & Robey, 2006). Finally thematic analysis of a follow-up teacher
focus group provided a more detailed and context-specific picture that explained to some degree
particular statistical results and outcomes.
Analysis of Student Attitudinal Survey
The visual analysis process outlined by Horner et al. (2012) was utilised to determine significant and
non-significant statistical difference (Figure 2). This process incorporated the criterion of changes in
level, trend and variability of both means and confidence intervals. The shift from a traditional to
NGLS classroom resulted in a clear statistical difference in twelve out of the eighteen questions
(Table 1). Figure 2 indicates the reliability of visual analysis in moderating both the trend and
variability to determine statistical significance. The stable baseline set of class 8.2, along with nonoverlapping confidence intervals of a stable intervention phase, indicates a statistically significant
change, attributable to the NGLS intervention. Whereas, the unstable and positive trending baseline
data set of class 7.2 and overlapping confidence interval indicates a positive, but not statistically
significant change.
Cohen’s d effect sizes (Table 1) were calculated using the process outlined by Beeson and Robey
(2006). All pre- and post-measures were utilised in the effect size calculation, to ensure a more
reliable representation than a single measure. Using the thresholds suggested by Cohen (1998), the
conclusions made from the visual analysis are justified through large (0.8 to 1.3) to very large (greater
than 1.3) effect sizes. Interestingly, class 7.2 achieved a slightly larger effect size for Question A1
than class 8.2, even though the visual analysis process identified a statistically significant effect in
Page 72 of 487
class 8.2. This supports the robustness of visual analysis, as it distinguishes not only a change in
level, but also the variation and trends throughout both phases.
Summary table of visual analysis and effect size calculations for the positive influence,
effectiveness, and flexibility of one-to-one technology
Class
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Positive influence
Visual
Cohen’s d
analysis
effect size
Significant
1.291
Non1.131
significant
Non0.931
significant
Significant
1.055
Non0.721
significant
Significant
1.634
Effectiveness
Visual
Cohen’s d
analysis
effect size
Significant
2.016
Significant
1.527
Significant
1.37
Significant
Significant
1.57
1.81
Significant
2.495
Flexibility
Visual
Cohen’s d
analysis
effect size
Significant
1.203
Non0.737
significant
Non0.793
significant
Significant
1.114
Non0.665
significant
Significant
1.211
Thematic Analysis of Teacher Focus Group
Thematic analysis of a teacher focus group followed the quantitative analysis. All teachers noted that
the change from a traditional classroom to NGLS layout coincided with a change in both teacher and
student perception of the value of technology. Teacher B noted that “I think there’s a bit of a myth
out there that, the one-to-one program is invalid, that technology gets in the way, it doesn’t actually
help deliver the curriculum”. There was agreement that teachers’ perceptions and beliefs had a
significant effect on how they viewed the relevance of technology. Furthermore that the application
of the one-to-one Tablet PC program is limited more by the teachers and that the students are ready
for change. This is corroborated by the student data indicating that all classes identified that they
perceived the technology was a more effective learning tool in a NGLS compared to a traditional
classroom.
The teachers noted that one of these reasons for the change in both perception and usage was due to
the flexibility and collaborative nature of the NGLS. This was supported by various comments that
highlighted how the flexibility of the room enabled them to use a wider range of software applications.
Teacher A noted by the “end of the survey period I was actually doing a lot more with the
technology… and using it quite extensively”. This increase usage of a range of software applications
in an NGLS was verified by medium to large effect sizes in the student data associated with the
intervention.
This use of a wider variety of software applications, along with the flexibility of an NGLS, had a
significant effect of the pedagogical activities that the technology supported. For example, Teacher
C noted that they “deliberately tried to get the boys to use technology in different ways within the
new rooms”. Rather than just using the technology to disseminate information and content, a
significant number used applications that connect students into various sized groupings to facilitate
collaboration. For example Teacher A noted that across Year 7 “changes were made to various
activities and assessment to incorporate a higher degree of student collaboration”. This collaboration
initially took place face-to-face in the NGLS, but was extended outside the classroom through the
key applications of Shared OneNotes and Web 2.0 tools.
Page 73 of 487
Conclusion
In summary, the study found sound quantitative evidence that the arrangement of the physical
learning space does have an effect on how teachers and students perceive the influence, effectiveness,
and teacher usage of one-to-one. This was determined through a combination of visual analysis and
effect-size calculations of SSRD data as a suitable and robust mechanism in the determination of a
statistically significant effect of an intervention. In all instances, a statistically significant result
determined through visual analysis, was justified by a large to very large effect size. Thematic
analysis of the teacher focus group provided an additional layer of context-specific and reliable detail.
The corroborating nature of the teacher voice did support the statistical analysis and subsequent
conclusion derived from the student data. Both the student and teacher data does suggest that when
the layout of the classroom aligns with and supports the affordances and flexibility associated with
technology, its perceived influence, effectiveness, and flexibility improves. Therefore, this lack of
alignment between the arrangement of the physical learning space and the affordances of one-to-one
technology appears to be a potential barrier, not widely acknowledged, for teachers in the effective
and efficient use of technology.
Reference List
Baguley, T. (2009). Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported? British Journal of
Psychology, 100, 603-617. doi: 10.1348/000712608X3771 17
Bautista, G., & Borges, F. (2013). Smart classrooms: Innovation in formal learning spaces to
transform learning experiences. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committeee on Learning
Technology, 15(3), 18-21. doi:http://lttf.ieee.org/
Beeson, P. M., & Robey, R. R. (2006). Evaluating single-subject treatment research: Lessons learned
from the aphasia literature. Neuropsychology Review, 16(4), 161-169. doi: 10.1007/s11065006-9013-7
Bobrovitz, C. D., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (1998). Comparison of visual inspection and statistical analysis
of single-subject data in rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 77(2), 94-102. doi: www.journals.lww.com
Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P. G., & Punie, Y. (2012). Innovating learning: Key elements for developing
creative classrooms in europe. Luxembourg: Joint Research Centre for the European
Commission.
Brown, M., & Long, P. (2006). Trends in learning space design. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning
spaces (pp. 9.1 - 9.11). Washington D.C: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/PUB7102.pdf. doi: http://www.educause.edu
Cakiroglu, O. (2012). Single subject research: Applications to special education. British Journal of
Special Education, 39(1), 21-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2012.00530.x
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings.
Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297-312. doi: doi:10.1037/h0040950
Chandler, W. L. (2009). "A" teacher space or a learner place?: Reconsidering the classroom
environment.
International
Journal
of
Learning,
16(9),
261-267.
doi:
www.search.ebscohost.com
Page 74 of 487
Cleveland, B. W. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and
student engagement in the middle years of school. (Doctor of Philosophy), University of
Melbourne, Melbourne.
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum: New
Jersey.
Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage.
The Journal of Architecture, 1-21. doi: 10.1080/13602365.2014.882376
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
42(3). doi: www.iste.org
Fisher, K. D. (2004). Revoicing classrooms: A spatial manifesto. Forum, 46(1), 36-38. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/forum.2004.46.1.8
Fisher, K. D. (2006). The new learning environment: Hybrid designs for hybrid learning.
http://www.woodsbagot.com/en/Documents/Public_Research/PUBLIC2%20The%20New
%20Learning%20Environment.pdf
Fisher, K. D. (2010). Technology-enabled active learning environments: An appraisal. CELE
Exchange. Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2010(6-10), 1-8. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/10.1787/5kmbjxzrmc0p-en
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2007). Breakthrough. Victoria: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Harris, A. D., McGregor, J. C., Perencevich, E. N., Furuno, J. P., Zhu, J., Peterson, D. E., &
Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical
informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(1), 16-23. doi:
10.1197/jamia.M1749
Hildebrand, G. M. (1999). Con/testing learning models. Paper presented at the Australian Association
for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in Education
Conference, Melbourne.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71(2), 165-179.
Horner, R. H., Swaminathan, H. S., & George, S. K. (2012). Considerations for the systematic
analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269.
doi: 10.1353/etc.2012.0011
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory
design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20. doi:
10.1177/1525822X05282260
Joint Information Systems Committee. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning: A guide to
21st century learning space design. Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) on behalf of JISC.
Kinugasa, T., Cerin, E., & Hooper, S. (2004). Single-subject research designs and data analyses for
assessing elite athletes' conditioning. Sports Medicine, 34(15), 1035-1050. doi:
10.2165/00007256-200434150-00003
Page 75 of 487
Kolb, A. Y. K., D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning
in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193-212. doi:
10.2307/40214287
Lippman, P. C. (2010). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning environment?
CELE Exchange. Centre for Effective Learning Environments, 2010(11-14), 1-5. doi:
10.1787/5km4g21wpwr1-en
Lippman, P. C. (2013). Designing collaborative spaces for schools: Part 1. The Journal, January.
http://thejournal.com/articles/2013/02/13/designing-collaborative-spaces-for-schools.aspx
Miller-Cochran, S., & Gierdowski, D. (2013). Making peace with the rising costs of writing
technologies: Flexible classroom design as a sustainable solution. Computers and
Composition, 30(1), 50-60. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2012.12.002.
Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. Inventio, 4(1), 119. doi: http://www.torinmonahan.com
Oblinger, D. G. (2005). Leading the transition from classrooms to learning spaces. Educause
Quarterly, 1(7-12). doi: http://www.educause.edu
Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting
practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525-556.
doi: http://www.aera.net
Reynard, R. (2009). Designing learning spaces for instruction, not control. Campus Technology.
http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/04/29/designing-learning-spaces-forinstruction-not-control.aspx
Richards, C. (2006). Towards an integrated framework for designing effective ICT‐supported
learning environments: the challenge to better link technology and pedagogy. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 15(2), 239-255. doi: 10.1080/14759390600769771
Romeiser Logan, L., Hickman, R. R., Harris, S. R., & Heriza, C. B. (2008). Single-subject research
design: Recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating. Developmental Medicine
And Child Neurology, 50(2), 99-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.02005.x
Rosen, Y., & Beck-Hill, D. (2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment
in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 44(3), 225. doi: http://files.eric.ed.gov/
Shadish, W. R., & Cook, T. D. (1999). Comment-design rules: More steps toward a complete theory
of quasi-experimentation. Statistical Science, 14(3), 294-300. doi: 10.2307/2676764
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Shear, L., Means, B., Gallagher, L., House, A., & Langworthy, M. (2009). ITL research design.
Menlo Park: SRI International.
Page 76 of 487
REDEFINING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS’
INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE THROUGH AN ONLINE
TEACHING ENVIRONMENT
Dr Nicola Carr
Dr Richard Johnson
RMIT School of Education
Abstract
Teacher educators are faced with the dual challenge of preparing teachers for an
increasingly globalized world and a digitally enriched world. Building pre-service
teachers intercultural and digital competences are therefore priorities. This paper reports
on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their intercultural competence after participating
in an online teaching and learning environment, eTutor, that partnered them with
culturally diverse children from local and international primary and secondary schools.
Analysis of pre-service teacher reflections shows that the experience of tutoring culturally
diverse children online does contribute to the development of intercultural competence
and that online spaces can redefine how intercultural competence can be developed in
pre-service teachers.
Introduction
Teacher educators today are faced with the challenge of preparing teachers for an increasingly
globalised world, where teachers need to understand and accommodate the needs of more culturally
diverse classrooms (Porto, 2010; Santoro, 2013), that is, to develop their intercultural competence.
The imperative to teach in more culturally responsive ways is embedded in teacher professional
standards (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2012) and in curriculum priorities
such as Asia and Australia’s role in Asia (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority,
2013). At the same time, teacher educators are expected to prepare pre-service teachers to teach in
digitally enriched learning environments. This paper explores the outcomes of a project designed to
improve pre-service teachers’ intercultural competence through interactions with culturally diverse
children in an online learning environment.
Intercultural competence
Intercultural competence is taken to mean the ability to interact effectively and appropriately in
intercultural situations, based on specific attitudes, intercultural knowledge, skills and reflection
(Deardorff, 2006), to achieve mutually successful outcomes (Stone, 2006). Intercultural competence
occurs when people no longer assume that their culture’s way of looking at things is the best way or
the only way, and when people therefore begin to evaluate other cultural perspectives (Yassine, 2006
as cited in Kourova & Modianos, 2013), that is, when they move from ethno-centric to ethno-relative
perspectives.
Models and frameworks that attempt to explain how intercultural competence is developed and
arrived at (Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006; Stone 2006;) focus on the multidimensional aspect of
intercultural competence. Attitudes play a foundational role in the development of intercultural
competence (Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006). To be interculturally competent, one needs to have the
requisite attitudes of respect for other cultures and cultural diversity; openness to people from other
cultures and to intercultural learning; as well as a sense of curiosity and the ability to tolerate
uncertainty and ambiguity in intercultural exchanges, in other words, an ability to see oneself in
relation to others and to withhold judgement about other cultures. Intercultural competence also
requires cultural self-awareness, or knowledge about one’s own culture, as a crucial starting point for
beginning to understand other cultures. A deep understanding and knowledge of other cultures is also
considered key, including knowledge about the role of culture on behaviour and communication.
Page 77 of 487
Further, being interculturally competent requires the development of skills for acquiring and
processing knowledge about cultures including discovery and interaction through listening, observing
and interpreting cultures, as well as skills of analysing, interpreting and relating to other cultures
(Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006),
Intercultural competence emerges when there is a shift in a person’s internal frame of reference to
bring about a more ethno-relative rather than ethno-centric view (an internal or individual outcome)
and, importantly, when one is able to behave and communicate effectively and appropriately to
achieve one’s goals through interaction with other cultures (external outcome) (Deardorff, 2006).
Stone (2006) expanded on this concept to argue that intercultural competence is achieved when both
parties achieve their communication goals. The development of intercultural competence is seen by
Deardorff (2006) as an ongoing and iterative process, rather than a linear one and that in developing
intercultural competence a person moves in and out and between the personal and interpersonal
domains. Deardoff believes that, whilst it is possible for someone to achieve the external outcome of
behaving and communicating effectively in intercultural situations without having made internal
shifts in frames of reference, the degree of appropriateness and effectiveness of the outcome may not
be as high “without having fully achieved the internal outcome of a shift in the frame of reference”
(2006, p.257).
Role of online environments in building intercultural competence
Teacher education institutions provide theoretical knowledge about other cultures and about being
more culturally responsive. However, abstract knowledge alone is not sufficient for the development
of intercultural competence (Bennett, 2009; Perry & Southwell, 2011). The development of
intercultural competence is a process that develops through interactions with cultural ‘others’
(Deardorff, 2006). Opportunities for authentic and persuasive personal encounters with people from
different cultures enhance intercultural competence (Scarino & Liddiecoat, 2009). International field
experiences, that is, opportunities to teach in culturally different location, have been a traditional way
to provide more direct contact with culturally diverse ‘others’ (Walters, Garii, & Walters, 2009),
however, such programs are generally expensive and available to a limited number of students.
Increasingly, online environments are seen as a way to generate ‘persuasive personal encounters’
between students of different cultures (Lawrence, 2013), with a growing number of projects that
integrate online environments with aspects of intercultural learning, (Deed, Edwards, & Gomez,
2013; Garcia-Sanches & Rojas-Lizana, 2013; Lawrence, 2013; Magos, Tsilimeni, & Spanopoulou,
2013). Online environments that foster a sense of community through discussion, collaboration and
sharing of ideas can foster cultural awareness, and offer of new view of participants’ own culture as
well as the culture of other participants (Magos et al., 2013). Well known examples of online projects
for schools that aim to foster global connections include I*EARN, ePals and within Victoria, Global2.
At the same time as being asked to develop their intercultural competence, pre-service teachers need
to be prepared to teach in digitally enriched learning environments, in both online and face-to-face
settings. The development of an online environment that brings together pre-service teachers and
students from different cultures thus offers a space where teacher educators can attempt to,
metaphorically, kill two birds with one stone – foster the development of intercultural competence
amongst pre-service teachers through authentic encounters with children from different cultures,
whilst, at the same time, providing opportunities for pre-service teachers to experience first-hand
what it is like to teach in an online space. The key question, for the purpose of this paper, is to what
extent did participation in the online environment foster increased intercultural competence amongst
the pre-service teachers.
Page 78 of 487
The research context – eTutor
The eTutor project trialed the use of an online environment to facilitate authentic, rich, personal
encounters between Australian pre-service teachers and school students from Australian and Asian
primary and secondary schools. Through the use of social media tools including blogs, chat, messages
and wall posts (Fig.1), eTutor participants learned about each other and their cultures by exchanging
information and working on curriculum projects, tutored by pre-service teachers.
Figure 2: eTutor Home page
Over 150 pre-service teachers and 303 school students from eight schools in four countries interacted
with each other in the eTutor environment for approximately 14 weeks in the second half of 2013.
Pre-service teachers in their first year of an undergraduate primary teaching qualification undertook
a core course, which was based on participation in eTutor. Whilst participation itself was not assessed,
pre-service teachers were required to draw on their own and others’ participation in eTutor to
complete a major assessment task. Key aims of the course included increasing the pre-service
teachers’ understanding about the characteristics of effective educational environments, both face-toface and online, as well as introducing students to concepts of cultural diversity and intercultural
competence.
Schools that participated in eTutor in 2013 included government schools in small, remote rural
villages in Nepal; government schools servicing largely middle class students in north-east India; a
private boys school in eastern Malaysia; government primary schools in outer Melbourne suburbs
catering to both middle class and socio-economically disadvantaged areas, and a private secondary
school in a middle class suburb of Melbourne.
On eTutor, each participant had a profile page, containing a brief biography, and from where they
could create blog posts and upload images and videos. Blog posts, images and videos were able to be
viewed by everyone who belonged to eTutor. Participants could also exchange private messages and
engage in live chat sessions with other eTutor participants.
The majority of communications however, took place within eTutor groups. Students and pre-service
teachers were placed into small groups of approximately eight to ten people. Each group had its own
space within eTutor, where students could post comments on the group wall, or to other group
members’ personal wall. Group members could also post comments on each other’s blogs.
Method
The outcomes being reported in this paper are part of a broader mixed method study that is
investigating a range of outcomes and aspects of the eTutor project in 2013. The focus of this paper
is on the undergraduate students’ perceptions of their development of intercultural competence.
Page 79 of 487
The process of developing intercultural competence is one that involves self-reflection and
negotiation such that one’s attitudes are gradually transformed. Ideas of intercultural competence are
therefore subjective, rather than objective, dealing with such concepts as attitude, and ideas of
openness and respect. Many who study intercultural competence recognise that more introspective,
qualitative approaches to investigate the development of intercultural competence are required
(Jackson, 2006). This study therefore takes a qualitative approach, grounded in interpretive paradigms
where understanding the subjective world of human experience (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007)
is the focus. Gathering pre-service teachers’ perceptions of their experiences provides insights into
the efficacy of an online environment such as eTutor in fostering increased intercultural competence.
All 152 pre-service teachers who took the course and participated in eTutor were required, as part of
their assessment tasks, to develop a portfolio of interactions from eTutor that illustrated their
intercultural competence. Portfolios can represent the complexity of the intercultural experience
capturing aspects of intercultural learning that and can encourage students to reflect on their
experiences and learning (Perry & Southwell, 2011). In their portfolios, pre-service teachers reflected
on the extent to which participation in the eTutor project fostered their intercultural competence.
Following the completion of the course, pre-service teachers’ portfolios were collected and analysed
qualitatively using NVivo. Data were analysed using coding frameworks based on Deardorff’s (2006)
process model of intercultural competence – attitudes, knowledge, skills, internal frame of reference,
external outcomes. Reflections were stripped of any identifying data prior to analysis, to maintain
pre-service teacher confidentiality.
Findings
Overall, participation in eTutor fostered a perception amongst the majority of pre-service teachers
that their intercultural competence increased, particularly in changing attitudes and cultural
knowledge, specifically cultural self-awareness. This section begins by presenting findings relating
to the pre-service teachers’ intercultural competence, drawing on Deardorff’s (2006) Process Model
of Intercultural Competence described above as a conceptual framework. Two other key findings
relating to reciprocity and vicarious learning are also presented.
Improvement in intercultural competence
Attitudes
In keeping with Deardorff’s model this analysis commenced with attitudes. Did participation in
eTutor have an impact on the intercultural attitudes of the pre-service teachers, including openness,
respect, as well as a sense of curiosity and discovery? Many of the reflections contained explicit
references to being more open to other cultures and more open to changing outlooks, as exemplified
in these excerpts:
It’s clear that if I want to be an intercultural teacher I need to be open to making changes.
I believe that as a result of eTutor this has been made clear to me.
This whole experience has made me a more open and accepting person and taught me to
be more open about everything.
Attitudes of respecting and valuing other cultures are also a key feature of intercultural competence.
Pre-service teachers frequently made reference to the need for respect to be demonstrated, as in this
example
Not only do we need to understand other cultures, we need to be respectful and accepting
of them, willing to learn from them and able to engage with them.
This course challenged me to think about how to teach students of different cultures about
different cultures, and to keep in mind that this is a person’s identity so it should be treated
with more than sensitivity, but also respect.
Page 80 of 487
Cultural knowledge
For the majority of pre-service teachers, one of the most significant outcomes of their participation
in eTutor was a heightened awareness and understanding of their own culture and of the role culture
plays in shaping an individual’s identity, for example:
Being involved within eTutor, I was able to assess, reflect and break down my
understanding of my own culture and identity.
Before their eTutor experience, many of the students interpreted someone’s culture to be defined only
by the location of their birth and the colour of their skin. The following two examples encapsulate the
shift in thinking most pre-service teachers displayed about what culture is:
I have also learnt about the many layers of culture, and by that I mean that it is not just
religion and festivals, which is the answer I would have given when this unit commenced.
Through eTutor I have a richer understanding of culture
Previously, I thought it [culture] was about what country you come from, what language
you speak and what colour your skin is. I now think culture is different for every individual
and is not dependent on ancestry or country of birth.
Prior to participation in eTutor, some pre-service teachers did not believe they had a culture, for
example:
Before participating in this course I held the belief that I didn’t really have a culture, I
was ‘just Australian’.
This suggests that for these pre-service teachers, one’s own culture is largely invisible, as illustrated
by this student:
Participating in the eTutor environment has caused me to critically reflect on my own
cultural identity. Why is it that I can so easily identify elements of the cultures of others,
but not my own? How does my culture affect me on a daily basis?
Pre-service teachers became more knowledgeable about limited aspects of the cultures of the children
who participated in eTutor. For example, some pre-service teachers had not been aware of Ramadan
and the Eid festival. This was being celebrated by students in India, Malaysia and at one of the
Australian primary schools involved in the eTutor project. Pre-service teachers also learned much
about the various religious festivals held in India, Nepal and Malaysia and the importance such
celebrations represented in these cultures and a little about the daily lives of some of their eTutor
children. However, most of the pre-service teachers did not develop more than a superficial
knowledge of the specific cultures of the children with whom they interacted in the eTutor
environment.
Intercultural skills
As a result of analysing their interactions in eTutor, many of the pre-service teachers were able to
articulate a more critical view of an Australian culture. For example, the different cultural attitudes
towards education provided a lens for the pre-service teachers to analyse and interpret their own
culture and that of their partner students. Pre-service teachers identified the high value placed on
education in all three partner countries and were able to compare this with their perceptions of the
values and educational practices in the Australian partner schools:
The Indian students were always respectful and courteous when writing to us. It reflects
the way their culture and society is and how they see teachers. They also seem to value
their education more so than the Australian students
This [high number of posts] shows the discipline that Malaysian culture puts on students
to complete their work and to not disappoint their teachers and tutors.
For example, in many Asian cultures, education is often held in high regard with an
emphasis placed on achieving high academic testing results, and the primary role of the
teacher is to direct, rather than guide. In contrast, as evident in my professional placement
Page 81 of 487
experience, Australian culture and teaching practices often revolve around discussion,
collaboration, and hands-on learning.
Pre-service teachers extrapolated from their eTutor experience to make general interpretations of what
they believed their own culture to be – one that was generally more casual than Asian cultures, for
example I realized just how laid back we are as Australians, less focused on religious celebrations,
more focused on sporting achievements, less aware of the privilege the majority of Australians
experience, but more accepting of cultural diversity. Importantly, the pre-service teachers were able
to identify similarities as well as differences between their own and other cultures, including the
importance of family, of similar values, of hobbies and of music, as this example illustrates:
It was incredible to think that a boy from another walk of life would be interested in the
same hobbies as I am. It’s been great to find these similarities as well as learning about
our differences.
Internal frame of reference
It is clear from the data that the majority, although not all, the pre-service teachers made substantial
shifts in their internal cultural frame of reference, informed by their experiences interacting with
culturally diverse children within the eTutor environment. Many pre-service teachers reflected on
what impact their participation in eTutor had on their views about the role of culture and cultural
diversity in their own teaching. Most pre-service teachers’ reflections contained reflections that
suggest a more ethno-relative stance, such as typified in the following responses:
From the eTutor experience I have learnt that it is important not to have a cultural bias
where reflections are from my own cultural experience and assumptions.
Through eTutor I have learnt the importance of acknowledging different worldviews and
applying this knowledge and attitude to my developing pedagogy. It is also important
getting to know the students individually without applying bias or fixed ideas of culture.
A small number of pre-service teachers commented on the difficulty of enacting, rather than simply
espousing, a more empathic and open intercultural stance:
Being open to accepting people for their own beliefs can sometimes be more difficult than
we think.
External outcomes
The final stage in Deardorff’s process model of developing intercultural competence is when people
take effective and appropriate behaviour and communication in an intercultural situation. Pre-service
teachers provided examples of where they believed they had acted in culturally appropriate ways
within eTutor. Examples typically included adopting a different tone with local students to that
adopted with the international students; of acknowledging obvious cultural differences and asking
questions about the students’ lives and interests; by being very careful with choice and quantity of
words when giving feedback; by uploading culturally appropriate images; and by avoiding the use of
colloquialisms and references to culturally specific information. The following response illustrates
how many pre-service teachers became increasingly aware of the need to adapt their own practices to
accommodate cultural differences so that all participants in eTutor achieved their desired outcomes:
There were different cultural initiations for our Broadmeadows and Indian students. We
used humour to draw in our Broadmeadows kids and established a formal, superior
relationship to our Indian students in order to get highest success from both.
A small number of pre-service teachers also gave examples of how their practices in a face-to-face
setting also shifted as a result of their participation in eTutor, for example:
On my second placement after participating in eTutor, I was able to talk to her [student in
classroom] about the country that she came from and link some cultural differences to
those I came across when travelling in Europe. By using this experience she opened up to
me and became more open to talking about her country and was understanding of the
Page 82 of 487
differences she experiences here. I felt that eTutor was a direct influence in my actions to
help and communicate with this student.
Whilst not common, this type of response suggests that eTutor could be instrumental in
shifting pre-service teachers’ practices with respect to diverse cultures.
Reciprocity
Despite the affordance of online communication tools to facilitate frequent exchanges between
participants, such as the social media-based tools within eTutor, communication between pre-service
teachers and the school children was not always seamless. At times, there was a lack of reciprocity of
posts. Whilst there was consistent communication in many eTutor groups, in some eTutor groups
communication was frequently interrupted because of:
 technical difficulties experienced at schools, most commonly associated with lack of access
to the internet, particularly in Nepal, where electricity and internet are only intermittent, and
at one Australian school, where restrictions on internet access effectively blocked eTutor at
the school.
 incongruence between school/university and school/school calendars. Examination periods,
festivals, professional placement blocks and school/university holidays frequently fell at
different times throughout the 14 week period, which reduced the amount mutual availability
for participation in eTutor. This effectively reduced the number of times eTutor participants
were able to post and to reply to each others’ posts.
Pre-service teachers found it difficult to re-capture engagement from the children in eTutor when
conversations were interrupted. Delays in responding to posts meant that conversations lost
momentum, and, in some cases, were lost altogether:
Interactions were not always reciprocated from the students, which made it a challenging
task to engage with them.
Some pre-service teachers expressed frustration at the lack of response, or the time it took to get a
response from the children in eTutor. The effect of the delays between online interactions was to limit
the volume of information that could be exchanged, including cultural-specific information and the
extent to which the pre-service teachers could implement all the online activities they had planned,
as illustrated in this common response:
The students online were less responsive and we didn’t get to cover as much as we planned.
Learning vicariously
Because of the architecture of eTutor, it was possible for everyone in eTutor to see each others’ posts
and comments, even if they were unable to respond to them outside their own group. So, despite the
lack of reciprocity in some eTutor groups and from some eTutor participants, it was possible to view
all the interactions that took place. This enabled those pre-service teachers who had limited
opportunity for their own interactions to view others’ interactions and to learn from these. Pre-service
teachers were able to analyse other groups and to detect patterns across groups, from which to form
a view. Discussions in the associated face-to-face classes where groups presented on their online
activities helped to make sense of the online communications. However, those pre-service teachers
were envious of the first-hand communication in which the majority of their peers were able to
participate and would have preferred to experience online communications with the eTutor students
first-hand, rather than from second-hand viewing.
Page 83 of 487
Discussion & Conclusions
The data clearly shows that pre-service teachers believed they demonstrated competence in the
majority of the components of intercultural competence as defined in Deadroff’s (2006) model.
Attitudes of respect, openness and a sense of discovery of other cultures were evident, as were positive
shifts in cultural knowledge, particularly about their own culture. The experience of interacting with
children from multiple cultures in an online environment contributed positively to a shift, for the
majority of pre-service teachers, in their internal frame of reference away from an ethnocentric view
to amore ethno-relative view, showing greater empathy towards children from different cultures. For
many, this translated from the online environment of eTutor to their face-to-face placement, where
their experiences in eTutor gave them a new perspective on the cultural diversity they face in their
classrooms.
However, it is also clear that lack of reciprocity, even if the unintentional result of technical or
calendar-related issues, can inhibit or limit the development of intercultural competence. In the case
of eTutor, lack of reciprocity in some groups at some stages of the project, limited the extent of
conversations that, in turn, limited the depth of cultural specific knowledge the pre-service teachers
were able to garner from first hand experience. It would seem prudent if using online environments
for this, or indeed, any educational purpose, to take whatever measures are necessary to promote
higher levels of reciprocity, that is, more frequent and timely interactions. Attention needs to be paid
to coordinating timetables and institutional calendars as much as possible to minimise the occurrence
of extended delays in responses to posts, although this is challenging when dealing with eight schools
and a university across four countries. Participating institutions also need to minimise disruptions
caused by inadequate Internet connectivity and remove technical barriers. Whilst these are both
important barriers to effective online interactions, other factors may also lead to reduced levels of
interaction. Timeliness of response is not always a technical or calendar issue, though beyond the
scope of this paper to discuss, and identifying other factors that act on engagement in an online
environment such as eTutor is clearly worthy of investigation.
Despite this limitation, the open nature of the eTutor environment, whereby all participants could
view, if not respond to all posts, enabled those pre-service teachers whose first-hand interactions were
limited to learn vicariously. The eTutor experience reinforces the benefits of making such online
environments open to view to all within the online community, even if not open to comment to all
participants.
Reliance on self-perceptions is potentially limiting. Findings in this study need to be examined against
the actual performance of intercultural competence, the next planned stage of analysis. Whilst
students may have felt a shift in their internal frame, did this extend to enacting intercultural
competence in the online eTutor environment? Further analysis of the actual posts and replies made
by the pre-service teachers is required to validate the self-reported perceptions.
What is clear from the analysis of the data from the eTutor 2013 project to date is that online
environments clearly have the potential to contribute positively and significantly to the development
of pre-service teachers’ intercultural competence. The eTutor project demonstrates that using online
environments can be an effective way of giving large numbers of pre-service teachers opportunities
to engage in authentic personal encounters with children from a variety of cultures, either in schools
in other countries or in local schools that are more culturally diverse than some schools in which preservice teachers undertake practicum placements. In an era when expectations of intercultural
competence and digital literacies are only set to increase, the eTutor model may offer a viable solution
to some of the challenges faced by teacher educators.
Page 84 of 487
References
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). Asia and Australia's engagement
with
Asia.
Retrieved
4
March,
2014,
from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/CrossCurriculumPriorities/Asia-and-Australiasengagement-with-Asia
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2012). Australian Professional Standards
for
Teachers.
Retrieved
30
January,
2014,
from
http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/CareerStage/GraduateTeachers/Standards
Bennett, M. J. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: a conceptual
introduction to the Intercultural Education double supplement. Intercultural Education,
20(sup1), S1-S13. doi: 10.1080/14675980903370763
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon,
England:: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a Student
Outcome of Internationalisation. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241266.
Deed, C., Edwards, A., & Gomez, V. (2013). Questions from afar; the influence of outsideness on
web-based
conversations.
Technology,
Pedagogy
and
Education.
doi:
10.1080/1475939X.2013.822415
Garcia-Sanches, S., & Rojas-Lizana, S. (2013). Bridging the language and cultural gaps. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 21(3), 361-381.
Jackson, J. (2006). Assessing intercultural learning through introspective accounts. Frontiers: The
Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X1, 165-186.
Kourova, A., & Modianos, D. (2013). Inter-cultural Awareness and its Role in Enrichiing Students'
Communicative Competence. Paper presented at the The International HETL Conference,
Orlando, Florida.
Lawrence, G. (2013). A working model for intercultural learning and engageing in collaborative
online language learning environments. Interculutral Education, 24(4), 303-314.
Magos, L., Tsilimeni, T., & Spanopoulou, K. (2013). 'Good morning Alex - Kalimera Maria': digital
communicate and intercutlutral dimension in early childhood. Intercultural Education, 24(4),
366-373.
Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills: models and
approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453-466.
Porto, M. (2010). Culturally responsive L2 education: an awareness-raising proposal. ELT Journal,
64(10), 45-53.
Santoro, N. (2013). 'If I'm going to teach about the world, I need to know the world': developing
Australian pre-service teachers' intercutlural competence through international trips. Race
Ethnicity and Education. doi: 10.1080.13613324.2013.832938
Scarino, A., & Liddiecoat, A. J. (2009). Teaching and Learning Languages. Canberra: Department
of
Education
Employment
and
Workplace
Relations
Retrieved
from
Page 85 of 487
http://foi.deewr.gov.au/node/26058
Stone, N. (2006). Conceptualising Intercultural Effectiveness for University Teaching. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 10(4), 334-356.
Walters, L., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning Globally, Teaching Locally: Incorporating
International Exchange and Intercutural Learning into Pre-Service Teacher Training.
Intercultural Education, 20(S1-2), S151-158.
Page 86 of 487
THE IMPACT OF LONG-TERM ICT PROJECTS ON STUDENT
ATTITUDES AND CAPABILITIES
Paul D. Chandler
Australian Catholic University
Abstract
This study draws on pre- and post-surveys of 574 upper primary students who engaged in
intensive work over two school terms to produce a multimodal narrative using desktop
animation software. It was thought that factors such as general ability with computers,
interest in composing stories and persistence with long-term projects might be influences
of successful completion or higher quality products. Over the course of the project, there
is evidence of student growth in the ICT-related skills as well as enjoyment and capacity
with story composition. However, concerns remain over the pedagogy of extended project
work and the impact of this on student learning in the affective domain. The impact of
these findings for classroom teaching and the planning of long-term ICT projects are
discussed.
Introduction
Over a period of three years (2009-2011), the 3D multimodal authoring pedagogy (3DMAP) project1
engaged over 1200 students from 48 level five and six classes across five Australian states in the
construction of a 3D multimodal narratives – a sort of desktop-equivalent to live-action filmmaking.
Students undertook two units of work, each with a minimum of 20 hours of engagement, using the
software Kahootz (Maggs, 2008). Details of the program have been described elsewhere (Chandler,
O’Brien, & Unsworth, 2009, 2010; Chandler, 2014/forthcoming), but notably whilst it was clearly
located as a literacy project for the students (and multimodal semiotics in particular), it would not
have been possible except for intensive engagement with Information and Communications
Technology (ICT). The departure point for the present investigation occurred as the researchers
reflected on the second year of the project, as the engagement with classes in the final year was being
planned. Throughout the first years, there were some difficulties with students presenting completed
work. Some of that was attributable to intrinsic difficulties with the software (resulting in ‘lost’ or
corrupted files), but to what extent such problems were partly or wholly a manifestation of a broader
problem (i.e., students’ work habits or file management practices) was unclear. Certainly, a 20 hour
unit of work will reveal chinks in the armour of work practices that a one or two hour task would not,
and most likely cause greater distress to the student concerned. But equally we wondered about
students’ familiarity with extended project work (whether involving ICT or not) – is, for instance,
maintaining focus and application to projects something that they are used to doing? And furthermore,
do students actually like writing stories or enjoy using computers to be creative: could it be that some
of the problems were motivational? Broadly, the concerns, then, are the extent to which affective
dimensions of student learning and allied areas of knowledge are impacted by, and themselves impact
on, student performance in 3D multimodal authoring tasks.
This concern sets the background for the present investigation and which have broader implications.
Across the world, literacy is being reconceptualised in response to our increasingly digital,
multimodal information and communication world (Australian Curriculum Assessment and
The Australian Research Council Linkage Project “Teaching effective 3D authoring in the
middle school years: multimedia grammatical design and multimedia authoring pedagogy”
(LP0883563) was funded for 2009-2011. The Chief Investigators were Prof. L. Unsworth
(Australian Catholic University) and Dr A. Thomas (University of Tasmania), in
partnership with, and also funded by, the Australian Children’s Television Foundation.
1
Page 87 of 487
Reporting Authority, 2013; England Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999; Singapore
Ministry of Education, 2010). The 3DMAP project is but one instance of cutting-edge literacy projects
which require intensive engagement with ICT in Australia alone (e.g., Ryan, Scott, & Walsh, 2010;
Walsh, 2011). Within the use of the term by Grant (2011), the 3DMAP project was also an example
of project-based learning (PBL), increasingly a feature of classrooms both within Australia and
internationally. Jones and Issroff (2005) have pointed out that affective issues have been viewed as
somewhat problematic in studying learning and so they have often been excluded from the frame of
research, or studied separately from cognitive learning. Grant (2011), too, has observed that there has
been limited attention to the student perspective, including the affective domain, in research into PBL.
Attending to those is an important component of advancing the development of ‘new literacy’ projects
and ‘project-based learning’ practices and pedagogies.
This paper reports on (a) the variation between schools and (b) the impact of engagement with a longterm ICT project on student self-reports which are indicative of:
i.
Interest and ability with story writing
ii.
Perception of computers as a creative tool
iii.
Competence and capability with computer use
iv.
Work practice and ethic in relation to long-term project work
We firstly consider connections to the broader literature, and proceed to describe the research
methodology used in this study. A detailed and exacting instrument to investigate these features is not
presented, but rather a relatively coarse one, which was designed to give a general sense of any issues.
Results are then discussed and conclusions, quite positive in relation to ICT use, but less so in relation
to the pedagogy of extended project work, are outlined.
Connections to the broader literature
Despite Jones and Issroff’s (2005) complaint about the lack of attention to the affective domain in the
application of learning technologies, a few relevant studies can be identified. None were found,
however, specifically in the context of cutting edge literacy work, but rather in the field of PBL more
generally. Hernández-Ramos and De La Paz (2009), in a quantitative study of 170 students, found
evidence that students’ attitudes toward the subject under consideration, and toward working with
others, were significantly positively affected by the PBL experience, which is consistent with reports
on PBL made elsewhere (p. 167). Hung, Hwang and Huang (2012), also in quantitative work with a
similar number of students, found that extended engagement with ICT and PBL enhanced learning
motivation, problem-solving competence, and learning achievement. The detailed case study of a
small number of eighth-grade students engaging in PBL by Grant (2011) provides the most detailed
discussion of relevant issues, however.
Several of the themes identified by Grant (2011) are relevant in relation to extended literaciesorientated projects such as 3DMAP. The first is “internal influences”, embracing the issues of
persistence, motivation, and self-management skills. His informants (students) explained that, in the
context of PBL, the personal relevance of the project/investigation is important, along with the
presentation of the project as having an emotional anchor; the students made choices about the topic,
its development and the technologies used in its development based on perceptions of that they were
“good at”. At these points, Grant’s PBL project is rather different to the 3DMAP project: 3DMAP
provided no choice of technology, did not go out of its way to engender emotional ownership in the
process, and provided no alternate trajectories through the material. Whether PBL and 3DMAP are
just different in these respects, or whether these are some of the necessary conditions for effective
persistence, motivation and self-management is at the heart of the present investigation. It was
interesting to read of students in Grant’s study who found that the length of the project was too long
to sustain motivation – some even expressed a concern of being ‘burnt out’ by the topic; carefully
constructing the length of project to maximise both learning and motivation is probably a challenge
for extended multimodal authoring projects.
Page 88 of 487
Two further themes from Grant’s informants are also important. One is “beliefs about project work”:
that they should be fun, engaging, providing freedom and autonomy in work. And yet his informants
said that their beliefs in this respect had been ‘sobered’ by previous and current teacher expectations.
The role of the teacher was an important “external influence”, in particular a lack of teacher
engagement as a key negative impact on project work. The students, in other words, want their
teachers to be engaged and supportive and to help them find an enriching experience. Grant’s
informants also confessed to relying heavily on their prior knowledge and experience in developing
their PBL work: finding ways to actually enlarge the knowledge base of students through PBL in
ways that are readily welcomed by them, may not always be a straightforward task. The 3DMAP
project sought to teach new concepts of multimodal authoring, and given the low knowledge base of
students at the commencement of the project (Chandler, 2012) relying on prior knowledge was never
going to be sufficient. The role of the teacher in fostering multimodal authoring has been emphasised
elsewhere (e.g. Chandler, 2013) and through Grant’s study the centrality of effective teacher/student
engagement to foster affective development is further highlighted.
Focus for investigation
The investigation reported in this paper is restricted to the impact of extended multimodal authoring
project work on affective dimensions of student learning and allied areas of knowledge. The
investigation sought to identify if there are differences between classes in these areas, and in which
there can be said to be a positive or negative impact as a result of the project. With relatively thin
background available, specific hypotheses were not developed, but rather the defensibility of an
impact was explored using post-hoc comparison techniques, as described below.
Method
Design
The design was a quasi-experimental study using a pre-test/post-test design (Campbell & Stanley,
1963, p. 7), as we could not randomly assign students or teachers to schools (conditions) and could
not alter the teaching arrangement for the comparison. It is represented as O1 X O2 where X
represents an intervention (i.e., engaging in the units of work) and O1 and O2 are observations. As
Campbell and Stanley stress, this design is an inherently weak approach and so conclusions as to
whether any significant change can be attributed to engaging in these units of work will need to be
made very cautiously.
Participants
Participants in the 3DMAP project were students in their last two years of primary school. In total,
data were collected from 574 students, but not all students completed either or both of the
questionnaires. From the pre-test survey, data were collected from 523 students from 14 schools (26
classes) in both years 5 and 6 (including both single year level and composite classes) who
participated in the study. The schools were varied in relation to geographic location and
socioeconomic status, but were mainly government schools. The majority of respondents were
Victorian: 9 schools with 80% of total respondents, with smaller numbers from Tasmania (2 schools,
10% of respondents), New South Wales (2 schools, 9% of respondents) and Queensland (1 school,
1% of respondents). 304 students completed the post-test survey, with 266 of them having completed
both; there was a diminished return rate for the post-test data from all schools, and in addition 2
Victorian, 1 New South Wales and the Queensland school had withdrawn from the project during the
year.
Questionnaire
Ten questionnaire items were used to gather data in relation to the investigative foci, which were
Page 89 of 487
presented as a five-point scale, as illustrated in Figure 1. This is not a fine-grained, detailed and highly
calibrated instrument, but the data discussed below shows that even this relatively coarse instrument
sheds light on some important issues.
1. I enjoy writing stories
2. Others think I am good at writing stories
3. I enjoy using computers to be creative, tell stories, or make movies
4. How confident are you with using Kahootz for telling multimedia stories?
5. I experience frustrations when working at a computer
6. I manage my computer files and know where things are stored
7. Others think I am good at using computers
8. Others think I am an organised and efficient worker
9. I enjoy working on long projects and like to do a good job to get my work finished
10. When I meet challenges in my work I don't give up easily
Figure 1: Sample item
I enjoy writing stories
1
2
3
4
This is not at all true for me
5
This is very true for me
Data collection
The questionnaire was made available online (google docs). The pre-test was completed in the first
third of the school year, prior to each class commencing the program of multimodal authoring. All
teachers allocated class time for the completion of the questionnaire, leading to a return rate of over
80%. The post-test was completed at the very end of the school year, when each class had completed
the project work. One suspects that the busyness of the school year in the weeks prior to the Christmas
holidays was the main reason for a diminished return rate for the post-test.
Data analysis
Three statistical investigations were employed for the data analysis:
1. Considering the dataset as a whole, a comparison of pre- and post-test means for each item
using a standard t-test, was conducted, followed by a calculation of effect size. Following the
recommendation of Dunlop, Cortina, Vaslow & Burke (1996) not to use paired tests of
significance to determine effect size, a paired t-test was not used. The statistical package R
(R Development Core Team, 2012) was used to perform the calculations.
2. The t-test investigation was repeated for each class individually
3. The means for each class on each item were compared using the visual Gabriel comparison
interval approach (Gabriel, 1978) advocated by McDonald (2009, pp. 132-136), as is
illustrated in Figure 2 (see later in this paper).
Results and Discussion
Changes over the duration of the project
The overall mean for each item before and after engagement with the 3DMAP project is shown in
Table 1. These are presented in order of effect size (Cohen’s d). An effect size of 0.2 or above is
conventionally regarded as “small”, of 0.3 or above as “medium” and 0.5 or above as “large”. So it
can be readily seen from the table that the engagement with the long-term project work provided by
Page 90 of 487
the 3DMAP project appears to have at least a “medium” impact in most, except for confidence with
the software, where the effect is clearly “high”, and the effect for the enjoyment of long-term projects
is negligible.
Table 1: Means and effect sizes for all items, showing changes over the duration of the
project
Presented in order of effect size
Item
4: Confidence with Kahootz
Mean
Before
2.914
Mean
After
3.622
2: Good at writing stories
3.069
3.536
6: Good file management
3.630
4.109
5: Frustrations with computer use
2.576
3.089
8: Organised and Efficient
3.307
3.760
7: Good at using computers
3.340
3.776
1: Enjoyment with writing stories
3.508
3.911
10: Persistence
3.702
3.931
3: Enjoyment of using computers to be creative 3.635
3.901
9: Enjoyment of long term projects
3.855
3.773
Unpaired t test
(n1=523, n2=304)
t=-8.7633, df=709.432
p <0.001, d=0.65
t=-6.9481, df=695.551
p<0.001, d=0.52
t=-6.9136, df=745.074
p<0.001, d=0.52
t=-6.0828, df=577.237
p<0.001, d=0.52
t=-6.2678, df=661.435
p<0.001, d=0.50
t=-6.2365, df=707.258
p<0.001, d=0.47
t=-5.7215, df=726.353
p<0.001, d=.43
t=-3.4699, df=692.025
p<0.01, r=0.26
t=-3.4114, df=702.376
p<0.001, r=0.26
t=-0.9913, df=653.309
p>0.1
There are two further refinements to the above initial interpretation of the data. Firstly, the effects
were not uniform across classes. Investigating the data on a class-by-class basis show that the only
item for which there was a significant difference between means for all classes was “others think I
am good at using computers” (item 7). This is consistent with Hyun’s (2005) work, for instance, who
demonstrated that competence with computers increased for kindergarten children due to a
longitudinal engagement with project work supported by ICT. An increase in professed confidence
with the software (item 4) was noted (p<0.01) for 7 out of 15 classes, which is further discussed
below. For all other items, there was no significant difference between means (p>0.1) for any
particular class.
The second refinement to the argument is by comparison with Hattie’s (2009) use of effect size. In
his work on student achievement, Hattie described an effect size of 0.4 as being consistent with
‘teacher effects’ – that is, the best teachers without using any special strategies achieve an effect size
of 0.4. Also, he describes effect sizes of around 0.15 as ‘developmental effects’ - a student who drops
out of school and grows a year older will achieve an overall effect size of up to 0.15; so it is argued
that an effect size of less than 0.15 is doing harm to students; anything higher than 0.4 is
accomplishing more than the best teacher possibly could without using the particular strategy being
investigated. Certainly, the data presented here is attitudinal rather than that of achievement, but it
does suggest that engagement with an extended multimodal authoring project is:
 highly effective for developing confidence with the software being used
 quite effective for improving student attitude towards story writing, their proficiency with
computer use, and their self-organisation
 better than maturation alone for developing persistence with tasks and fostering enjoyment
in the use of computers for being creative; but
 in real terms, adversely effected the enjoyment of long-term project work, and the experience
Page 91 of 487
was actually highly effective for promoting frustrations with computer use.
These types of results have been in the published literature for some time, though these are probably
stronger results. For instance, Proctor and Burnett (1996) studied attitude to computers in the context
of extended project work in Australian classrooms. In their study, attitude was considered to have 3
components: ‘importance’, ‘confidence’ and ‘liking’. The extended project work: had no effect on
‘importance’, no effect on ‘confidence’ and there was a decline in ‘liking’. Slightly surprised by the
lack of apparent impact, Proctor and Burnett refer to even earlier research which indicated that game
playing, when appropriated for a school purpose, was not rated as enjoyable by students. Insofar as
multimodal authoring is a task which frequently uses software which is either exactly what students
use for out-of-school game-play (e.g. Minecraft, Second Life) or is very similar to it (e.g. Kahootz,
Alice, Scratch), it is reasonable to suggest that this same concern is echoed in the present research.
What this study achieves is to confirm and reiterate the findings related to the complexity of attitudinal
studies so that that each generation of teachers understand that integrating computers in extended
project work requires careful planning and may result in many affective and cognitive effects that
were not initially anticipated.
Variations between classes
The analysis which compares the means between classes at the commencement of the study begins
by considering item 4, ‘confidence with the software’, which is the most interesting case. The means
for each class are shown in Figure 2. Primarily, this reveals considerable variation between classes.
A large proportion of this probably arises from certain classes having used Kahootz previously (either
earlier in the year of the study, or in previous years). Broadly speaking, the means for each class in
the same school are not dissimilar. The classes where the mean for item 4 was significantly higher at
the post-test are shown with an asterix. This tends to be one or two classes at a school which are lower
than the others at the start and are in effect ‘catching up’ to others in the same school as the study
proceeded. There was no class where a decline in the mean for this item (let alone a statistically
significant one) was noted, so it is reasonable to suggest that confidence with the software is either
maintained or increased by prolonged engagement. The larger effect size for this item overall may
well be due to a ‘catching up’ effect.
Page 92 of 487
Figure 2: Comparison of pre-test means for each class on ‘confidence with Kahootz’ (item
4)
Means are shown with Gabriel comparison intervals (Gabriel 1978);
pairs of means whose comparison intervals do not overlap are significantly different (p<0.05).
Asterixes indicate classes for which the mean had increased significantly
when the post-test was compared with the pre-test (p<0.01 by the t-test)
School with class shown in parentheses
Charts such as Figure 2 were produced to compare classes for all ten items in the pre-test. . These are
not presented individually as the results are not especially startling. No statistically significant
difference between pairs of means for classes could be identified for items 1 (enjoyment of writing
stories), 2 (being perceived as good at writing stories), 3 (using computers to be creative) and 6
(managing files). The significant differences which are identified do not point to any systematic trend,
but were: class 6 stands out as being statistically different to some others (lower ratings) in terms of
being good at computers, personal organisation, liking long-term projects and persistence; one class
at school 13 (25) also has a lower rating of liking project work; the other class at the same school (24)
has a lower rating of being good at computers; and one class at school 12 (23) also has a lower rating
for persistence. There is, really, a good deal of similarity on most of the measures amongst the schools
and classes in this study at the pre-test.
There are significant differences in the study data, though, and these are identified between classes in
the same school. It is possible that, under the oversight of one teacher compared with another, some
classes responded differently to the survey compared with their peers. This may not be the only
explanation. One cannot help but think of Grant’s (2011) students who were ‘sobered’ by the reality
of teacher expectations and who valued strong, informed engagement by teachers. Class-to-class
differences in liking project work, being persistent and perceiving themselves as being good with
computers by different ways in which teachers interact with their students – particularly when ratings
of other matters which may well be more intrinsic to each teacher (such as ‘enjoyment of story
writing’) are mainly invariant from class to class. One needs to be careful that the manner of the
teacher and the nature of the work is not dampening down student perceptions of extended project
work as fun and engaging, and having an adverse effect on persistence, perception of ability and
ultimate success and enjoyment in the prescribed task.
Page 93 of 487
Reliability and Validity
It is important to consider issues of reliability (can it produce similar results if used again in similar
circumstances) and validity (whether it examines what it claims to examine) in relation to this
investigation, and within that the matter of the instrument being a self-report. The advantage of a selfreport approach is that it gives the respondents’ own views directly – their perceptions of themselves
and their world which are unobtainable in any other way. The main disadvantage of self-report is that
there are a number of potential validity problems associated with it because each respondent’s
understanding of the items may be idiosyncratic, so the responses may bear little relationship to
“reality”, as seen by the researcher or others. Self-reported answers may be exaggerated (one way or
the other), with a tendency to provide ‘socially desirable’ responses.
There is evidence within the data presented for the reliability and validity of the general indication
that this study has considered (and these briefly stated 10 items are no more than that). Principal
among this evidence is the considerable consistency between classes on items which are likely to be
intrinsic to each student: enjoyment of writing stories, using computers to be creative, and so forth –
no matter which class is considered, the results are much the same (i.e., reliability). If students have
rated their knowledge of the software or their degree of persistence as low – and they have – then that
speaks more to an honest response than a socially-acceptable response. If anything, it is likely that
students have under-estimated their capacities with the items presented, and a more nuanced
understanding of the affective domain in relation to long-term ICT projects will require a more
carefully constructed and well-calibrated instrument. Nevertheless, this relatively coarse instrument
has provided some important insights.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The specific findings are that, in a long-term project which involved intensive engagement with ICT,
for upper primary school students:
 a perception of being good with computers, and being confident with the software tool both
show a strong increase over the course of the study;
 potentially positive allied outcomes such as being good at ‘file management’ and being
generally ‘organised and efficient’ are positively regarded, and improve modestly over the
course of the study;
 Students perceive themselves positively in regard to the competence at writing stories’ and
having enjoyment with writing stories, and this perception shows a modest to strong increase
over the course of the study;
 The perception of the computer as frustrating tool increased substantially; in addition, a sense
of enjoyment to use computer to be creative, a persistence with difficulties, and enjoyment
of long-term project work were in real terms probably adversely effected.
There are some individual classes where the indicators on several of these measures are concerning,
but the results from classes are very similar for each of the 10 items.
From an ICT point of view, it is quite good news: more exposure to computers leads to greater
confidence and an elevated perception of competence, and this seems to be unaffected by genuine
challenges or frustrations encountered in the process.
From a literacy point of view, the news is also good, but the effect not quite as strong as for the ICT
items. The capability with, and enjoyment of, writing stories are both enhanced by engagement in a
longitudinal multimodal authoring project. Also, there is no basis for suggesting that classes with a
greater sense of being good, or enjoying, story writing will perform any better than classes that don’t:
the data for these measures is quite similar, and yet considerable variability in the quality of
multimodal work between classes has been described elsewhere (Chandler, Unsworth, & O’Brien,
2012).
Page 94 of 487
Yet despite all of that, the students are not likely to have come out of the 3DMAP program singing
the praises of extended project work: their desire to be persistent has not been enhanced and their
urge to be creative with the technology has possibly been diminished. That is hardly good for the
child, the teacher nor a good advertisement for the approach. It resonates, though, with other studies
in which student enthusiasm has been ‘sobered’ by teacher expectation and engagement – and places
the spotlight clearly on the teacher to develop the student affectively as well as cognitively. We note,
though, the finding of Jamieson-Proctor and Burnett (2002) who found that ‘purposeful integration’
of computer technology positively affected the personal creativity characteristics of students. In
relating findings about extended project work and ICT to a next-generation of teachers, one of the
important issues is about organizing the teaching and learning of multimodal authoring such that it
is, and is seen to be, highly purposeful.
The study, by its nature, does not give any insight into the impact of various affective or allied areas
of knowledge on the quality of student outcomes in their multimodal authoring work. It is possible
that the initial speculation that capacity with factors such as file management, personal organization
and persistence were nevertheless important. One therefore wonders what the quality of the product
would be if the teachers deliberately taught these allied areas alongside the main agenda of a
multimodal authoring product. It may be simply providing a context in which these aspects might
develop is insufficient – that teachers need to be more deliberate about teaching the teachable, allied
areas of knowledge and attitude which are associated with certain units of work. Further investigation
is required to investigate these interactions.
In the current era, when multimodal authoring is an increasingly important component of literacies
curricula, most frequently implemented through extended project work which includes intensive use
of ICT, recommendations from this investigation are directed to both the teacher and the curriculum
designer. To the teacher: it is important not to be over-committed to the destination at the expense of
the journey. Persistence, motivation, self-management skills, personal relevance of the work, an
emotional anchor, and choice are reasonable expectations that students have of extended project work,
and may interact in important ways with the quality of the end product and students’ long-term
motivation for engaging in such projects. Affective and allied content knowledge should be not only
valued wherever possible, but actively taught as necessary. Curriculum designers (and researchers),
too, need to be conscious of the journey as well as the destination. For instance, design of project
work which is of optimal length which maximizes learning and motivation and avoids students being
‘burnt out’ by the topic is important. It cannot be assumed that certain allied learnings will be naturally
emergent through such work, and matters such as file management, personal organisation and
persistence will need to be explicitly planned for.
In conclusion, we might ask ‘was the 3DMAP project a success?’ The answer has to be ‘yes’. Other
data from the project (Chandler, 2013) clearly indicated that students commenced with a very limited
prior knowledge of Kahootz or related software – they learned the basic tool required for construction
of multimodal texts because of what they were taught in class, and report an increased confidence in
using and with computers in general. In the face of this overhead, indicators of competence and
confidence with both ICT and story composition suggest strongly positive growth. We know that keys
to further enhancing the impact of such work involve minimizing frustration with the software and
maximizing persistence and enjoyment of long-term project work.
References
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). The Australian Curriculum:
English. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/English
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Page 95 of 487
Chandler, P. D. (2012). What middle years students know about the creation of multimodal texts. In
proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference. Perth, Australia.
Chandler, P. D. (2014/forthcoming). Enabling students to be effective multimodal authors. In L.
Unsworth & A. Thomas (Eds.), English Teaching and New Literacies Pedagogy: Interpreting and
authoring digital multimedia in the classroom. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Chandler, P. D. (2013). Middle years students’ experience with new media. Australian Journal of
Education, 57(3), 256–269.
Chandler, P. D., O’Brien, A., & Unsworth, L. (2009). Challenges in the development of a multimedia
authoring pedagogy. In proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE)
conference. Canberra, ACT: Australian Association for Research in Education. Retrieved from
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153056540?q&versionId=166806572
Chandler, P. D., O’Brien, A., & Unsworth, L. (2010). Towards a 3D digital multimodal curriculum
for the upper primary school. Australian Educational Computing, 25(1), 34-40.
Chandler, P. D., Unsworth, L., & O’Brien, A. (2012). Evaluation of students’ digital animated
multimodal narratives and the identification of high-performing classrooms. Journal of Literacy and
Technology, 13(3), 80–127. Retrieved from http://literacyandtechnology.org/volume13_3/
jlt_volume_13_3_chandler_unsworth_obrien.pdf
Dunlop, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments
with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170-177.
England Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). The National Curriculum for England;
English. London.
Gabriel, K. R. (1978). A simple method of multiple comparison of means. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 73, 724-729.
Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, Beliefs, and Products: Students’ Perspectives with Project-based
Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2).
Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning : a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. London/New York: Routledge.
Hernández-Ramos, P., & De La Paz, S. (2009). Learning History in Middle School by Designing
Multimedia in a Project-Based Learning Experience. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(2), 151–173.
Hung, C.-M., Hwang, G.-J., & Huang, I. (2012). A Project-based Digital Storytelling Approach for
Improving Students’ Learning Motivation, Problem-Solving Competence and Learning Achievement.
Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(4), 368–379.
Hyun, E. (2005). A study of 5- to 6-year-old children’s peer dynamics and dialectical learning in a
computer-based technology-rich classroom environment. Computers and Education, 44(1), 69–91.
Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Burnett, P. C. (2002). Elementary Students, Creativity, and Technology.
Computers in the Schools, 19(1-2), 33–48.
Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2005). Learning technologies: Affective and social issues in computersupported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 44(4), 395–408.
Maggs, P. (2008, March). Kahootz 3.0: Developing software for the classroom. Teacher, 28–31.
Page 96 of 487
McDonald, J. H. (2009). Handbook of Biological Statistics (2nd Ed.). Baltimore, MD: Sparky House
Publishing: Retrieved Sept 20, 2012, from http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/HandbookBioStat.pdf
Proctor, R. M. & Burnett, P. C. (1996). Computer attitude and classroom computers. Computers in
the Schools, 12(3), 33-41.
R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.rproject.org
Ryan, J., Scott, A., & Walsh, M. (2010). Pedagogy in the multimodal classroom: an analysis of the
challenges and opportunities for teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Research and Practice, 16(4), 477–
489.
Singapore Ministry of Education. (2010). English Language Syllabus 2010 Primary and Secondary
(Express/Normal[Academic]).
Walsh, M. (2011). Multimodal literacy: Classroom research and practice. Newtown, NSW: Primary
English Teaching Association.
Page 97 of 487
REDEFINING EDUCATION?
1:1 COMPUTING STRATEGIES IN VICTORIAN SCHOOLS
Ted Clark
University of Melbourne, Parkville (Aust)
Peter Twining
The Open University, Milton Keynes (UK)
Dianne Chambers
University of Melbourne, Parkville (Aust)
Abstract
This paper focuses on three schools in Victoria (Australia) that introduced 1:1 mobile
computing devices for students’ use in learning. Each began their roll out of devices in
2013. It was a time when an interest in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) strategies was
beginning to appear in popular media (Topsfield 2013) as a response to the cessation of
various Federal government funding programs for buildings and 1:1 computing in
Australian schools. Although each school had an interest in BYOD each chose to introduce
a programme that mandated a specific device be purchased or leased. The decision to go
to a specific device was based on simplifying the management of the restrictions placed
on student uses of the device. The schools individually adopted different forms of student
ownership of the devices extending from full purchase to leasing arrangements with
different levels of school and personal responsibility for the device. It is not possible to
attribute changes in how learning occurred to the introduction of the devices alone. It is
of note that the shift to 1:1 computing largely reflected or amplified changes to teaching
and learning that surrounded and pre-dated the introduction of the devices.
Introduction
Mobile, portable and hand held computing in Australian schools were being reported as part
of some schools’ programmes as early as 1992 (see for example: Gifford, 1992; Albion, 1999;
Stradling, Sims, & Jamison, 1994). In the intervening period there have been various
programmes to move to some model of 1:1 computing in individual schools (e.g. Fluck
2011). In 2008 the Federal Government provided over AUD$2billion, through a programme
called the Digital Education Revolution (DER), for each student in Years 9 to 12 across state
system schools to have a computer or laptop device allocated to them (Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). In 2013 this funding was coming
to an end. At the same time two other sources of funds were also winding down: one for
school infrastructure, called the Building the Education Revolution (BER); the other was the
last stages of the National Secondary School Computer Fund (NSSCF). During that year it
was reported in the media that some Victorian schools were considering Bring Your Own
Device (BYOD) programmes, as a way to respond to the loss of funding from federal
government programmes for 1:1 computing and school building programmes, such as the
DER and the BER.
The $2.4 billion ‘‘digital education revolution’’ was a key plank of Labor’s 2007 election
pitch. However the funding agreement ends on June 30, creating headaches for schools
when ageing computers need replacement… The report by the Digital Education Advisory
Group – which was asked to identify future strategies – said a move to a bring your own
device policy would result in a shift away from the expenditure needed to continually
replace computers in schools. (Topsfield 2013).
BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) is a model in which student bring in their own devices,
Page 98 of 487
which can be registered with the school and connected to the school network. Lee and Levins
(2012) identified a shift from BYOD to BYOT (Bring Your Own Technology), which they
described as a shift in power from the school to the home. The Queensland Department of
Education, Training and Employment (2013) coined the term BYOx to refer to Bring Your
Own (BYO) models in which the school specifies which devices can be brought into school.
Aligned with many earlier claims for how digital technology will transform education (for
example: BECTA 2005; Garrison & Anderson 2002; Graves 2001), BYO approaches are
heralded as transforming of school practice by some educational literature. For example
Ackerman and Krupp (2012:p 6) posit:
Through the use of Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT), teachers and students can change
the focus of the classroom and become more student-centered… This research depicts how
BYOT will revolutionize education and create a new prototype of learning both inside and
outside of the school setting.
In the general context of such claims, a series of 22 case studies carried out in England in
2012 looked at the impacts that digital technology strategies such as 1:1 computing and BYO
were having. Meta-analysis of these 22 ‘Vital Studies’ (as they are known) resulted in 11
dimensions of practice related to changes in schools (Twining 2013; Twining 2014). These
included dimensions related to: the model of technology provision; who pays for the digital
technology used in school; the role of the teacher; the role of the students; the impact on the
curriculum and/or pedagogy. The Provision dimension, which is illustrated in Figure 1,
distinguishes between 1:1 computing strategies and BYO approaches. A 1:1 approach
assumes that every student will have a particular model/specification of device. In a BYO
model some students may not have a device. BYOD and BYOT, unlike BYOx, does not
specify what devices are acceptable, so students may have a wide range of different devices.
Figure 1
Provision Trend: how digital technology is organised (Twining 2014)
This paper reports on three case studies, which explicitly built upon the Vital Studies, utilising
a similar methodology and being informed by the dimensions of practice identified in that
project. A particular focus in these three studies was the extent to which implementing 1:1
strategies had led to changes in the schools’ provision or practices.
Methodology
The three studies reported here were the Victorian component of a series of 13 studies carried
out in Australia between September and December 2013, which are referred to as the
Snapshot
Studies
(see
http://edfutures.net/Technology_Strategy_Case_Studies#The_Snapshot_Studies).
The
Snapshot Study schools were selected based on the researchers’ local knowledge of schools
that were engaged in the implementation of mobile device strategies. Table 1 provides a
summary of these three Snapshot Study schools.
Page 99 of 487
Table 1
Summary of the Snapshot Study schools reported here
School X
School Y
School Z
Type
State
State
Catholic
Phase
Secondary
Primary
Primary
No. students on roll
1800
440
466
Digital technology
strategy
1:1 iPad
1:1 iPad Years 5 & 1:1
laptop
6
Years 5 & 6
The Snapshot Studies used a cut down version of the methodology used in the Vital Studies
(see http://edfutures.net/Research_Strategy). They involved data collection during one day
spent in the school by the researchers. As one might expect given the practicalities of doing
research in schools, there were minor variations from the standard methodology in each of
the Snapshot Study schools. These are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Variations in the methodology
School X
School Y
Questionnaire
None
Interview
Principal
ICT coordinator
Teacher of Japanese
Parent
Focus group
4 Yr 8 students
Observation
Yr 8 Humanities
School Z
Principal
ICT Coordinator
Yr 6 teacher
2 parents
Principal
ICT coordinator /
Yr 5/6 teacher (same
person)
2 parents
Principal
Principal
ICT coordinator
ICT coordinator /
Yr 6 teacher
Yr 5/6 teacher (same
Parent
person)
Parent
1 Yr 6 & 3 Yr 5 5 Yr 5/6 students
students
Yr 5/6 Humanities
Yr 5/6 Literacy
Overview of the three schools
School X
School X was a state funded secondary school, which had been moving towards team
teaching in flexible (open plan) areas, with time divided equally between direct teaching,
independent study and collaborative work. They trialed iPads, initially in Japanese, and
concluded that they fitted well with their pedagogical vision. They therefore decided to roll
out a 1:1 iPad programme from January 2013 in Years 7 and 8.
School Y
School Y was a high performing state funded primary school. Each classroom was provided
with an interactive whiteboard, six laptops and six iPads. In addition, parents of students in
Years 5 and 6 were expected to provide their children with iPads with a set of ‘school apps’
for use in school. 90% of Year 5 and 6 students did bring in their own iPad from the beginning
Page 100 of 487
of January 2013. The principal saw digital technology as an important tool in society and
thought it should also be a tool to support learning.
School Z
School Z was a Catholic primary school whose vision was about contemporary learning. Key
elements of this included collegiate teaching teams working in open plan spaces, in which
learning was shared and visible. In January 2013 the school moved from having 1 laptop
between 2 students to 1:1 provision of Windows laptops in Years 5 & 6. Part of the motivation
for moving to a 1:1 scheme was to address equity issues by ensuring that every student had
a device that they could use at home (as well as in school).
Discussion of the data
Funding and types of 1:1 programs
In Schools X and Y parents were expected to provide the devices for their children. For the
very small number of students for whom this was a problem School X subsidised the cost in
association with local organisations, whilst School Y provided iPads in each classroom which
could be used by students who did not have their own device. Thus Schools X and Y align
with the ‘Home’ category on the Funding dimension from the Vital Studies (Figure 2). In
School Z parents were expected to make a financial contribution towards the cost of the
devices, which remained the property of the school. This aligns with the ‘Subsidised’
category in Figure 2.
Figure 2
The Funding Dimension (Twining 2014)
The funding models had been carefully thought through in each of the schools. Parents
interviewed for this study mentioned consultations with parents as part of the 1:1
implementations. Paying for devices appeared not to have been the main issue for parents in
any of the three schools. Where parental concerns were reported these related to other
features of the proposed strategies. For example, School Y’s principal explained how one
parent had reacted:
… so he wasn’t against the 1:1 device program he just wanted to know ‘why Apple?’
(School Y, Principal Interview)
A very small number of families who were not able to meet the cost were supported by being
provided with a device that they did not have to pay towards.
Device Use and Changes to Practices Data
The data collection and analysis had an intention of exploring the extent to which introducing
1:1 strategies in these three schools led to changes in practices. Even with the different
implementations based on the types of ownership and funding models outlined above, the
shifts in school practice were not that great. In what follows we first draw attention to
similarities in observations made across the three schools in terms of practice. These
Page 101 of 487
similarities tend to blend or overlap with considerations of classroom layout and BYO use,
such as classroom management issues, and shifts in student and teacher roles that were
already commenced. Device use was observed to enhance both traditional practice and
changes already occurring.
Similarity 1: More access but apps do not change practices
Across all three schools a feature of the 1:1 devices was the facilitation of teaching tasks and
student access to digital information and digital activities undertaken with the help of “apps”
(computer applications) available through the devices used. Comments at interview were that
individual students benefited from independent work using different easily accessible apps
on their own device. These apps could be easily referenced by the teacher, often to do work
similar to that done without apps. Quizzing apps were an example of such. A difference was
that some allowed the student to gain instant feedback by benchmarking work against other
students. For example, the language teacher at the School X enthused about their iPad
programme:
Quizlet is just the bomb, I love it … You don’t have to create the lists {Yeah} other teachers
have gone there and there’s free access {there’s thousands of them aren’t there} and the
kids love it and it gives them a chance to benchmark themselves, to get a time and to beat
it and for individual practice
(School X, Teacher Interview)
Similarly, a teacher interviewed at School Y saw advantages for students in that they were
able to independently access a range of content and various levels of class and home work
since the introduction of the 1:1 iPad programme:
You would see a lot more independent learning. You would see more student engagement.
You would see more motivated students. You’d see students thinking outside the box. You
would also see the students working collaboratively together, a lot more efficiently as well.
You’d see them extending their learning so they're taking it home and doing things. They’re
coming back to class and they’ve completed what they’re meant to do already. They’re
going on and extending themselves. For example at the moment we’re doing algebra in
maths and when we jump onto this wonderful algebra site we've got some kids doing
quadratic equations and Fibonacci sequences and they're 10 years old, you've got other
kids just filling in a blank box – so it really differentiated the learning
(School Y, Teacher Interview)
These sorts of uses were popular and apps provided useful ways of tracking diverse student
work and progress. However, it did not necessarily follow that new or innovative learning
pedagogies were implemented. Traditional approaches were made more efficient. The
expanded choices on tasks, access and levels of task were not necessarily innovations in
pedagogy.
Similarity 2: Diverse activity in class but teacher still centre
In both the above observations of similarities in expanded access to traditional tasks, the
perception of change was based on an expansion of choice and centering teacher ability to
manage this. The teacher at School Y went on to say:
I think it has changed the way we teach as in we're placing a lot more responsibility on
Page 102 of 487
the shoulders of the kids. … I might have previously come in with 3 levels of worksheets
… now we don’t do that we come in and say ‘here’s the mini lesson, … you may decide
that you’re this level this level this level off you go’ and we have 31 kids doing basically
31 different things. So it’s completely changed the way we research, we teach.
(School Y, Teacher Interview)
However, the same teacher was clear that the teacher’s role was still crucial in setting a
“brief” for the task or activity, facilitating the work, and providing feedback. He
acknowledged that part of letting the “kids decide their level” was letting them decide not to
always use the iPads for the task. This was corroborated by observations, in which students
were seen working in small groups or pairs planning presentations or posters on ‘disasters
and how they are dealt with’. Some were using iPads to access the web, and just as many
were transcribing text by hand from illustrated textbooks. Many were using pencils to draw
images into workbooks.
The student focus group from School Y verified that they choose to use different media at
different times in response to being given some direction by the teacher, but also in response
to being given a choice as to which media to use.
S4
Normally they say make a presentation so we have like a
S2
They want us to use our imaginations
S3
To be creative
S1
So they don't like tell you to do a specific presentation like they tell you what topic
you need but they don’t tell you what how you're meant to do it so you have a variety of
what you can do
(School Y, Student Focus Group)
Similarity 3: Enhanced ability and enablement of already strived for practices
The principal of School Y pointed out that the whole school followed a particular way of
structuring lessons that hadn’t been changed by the 1:1 programme, though he expected that
tasks within that overarching framework would change over time:
Now they might do it on the iPad, so it’s a sort of Substitute … Now because we use the
SAMR model [see http://edfutures.net/SAMR: substitution, augmentation,
modification and redefinition] and we’re still developing in that area obviously, but we’re
really trying to take that to a higher level so rather than just substituting we're trying to
replace the task with technology as best we can. It's a journey.
(School Y, Principal Interview)
What the principal saw as differences were devices replacing older methods. The potential
shifts of note were access to information “at their fingertips”, the ability to create, record,
photograph, film and present information, and to be able to actively involve parents,
grandparents, and students who are away from school in their classroom activities. A teacher
at the same school illustrated this facilitated enablement:
… one of the great things about having a 1:1 device is that it enables the parents to come
into the room as well, but virtually. So, for example, let’s say that your daughter is giving
a presentation about <pause> I don’t know <pause> about micro-organisms well we
organise a time with you when she’s going to be presenting, you swipe in on Facetime or
Page 103 of 487
Skype, the iPads up, you’re watching her live give her presentation to the class …
(School Y, Teacher Interview)
He went on to provide a range of other examples. Whilst much of what was described might
have been possible with older or desktop technologies, Traxler (2010 p.5) argues that these
earlier desktop technologies were too restrictive because the learning there:
..takes place in a bubble, and in dedicated times and places where the user has his or her
back to the rest of the world for a substantial and probably premeditated episode
Whilst, in this case, providing access into the classroom from outside was attributed to the
1:1 programme, it was clear that the overarching pedagogical framework, the desire to
involve parents and family and bring the outside world into the classroom, pre-dated the 1:1
programme. The availability of mobile devices made their goals easier to achieve, rather than
having caused a change in the school’s approach or pedagogy.
The Principal at School Z saw differences in the way students were working particularly in
the way students accessed documents and information but when asked about what she had
not noticed in the ways teaching had changed with the BYOD responded that:
Probably not a lot in type of teaching, but the difference in how students could access
information that they couldn't before – in maths particularly teachers started to upload
lessons and resources so children had constant access to that, at home and at school. The
other element was teachers setting up collaborative documents on group projects where
students add pieces in – they're able to work collaboratively We're starting off being able
to access learning anytime anywhere, but what they were doing in teaching probably
wouldn't change significantly.
(School Z, Principal Interview)
Similarity 4: Concerns about clarity
The number of different media the teacher used to make sure students had an idea of what
was to be done emphasised the need for clear teacher direction of tasks. There were
sometimes three versions of the same guidelines available for students to check: on a
whiteboard, on worksheets, and sent as digital instructions as either emails or uploaded to
websites.
Just as it was up to the student often to choose to use the device or not for a particular task,
the students at School X reported that they often transcribed to workbooks the instructions
or timetables, even though they were available digitally, because it made it clear what they
were going to do.
Similarity 5: Devices, team teaching, student team work and already open plan spaces.
The physical layout in all the classrooms visited in both the secondary and primary schools
supported group and individual work, rather than having desks in rows facing the front. This
allowed group work and/or team teaching approaches. The devices were not a central or
determining factor in these classrooms. They were used as a resource in much the same way
desktop computers may have been used in the past. However, the tablets were clearly less
intrusive than a bank of desktop computers would be. In all the classes observed it was
evident that one, or more than one teacher, was responsible for the open plan room and the
Page 104 of 487
way learning was organised in that space.
Choosing to use or not to use the device for a particular task was not always the way every
teacher chose to manage 1:1 use. It was pointed out by one of the teachers at secondary school
X that they liked to be in control of device use:
I like to I guess I like to keep control over when they use it and when they don’t. I If I had
a student using an iPad when I hadn't specifically said, ‘Ok iPads out’ I'd be immediately
saying ‘iPad away’ if I suspected they weren't using it appropriately I'd be asking them to
bring it up to me and show me their iPad. Do a double click, see what’s open or I’d simply
if I felt it was the wrong time I might hold on to their iPad for the end of the lesson. If I
have proof they’re on a game as a coordinator I’d we hold on to it till the end of the day
and they’d come and collect it.
(School X, Teacher Interview)
The earlier observation that team teaching and student team project work were not necessarily
due to the introduction of 1:1, similarly applied to classroom management. One of the
teachers interviewed at X, the secondary school, noted there had been a substantial change
to classroom management in the open plan classrooms and that the team teaching aspects
made this easier, but iPads were undermining this:
Before the iPads and we already saw a change in the type of distraction we
were getting and misbehaviour in classroom we had a lot less, just a
massive drop and that’s largely attributed to having more than one teacher
in a space and that passive supervision, so more sets of eyes equals less
trouble. … if I’d of said maybe two years ago ‘Open your textbook’ if they
were quiet and had their heads down looking at their work I could be pretty
confident they were doing that. Now if they are quite with their heads down
looking at their work I still have to double check that there’s not that
temptation they haven’t just click click slide and they’re sending an email
or they’re looking at something that someone sent and so that’s a bit of an
unknown for us still.
(School X, Teacher Interview)
At primary school Z, classroom management and individual scheduling of when each student
did literacy tasks were both facilitated enormously by each student having access to their
own laptop device. The coordination or classroom management was based on student
accessing an online timetable and self-selecting what they would be rotating through in 20
minute blocks. Student self-selected activities based on guidance from teachers and on their
own preference for the order in which tasks were done. Whilst this might have been possible
to do on paper or on a whiteboard, keeping track of updates and weekly changes was made
more manageable, for both the teacher and the students, through the online timetable. This
timetabling arrangement was facilitated by student having access to a laptop so they could
regularly check and update their schedules. However, as before, whilst the laptops enabled
this sort of approach, they had not caused the change in pedagogy.
Similarity 6: Devices and already shifting pupil roles
The changes noted in all three schools involved the 1:1 programmes supporting or amplifying
Page 105 of 487
moves that the schools were already making toward student centred learning. These involved
changing the role of the pupils as illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the Pupil Role
dimension from the Vital Studies.
Figure 3 The Pupil role dimension (Twining 2014)
Although there was a move in all schools to a more student centred choice and work, the
choice was very much limited to clear directions and the specification of limits by the
teachers.
Similarity 7: Devices and Teacher Roles as Managers not Co-learners
1:1 programmes in these three schools were at early stages, but changes in teacher roles, with
a shift towards becoming facilitators and learning managers were evident alongside shifts to
more student centred pedagogies. These correspond with changes identified on the Teacher
Role dimension from the Vital Studies. However, there was little evidence in these three
schools of teachers taking on the role of co-learners alongside the students. Once again
existing roles were emphasized rather than 1:1 shifting roles.
Figure 4 The Teacher role dimension (Twining 2014)
The principal in School Z saw 1:1 as enabling better distribution and more ongoing access to
resources that teachers were guiding students to (as evidenced by earlier quotes). The
difference pointed to, is one where students are expected to find out, rather than relying only
on the teacher telling (Wiemer 2013).
Conclusions
The observed implementation of 1:1 programmes were not by themselves identified as
transforming of teaching and learning in any of the schools. 1:1 became a part of pre-existing
pedagogical approaches, which in some cases had already led to other significant changes in
the school, such as in classroom layout. Thus, for example, the ICT coordinator in School Z
characterized their school’s 1:1 programme as part of an overall “vision” that was reflected
in the open plan established thanks to the BER school buildings fund:
And in the last 7 years or so [pause] we've come to fruition I suppose a vision of [pause]
shared learning, learning that is visible, learning that happens in communities and so
that’s reflected in the open plan that's been established in the last couple of years thanks
to BER funding.
(School Z, ICT Coordinator Interview)
1:1 and BYO programmes were a good fit with these new spaces and new more open team
teaching practices and shared learning approaches. It seems probable that the pedagogic
foundation predated the new buildings. The contribution of a new device programme
overlays these development and appears to be complementary. Thus the 1:1 programme was
Page 106 of 487
not the ultimate causal agent it was more of an amplification of a range of processes.
However, there is no doubt things were changing in these schools, and the 1:1 programmes
were embedded and working in combination with various other arrangements, including
room layouts, new timetables, acceptable use policies, strong Wi-Fi networks, consultations
with parents, and more. Some of these, like consultations with parents were directly related
to the 1:1 initiatives, but most arrangements were already in place before the 1:1 programmes.
Others, for example extending WiFi networks, although basic networks were already in place,
were identified as requiring upgrades to increase capacity to enable the 1:1 programme to
work.
1:1 was found to be more of an amplifier of pedagogic and physical adjustments already
underway. Some significant changes were observed along the dimensions identified by the
Vital Studies, such as Model of provision, Funding, Pupil role, and Teacher role. The first
two of these changes reflected changes to funding and the last two were changes in directions
that the schools were already focusing on. The 1:1 programmes aligned with these changes,
they facilitated the changes and were reciprocally facilitated by them. The three 1:1
programmes were in early stages and were advancing and maintaining changes in ways
compatible with what had already commenced.
Bibliography
Ackerman, A. S., & Krupp, M. L. (2012). Five Components to Consider for BYOT/BYOD.
International Association for the Development of the Information Society (IADIS) International
Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA) (Madrid, Spain, Oct
19-21, 2012)
Albion, P. (1999). Laptop orthodoxy: is portable computing the answer for education? Australian
Educational
Computing,
14(1),
5–9.
Retrieved
from
http://www.acce.edu.au/journal/journals/vol14_1.pdf (accessed 24-Jun-2014)
Becta (2005c) Invitation to tender: Landscape of impact study of ICT in schools, Coventry: Becta
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Success through
partnership: Achieving a national vision for ICT in schools: Strategic Plan to guide the
implementation of the Digital Education Revolution initiative and related initiatives. Canberra
Garrison, D and Anderson, T (2002) E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and
practice, London: Routledge
Gifford, C. (1992). Choosing and using portable computers. Coventry: NCET.
Graves, W (2001) Framework for an e-learning strategy, EDUCAUSE paper IDNLI0014
[http://www. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/NLI0014.pdf] (viewed 13 November 2005)
Fluck, A. (2011) Laptop classes in some Australian government primary schools. Australian
Educational Computing,
Vol.26,No.1. http://acce.edu.au/sites/acce.edu.au/files/pj/journal/26_1LaptopClass_p1015.pdf (accessed 24-Jun-2014)
Lee, M., & Levins, M. (2012). Bring Your Own Technology: the BYOT guide for schools and families.
Camberwell (Victoria): ACER Press.
State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and Employment). (2013). BYOx research
Page 107 of 487
project (p. 60). Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and
Employment).
Stradling, B., Sims, D., & Jamison, J. (1994). Portable Computers Pilot Evaluation Summary.
Coventry: NCET
Topsfield, J. (2013) Schools embrace BYO device trend. The Age, June 2 2013.
http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/government-it/schools-embrace-byo-device (accessed Nov 28
2013)
Traxler, J. (2010) Will Student Devices Deliver Innovation, Inclusion, and Transformation? Journal
of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET) Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2010
Twining, P. (2013) Digital Technology Trends. Milton Keynes:
http://edfutures.net/Digital_technology_trends (accessed 28-Mar-2014)
EdFutures.net.
Twining, P. (2014). Redefining education: 1 to 1 computing strategies in English schools. ACEC,
Adelaide, September 2014.
Weimer M. 2013 Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, 2nd Edition, John
Wiley & Sons. San Francisco.
Page 108 of 487
IS THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER STILL RELEVANT IN 2014?
JIll Colton
Abstract
The term 21st century learner may be seen as outdated by some, but it seems to persist in
texts used by teachers to inform their perspectives on teaching and learning. In this paper
I consider how the figure of the 21st century learner, travels into a school. I do this by
reporting on the discussion of 8 teachers at a South Australian secondary school who were
asked ‘how do you understand the 21st century learner?’ While their answers to this
question commenced with claims about the way that students (and teachers) use digital
technology, it developed into a discussion about knowledge – how it is accessed, filtered,
organized and created by contemporary students. In this research I asked the teachers to
identify some of the texts that informed this understanding of the 21st century learner and
this paper will present an analysis of one of these texts in order to trace the way that
knowledge about learners and learning is transported into and around a school. I argue
that it is important to analyze the way that this figure of the 21st century learner is taken
up in the school because of the way that it informs teachers' knowledge about (innovative)
pedagogy.
Introduction
The 21st century learner is a term that has emerged to represent students as different from the past,
mostly due to their use of digital and media technologies. Inherent in the notion of 21st century learner
is a projection of the future and the 21st century learner can be seen as a way of imagining what
students and learning practices will be like in a future time. But now that we are in the 21 st century
some people have said to me comments along the line of, ‘why are we still using this term? We are
over a decade into the 21st century so why are we still talking about 21st century learners?’ These
comments might be used to illustrate how the figure of the 21st century learner works within a futurist
discourse and may also invite us to consider the work that the 21st century learner does in a
contemporary context. How do teachers understand this term and how is it taken up in their thinking
about contemporary students?
When I began thinking about my topic for research in 2009 I felt that the term 21st century learner
was difficult to define and in my own attempts to understand this term I found a video on Youtube
titled ‘A Vision of K-12 Learners’ (Nesbitt 2007)
Figure 1. Still from ‘A Vision of K-12 learners’
This video got me thinking about what this term 21st century learner meant. It also got me thinking
about how teachers were responding to the ideas behind the words 21st century learner and also about
who was constructing these ‘truths’ about students.
Page 109 of 487
While I found that the idea of 21st century learners was vague and difficult to define, I also noticed
that these terms were being used widely in my workplace and in my professional circles of
communication. I saw it as a concept that would allow me to investigate a phenomenon that is
happening ‘out there’ and to think about what that means for what is happening in a school, on a local
level. In their policy genealogy, Williams, Gannon and Sawyer (2013) trace the figure of the 21 st
century learner through policy networks including the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals
for Young Australians Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
(Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA] 2008)
and the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2012). They also present a discourse analysis of a recent
book on 21st century learning that is available commercially to teachers. I share their interest in “the
extent to which policy mobility has implications for how the most fundamental aspects of education,
such as curriculum, are inflected in local contexts” (page 2). This is why I have positioned the 21st
century learner as a travelling construct in my research – as I consider how it interacts with both
traditional and innovative pedagogies and the use of digital technologies in a local school.
In the Youtube clip mentioned above “A Vision of K-12 Learners”, 21st century learners are
represented as young people who use digital texts and digital literacy practices in ways that are
liberating, empowering, engaging and also different from traditional school practices. How does this
view of learners fit in with research in the field in the last 20 years? A review of the literature shows
that there have been many studies of young people and their use of digital technologies and digital
text (Green and Bigum 1993; Selwyn 2003; Buckingham 2007; Knobel and Lankshear 2008; Rosen
2010; Kupiainen 2013). In addition there have been various typologies used to describe young people
as users of digital technologies – digital natives (Prensky, 2001), the wired generation (Hanman
2005), the i-generation (Rosen 2010) and the digital generation (Schwartz 2013). Green and Bigum
(1993) used the phrase “aliens in the classroom” (page 119) to highlight the significant way that they
saw digital technologies changing culture and knowledge while Kress (2008) used the term
“transitional generation” (page 253) to focus on a move from predominantly print and written word
based text to screen and visual and media based text. In all of this literature, there is a focus on the
use of digital technologies and digital literacies and there is also a focus on educational change.
The Data Collection
The focus group data collected here forms part of a larger single school ethnography in which I aim
to trace the discursive construct of the 21st century learner into the school. The methodology can be
described as a critical ethnography in the way that qualitative data is collected from a local site
through focus groups, interviews, classroom observation and collection of artefacts, and analysed
using a discourse analysis approach which questions claims of truth in terms of power and identity
(Carspecken, 2001). In this first project, I invited teachers at the school in which I work, to be
involved in focus groups where I asked the question what do you understand by the 21st century
learner? Eight teachers replied to my invitation and I organised mutually convenient times for them
to meet with me in groups during Term 3 and 4 2013. Upon request, participants also forwarded links
and details about texts they had read or viewed that had informed their views.
From these focus groups I have identified three themes:
1. Defining the term 21st century learner
2. Digital technology and the 21st century learner
3. Knowledge and the 21st century learner
In the last section of this paper I briefly discuss a TED talk given by Sugata Mitra that was referred
to by three of the teachers in this project.
Page 110 of 487
1. Defining the term 21st century learner
In the focus groups I asked the question, ‘what do you understand by the term 21st century learner?.
In the first focus group, this was a problematic phrase and the term ‘contemporary learner’ was
favoured by one person who said that, “I’m probably the worst person to have in the room because I
hate the term with a passion”. His argument was that he preferred the term contemporary learner
because ‘contemporary’ is about our day and age – so it is about learning about and for our day and
age whereas the term 21st century learner was part of a futurist discourse from 10 or so years ago and
so was not relevant anymore because we are now in that future. He also noted that the term seemed
to be used by the (commercial) vendors at a recent education and technology (EduTECH) conference.
And that’s why I’m worried about it (the term 21st century learners) because we’re actually
almost at the next year’s EduTECH , its’ pretty much banned. And the only people who
use it are the vendors who were trying to impress the educators,. And we were going,
‘Yeah, move on.’(Tim, English Teacher)
A concern with the commercialisation and mediatisation of the term is also alluded to in this comment
by one of the other teachers involved. She said that:
I have suspected for a long time, that it’s a term that’s been bandied about in the press,
in schools, and that it’s possibly been overused by people who really are not absolutely
sure about what it actually means. And I suspect that there isn’t just one meaning and that,
you know, 21st century learning can be described in numbers of ways by numbers of
different people. (Anna, English Teacher)
The 21st century learner can be seen as “in some ways a catch-all phrase that tends to stand in for a
collection of ideas that may vary from site to site” and this may be where confusion about its meaning
comes from (Williams, Gannon and Sawyer, 2013, page 3). Williams, Gannon and Sawyer also
mention that “the ‘21st century learner’ is also associated quite literally with a particular ‘brand’ in
many of its recent articulations.” This supports what some of the teachers said in regards to their
concern with the corporatisation and commercialisation of the term and with the difficulty in defining
it.
2. 21st century learners and digital technology
In this project, teachers at a particular site were asked what they understood by the term 21st century
learners and in their responses some themes emerged which reflect how students were being
constructed. In this section of the paper I will focus on one of these themes - the connections made
between contemporary students and digital technologies. All of the eight participants in the focus
groups talked about technology as integral to ideas about 21st century learners. Students were clearly
positioned as users of digital technology and in some cases the teachers also identified themselves as
users of technology. Technology was referred to by all of the teachers as a tool which allowed for a
range of teaching and learning behaviours such as engagement, access to information, authenticity,
immersion, high order thinking and differentiation. The use of digital technology to access
information was a key point in the focus group discussion.
The way that digital technology allows for access to information was referred to by 7 of the 8 teachers
in this project. Year 7 teacher, Jack, said that students have easy access to information at home. He
said: “..for 21st century learners I think we need to recognise that we are dealing with families, with
students, who outside of school have access to information at their fingertips.”
Anna compared old ways of accessing information with new ways. She said that instead of “tracking
Page 111 of 487
to the library, working through call cards, going to the, you know, pulling out, finding the right page
number” which would be a “20 minute process” - students and teachers can use technology as a tool
to get information, which she qualified by saying: “That is a one-minute process.”
Another teacher said that:
“ …what we’re doing now with kids is we’re actually saying, “You know what, I know
some things, so point me in some good directions, and guess what, you are lucky enough
through technology to have access to a whole range of information I’d beg to know about.
But we’re going to go in here and my job is to help you make sense of that where I can,
and your job is to help me make sense of some of that as well because I don’t know it
either.” (Tim, English Teacher)
In these three examples, students are described in relation to the way that they can access information
through digital technology. But, the teachers’ comments also work to construct the teacher – Jack
said that the teacher needs to recognise these (21st century) students in a way that is perhaps different
from the past; Anna’s comments compare the way that we (as teachers) accessed information with
the changing practices of today. In Tim’s comment, we (the teacher) are constructed as a guide but
also as a co-learner.
Jenny, the Year 11/12 Geography Teacher stated that she loved using technology in her teaching work
because of its tool-like qualities.
I mean, obviously I love technology. I love using it. But I love it because it makes these
things easier for us to, you know, get the information, easier for us to organise things and
so, yes, very much technology is the tool. (Jenny, Geography teacher)
For her, technology was something that allows students, and herself, to access information – and in
the comment below she refers to the way that access to information (such as Google Earth) enables
her to bring the real world in to her classroom.
If we’re talking about contemporary: as a geography teacher, so cool, I get magnitude of
earthquake updates, you know, on the minute that you would never have got before, so you
can constantly be bringing in, for me, the real world that we live in on a daily or hourly
basis if you really want to.(Jenny)
Twenty first century learners were clearly being positioned as users of digital technology to do ‘school
things’ – but there was further discussion on the impact of the students’ preferences on what is valued
as learning or, in other words, the acknowledgement or power of what young people see as being
worthwhile learning. Anna said that “for me it’s more about what 21st-century learners value” and
what students value “is the knowledge and understanding of things or elements that are critical to
them”. Anna’s point is that there is some knowledge that is more critical to today’s learners – this is
about the way that learners can access a broad range of knowledge so what students see as valuable
or worthwhile to them is what they will learn.
In each of these comments can be seen the positioning of the student in relation to technology,
information and knowledge. In the construction of students as 21st century learners who are closely
aligned to digital technology, can also be seen the construction of teachers who, as shown in the
comments above, are responding to these ‘new’ students, ‘new’ technologies and changing roles.
Page 112 of 487
3. Knowledge and the 21st century learner
I now move onto my third theme and in this section I highlight some of the ways that the teachers in
this project talked about knowledge in relation to contemporary students. My purpose here is to shed
some light on the way that students are being constructed as 21st century learners. I will start with
Julie’s comment about the implications of being able to access a large amount of information easily
and quickly. Julie said:
It’s what you do with that, that information, and how you value it and how you order it;
so, you know, recognising or being discerning, I suppose, with data and information.
(Julie, Science Teacher)
There was a lot of discussion about what students do with information – how they select, order and
evaluate it, such as this comment by Jenny.
Now that contemporary learning in a contemporary world for me means not knowing, the
need to have to know this amount of information and that amount of information; so
content is present but not the emphasis for me. So I think it’s the skills in thinking, in
evaluation, in problem-solving. That’s far more central, I think, to that learning, to 21 stcentury learning. (Jenny, Geography Teacher)
In this comment there are a couple of things going on. First she uses the concept of ‘not knowing’
which links to the way that information can be easily accessed through the internet on a needs basis.
Then she moves into a list of skills - “thinking, in evaluation, in problem solving” which is about how
information is interpreted and used.
Jack described how he had used a problem solving approach with his year7 Maths class. He had
shown his students an advertisement from a local petrol station for discount petrol – the deal involved
spending money in the shop in order to gain a discount on the petrol price. He invited the students to
find out ‘who wins’ in the discount petrol deal. Jack explained how one student worked through the
problem. Initially, she asked the teacher, ‘what car is it?’ and he said ‘I don’t know’:
“…that was my response to every question she asked I said ‘no idea’, ‘I don’t know’…”
(Yr 7 Maths teacher)
The student then decided to use her family car as the example, because that was relevant to her. From
there she used web based resources to look up the fuel capacity of her car and to find out how to
convert gallons to litres.
She worked out how much she could fill her car up with the fuel and worked out that there
was no way that she could save more money than what he was spending by driving that
vehicle and in fact she then went on and calculated how many litres you would need to spend
in order to make a saving based on current fuel prices as an average and then she realised
that the clause in the voucher explains that it can’t be over a certain amount.
…So straight away she said ‘well the company wins’… but then she stopped herself and
said ‘well wait a second, if I needed to buy bread and milk anyway and I was going to buy
it from another shop and it was a similar price to the service station then buying it from
the service station and then getting a discount means I do actually win because I
wouldn’t’ve got this discount otherwise’. (Jack, Yr 7 Maths Teacher)
Page 113 of 487
In this example, the teacher has created a learning activity where information is accessed as needed
by the student in order to solve a problem, involving critical thinking and in this way the student is
seen to be constructing her knowledge. This teacher described this scenario as a response to the 21st
century learner – he made the point that this approach differed in many ways to his usual approach –
the key points of difference begin that he did not provide the information and his response to her
questions was ‘I don’t know”. One way that we can analyse this approach to using information to
construct knowledge is with Kress.
Kress (2009) says that the distinction between knowledge and information is not as clear as it once
was. But the nature of the problems, he says, is different now in some ways – problems are less
predictable and less structured than they used to be and so new knowledge must be produced to use
as a tool to solve these types of ‘new’ problems. As for information, Kress says that “Information is
the material from which individuals fashion the knowledge they need” (2009, page 25). This means
that rather than an established body of knowledge there is information available that can be shaped
by individuals to solve these unpredictable problems. This is why the accessibility of information is
significant – as discussed in the focus groups – information is easily accessible through digital
technology, but applying this as knowledge becomes a process of thinking and also about solving
problems.
The example given by the year 7 teacher of the use of a problem solving approach in his Maths class
illustrates this way of gaining knowledge through accessing information as needed to solve a problem.
The information was sought by the student as she needed it to produce the knowledge about the
situation through a problem solving approach. We could say that knowledge is seen as a tool which
is shaped in specific contexts and related to the process of transforming information (Kress, 2009).
What does it take to do this? The student would need to be able to understand the relevant information
and also have the capacity to apply it to the situation. Thus there is a need for a learner to be able to
be a curator - find and organise relevant information – and be a problem solver - apply appropriate
knowledge. Jack concluded that, “She (the student) was suddenly thinking much more openly about
it and to achieve… and I don’t know if I could have achieved that learning through some of the
traditional methods that we use in the classroom…”
Textual representations of 21st century learners – Sugata Mitra TED talk
When I asked teachers at my school about 21st century learners they spoke at length about accessing
information and constructing knowledge. What was significant in the context of 21st century learning
was the use of web based resources to access the information and how the information was used to
solve problems or connect with things that the students valued and were interested in. I also asked the
teachers to identify websites, videos, books, documents or presentations that had informed their
views. Not surprisingly the resulting list was large but one text that was cited by three of the 8 teachers
which I will refer to here was the 2013 TED talk by Sugata Mitra ‘School in the Cloud’. In the brief
analysis of this text I have focussed on beliefs about 21st century learners as users of digital
technology to access information and construct knowledge through applying information to problems.
Page 114 of 487
Figure 2. Still from Sugata Mitra – School in the Cloud
Mitra spends some time in this presentation making a case for change in education. He begins his talk
with a brief history of education as a mechanism of British rule. He describes school as a machine
which produces people who are able to work in the Empire’s bureaucracy, where people had to have
identical skills – to be able to do arithmetic in their head, use a standard form of handwriting and
read. He accompanies this description of traditional education with an image from the past of students
sitting in identical poses in order to emphasise the notion of uniformity. He then contrasts this image
of education with a question about what schools should be like now that the empire has gone and now
that computers can do much of the work of the bureaucratic ‘machine’ – what is to be the future of
learning?
Figure 3. Still from Sugata Mitra – School in the Cloud
Most of the presentation concerns Mitra’s model of collaborative learning called SOLE (Self
Organised Learning Environment). This system rests on the interest of the learner and Mitra says that
curiosity and interest is essential. From that, the learner asks questions and seeks answers through the
vast information source accessed through computer or device. Learners do this together so that they
can talk about it and solve problems together. When they need to know more then they go and find
out more. In this presentation, children are represented as curious, eager to learn and be collaborative
and also highly engaged by digital technology. They are presented as able to teach themselves and
able to teach each other, with a natural ability to work together and a natural sense of wonder. When
we place these representations against other ideas about 21st century learners we can see the idea of
21st century learners working in this text to create a certain view of students. The SOLE system cannot
work without learners acting in these ways – it rests on a certain vision of children or young people
– I would argue a vision that rests on the ideas of 21st century learners.
Mitra can be seen as somewhat of a policy entrepreneur (Ball 2012). He has identified an educational
need and offers an innovative way to satisfy it. He has invested financially in the innovation and,
through mechanisms such as this TED talk, has developed networks in order to move the idea around
Page 115 of 487
on a national or global scale. What is interesting is that several of the teachers in my school have
picked up on Mitra’s ideas and applied them to their own context and in the context of my question
about 21st century learners have mentioned his talk as an influential text. The way that students and
teachers are positioned in this text can be traced into the way that these particular teachers talked
about students as 21st century learners and about themselves as teachers. And in the example given
by Jack, the Year 7 teacher we can see how Mitra’s ideas about teaching and learning, are being
adopted in the site under study. We can see how representations of students as independent learners,
users of technology, curious problem solvers are informing the pedagogical choices made by this
teacher.
Conclusion
The teachers in my school seem to understand the 21st century learner as a user of digital technology
to access information and create knowledge by applying information to contexts that they value and
are interested in. There was some resistance to use the term, 21st century learners because it was seen
as outdated by some - something used in the past to describe a future subject. Perhaps what we are
seeing here is part of a wider trend where “educators are increasingly being asked to take the future
into account” (Facer, 2013, p142). Certainly in Mitra’s TED talk we can see a focus on the future of
learning. However, in the teachers description of 21st century learners can be found their versions of
the present – consider for example the way that some teachers preferred the term contemporary
learners and the way that they referred to contemporary uses of digital technology. In these versions
of the present, we can see how stories about the future are being applied to the present in powerful
ways. It was interesting to see how the ideas about the future of learning in the TED talk, ‘School
In The Cloud’, can be traced into what the teachers said about contemporary students and education.
The next step in this project is to find out how these ways of representing students as 21st century
learners affect pedagogies adopted by these teachers in their classes – how do these ideas travel into
their practice?
References
Ball, S. (2012). Global Education Inc. New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary.
London and New York, Routledge.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond Technology. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press.
Carspecken, Phil (2001). "Critical Ethnographies from Houston: Disticntive Feature and
Directions." Critical Ethnography and Education 5: 1-26.
Facer, K (2013). "The Problem of the Future and the Possibilties of the Present in
Education Research." International Journal of Educational Research 61 (p135-143)
Green, B. and C. Bigum (1993). "Aliens in the classroom." Australian Journal of Education
37(2): 119-141.
Hanman, N. (2005). "Growing Up With The Wired Generation." The Guardian. Retrieved
29th March, 2013, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/nov/10/newmedia.media.
Knobel, M. and C. Lankshear (2008). "Remix: The Art of Endless Hybridization." Journal
of Adult and Adolescent Literacy 52(1): 22-33.
Page 116 of 487
Kress, G. (2008). "Meaning and learning in a world of instablility and multiplicity." Studies
of Philosophy of Education 27: 253-266.
Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary
communication. New York, Routledge.
Kupiainen, R. (2013). Media and Digital Literacies in Secondary School. New York, Peter
Lang Publishing.
Lankshear, C. and M. Knobel (2011). New Literacies: Everday Practice And Social
Learning. New York, Open University Press.
Mitra, S (2013). "School In The Cloud".
https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud
Nesbitt, B. (2007) A Vision of K-12 Students Today.
Prensky, M. (2001). "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants." On The Horizon. 9:5
Prensky, M. (2005). ""Engage me or enrage me": What today's learners demand." Educause
Review 40(5): 60-65.
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired; Understanding the igeneration and the way they learn. New
York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Schwartz, K. (2013). Remixing Melville: Moby Dick Meets the Digital Generation.
Mindshift, KQED. 2013.
Selwyn, N. (2003). "Schooling the Mobile Generation: the future for schools in the mobile
networked society." British Journal of Sociology in Education 24(2): 131-144.
Williams, C., S. Gannon, et al. (2013) A genealogy of the ‘future’: antipodean trajectories
and travels of the ‘21st century learner'. Journal of Education Policy
DOI:10.1080/02680939.2013.776117
Page 117 of 487
STUDENTS ONLINE DURING MATHEMATICS CLASS
John Dekkers
Central Queensland University, Noosa, Queensland.
Maria Mojica-Casey
Central Queensland University, Noosa, Queensland.
Rose-Marie Thrupp
Central Queensland University Noosa, Queensland.
Abstract
Effective teaching occurs when teachers know their students and design for learning stems
from this knowledge. Some of this knowledge is available from the students themselves.
This study was undertaken by a secondary teacher, Maria Mojica-Casey, who recognized
that Year 8 students are very capable of communicating, in particular, their understanding
about their learning and their classroom environments. The study was designed to give
voice to this understanding with regard to the use of ICT in the mathematics classroom.
A primary focus of the research was to capture the dimensions of learning by encouraging
students to tap into their feelings and ideas about going online during mathematics class.
Seven constructs were generated from the words and phrases used by the students, namely,
usefulness, empowerment, sociability, differentiated learning, visual aspects, student
communication, and teacher role.
The findings in the research inform contemporary practices to engage students generally
and specifically, to deepen engagement of students in learning mathematics. This paper
provides an opportunity for teachers to consider that which guides students’ choices to
engage or participate, reflections about and connections with ICT in learning.
Of importance in the thoughts of most teachers in western societies is the challenge of using
Information Communication Technology (ICT) to the benefit of learners and learning. This challenge
changes in nature as the technology develops continuously and quickly. It is a most tiring challenge,
especially for those teachers who have confronted the challenge since its infancy in Queensland in
the 1980s. Most importantly in this challenge is the use of ICT for the benefit of youth and learning,
as opposed to simply using ICT to appear to engage with contemporary practices. Specifically, the
contemporary challenge is the online environment.
Crucial to discussions of this nature is the realization that much of the ICT used in classrooms is
developed for business or by companies, outside of education, seeking to introduce their products in
schools. Therein, the challenges for teachers have developed:
1.
How can ICT be adapted to education for the benefit of learning?
2.
How beneficial to education are those ICT developed for education?
Answers to both questions revolve around the motivations of teachers to:
1.
2.
3.
use their knowledge of students and learning
critically view ICT
be creative in their design of learning environments that incorporate ICT.
Despite a teacher’s perspective on ICT for learning, she/he still engages with these challenges; some
with a positive lens and others with a negative or dismissive lens. The perspectives of teachers have
been researched extensively. A search of the literature suggests that the perspectives of students have
not received as much attention.
Page 118 of 487
Therein lies the purpose of this paper, to explore the role of ICT in learning from students’
perspectives. Often, teachers evaluate ICT or the role of ICT in learning from their professional
perspective. This paper considers ICT use from a student perspective as advocated by a number of
researchers. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Lynch & Smith, 2006) Furthermore, the terms, class and
classroom are used interchangeably with the term learning environment, on the assumption that the
classroom needs to be a learning environment in which pedagogy assures learning for all students.
In an endeavour to confront the challenge of ICT in learning in a contemporary context, this
Queensland mathematics teacher researched use of ICT in the mathematics classroom using the
perspectives of her middle-years students. The findings presented here are part of a larger doctoral
study into the online environment.
In this paper, the views of students on using online environments in their learning are examined. The
study is explained briefly, to provide the context for the capture of the views of students. Student
responses to blogs and focus group discussions are then analysed and implications outlined.
Background to the Study
Professional dialogue with colleagues provided the stimulus for the study. The result was the
inspiration to the main author of this paper to dig deeply into the benefits of her classroom practices
within the online environment. As a mathematics teacher of some years, blogs and reusable learning
objects frequently form part of the design of the learning environment for middle years students in
her mathematics classrooms. The study investigated perceptions of and attitudes to using ICT. It was
her goal to identify feedback for her own practices and contribute to dialogue for teachers.
The design of the study focused in the importance of students’ views. The study developed a students
about students and students about learning and teaching approach. Observations of students before
and after class and in the playground identified their fluent use of some technology such as their
phones. From this, the study was designed on the assumption that students in the early years of
secondary school know about themselves, and their expectations of and the outcomes of using ICTbased environments.
The Study
The research reported here is a component of a doctoral thesis that sought to study students’
perspectives on the use of ICTs in a mathematics class as designed by their teacher, using analysis of
only some data from the data collected for the purposes of a doctoral candidature. It sought to describe
or characterise ICT use in mathematics learning environments. In striving to do this, students and
student voice and particular ICT were identified as key aspects of design for the research.
The following research questions frame the research of which part is being reported in this paper:
Research question 1: What particular aspects dominate student online experiences during maths
class?
Research question 2: How do students perceive relationships amongst themselves and with teachers
when online during maths class?
Central to the study’s intent was the use of ICT. In this case, the ICT considered had to be available
to most teachers; both readily available and easy for teachers to use and manage. Consequently the
study focused on teaching practices already in use at the school where the study took place and
therefore, included online environments such as blogs, reusable learning objects and online textbooks.
These are readily available ICT artefacts, identifiable in many Australian secondary schools and also
available to students.
Page 119 of 487
A further aspect of the learning environment was the students. As the users of the online
environments, students and their interactions in this environment needed to be at the heart of the
study. This is the insight being sought. Teachers need to know how the stimulus for engagement is
provided by ICT and how engagement with mathematics through ICT happens in ways that enable
learning. This paper reports on the perspectives of students of their experiences using ICT and their
engagement. Consequently, the study was designed to hear the student voice. It is posited that Year
8 students are capable of clearly representing their ideas and view both orally and in writing such that
credible data is available. (Appleton, Heldsinger, Hunt, & Thrupp, 2005, Attard, 2010, Thrupp, 2008)
To this end, data were collected from seventy-nine Year 8 students using blog comments, open-ended
questions and opinionaires and from small focus group interviews.
Given these aspects as critical points identified by the researcher, a search of the literature identified
limited research considering ICT use in mathematics learning and in hearing student perspectives.
Most of that which is available reflected the teacher perspective (Goos & Bennison, 2008; Guerrero,
2010). Research of mathematics practices using ICTs can be categorised as follows:
 the characteristics and effectiveness of specific ICT applications and their capacity for
enhancing student mathematical understanding (Akpinar, 2010).
 student usability and critiques of reusable learning objects (Freebody, Freebody, McRae &
Muspratt, 2006; Haughey, 2005; McGehee & Griffith, 2004).
 the design of interactive student and mathematics class learning environments (Ilomaki,
Lakkala &Paavola, 2006).
 the use of blogs for learning mathematics (Pyon, 2008).
These studies are of importance to this study in that while there is similarity in aspects of the content
of these studies, these studies took a teacher perspective. This study views similar topics to these
studies but chose to follow the direction of Freebody, Freebody, McRae and Muspratt (2006, p. 14)
who suggested that, “students’ comments have significance for developers and for teachers using
digital learning objects (LOs) in their classrooms.” The position taken here and by Loong, Doig and
Groves (2010) is that these comments have the potential to impact upon effective learning with ICT.
Consequently, this study combines the perspectives of the latter researchers with the work completed
by the earlier categories of research to provide a different perspective on ICT in the classroom.
Furthermore, it is posited that, though this study was completed in the context of mathematics due to
the teaching role of the researcher, that findings may be considered in the light of other subject areas.
Analysis
The purpose of the analysis was to identify the characteristics of online environments according to
students. Data used for the purposes of this paper consisted of posts to blogs and text from focus
group discussions. See Table 1. Posts to blogs designed by the teacher, captured discussion about
maths between students and between student and teacher, captured student's perceptions and opinions
of mathematics. All pages were archived and analysed for descriptions, identifications of trends and
interrelationships as they relate to each of the research questions. Blog data was used to obtain details
as well as real life samples of what and how students communicate and interact whilst online in a
maths lesson. Focus group data provided the opportunity for students to share their ideas, experiences,
and attitudes as well as consider those of their peers about going online to do mathematics during
class time. It was intended that students discuss perceptions about experiences during mathematics
class in an online context, the roles of mathematics learning objects, blogs, textbooks and other digital
mathematics related media. In addition consideration in the discussion was to be given to how their
usage of computers during class time affects the student-student and student-teacher relationship.
Page 120 of 487
Table 1: Summary of data collections
RQs addressed
Data source/ method
Data collected
RQ 1 & RQ 2
Student Maths
Opinionnaires
(Qualitative)
Open-ended comments about student opinion of: their
online experiences using maths-blogs, maths reusable
learning objects and textbooks online.
RQ1 & RQ2
Student Maths
Opinionnaires
(Quantitative)
Opinionnaires using Likert scales to explore student use of
maths-blogs, maths reusable learning objects and
textbooks online.
RQ1 & RQ2
Posts to maths blogs
Samples of communication by students amongst
themselves and with their teacher whilst posting comments
on pages of the maths blogs.
RQ1 & RQ2
Focus groups
Student reflections about:

data uncovered in the opinionnaires

their experiences using maths blogs, maths
reusable

learning objects and textbooks online
their interaction with their teacher during class.
Posts and interview comments were analysed to identify trends and interrelationships to identify
themes, from which constructs were established. NVivo, computer software for analysing text, was a
key tool in the process of analysis to which labels were added by the researcher. The constructs are
ordered according to prevalence in the analysis as follows: usefulness, empowerment, sociability,
teacher interaction, differentiated learning and youth culture. There is a clear distinction between the
first two constructs and the latter five constructs.
The first two constructs (usefulness and empowerment) were identified from 56% of the data. The
most significant aspect dominating student online experiences during mathematics class was the
construct of usefulness, comprising over 36% of the data coded. The constructs are defined from the
comments. A selection of comments from each data set is included to demonstrate the basis from
which the construct was identified. Constructs are constructed from positive and negative
perspectives. Comments in italics are those of students.
Usefulness is defined as convenience and practicality in the use of computers during mathematics
lessons online. ICT were considered useful when actions and events were repeatable, for example,
being able to repeat the reusable learning objects (RLOs), knowing you are right or wrong straight
away and having no books to carry. Aspects of usefulness were further elaborated in comments such
as This link is loading too slow. I think the blog is a waste of time because it gives you the questions
but doesn't really tell you how to answer anything. These indicate that ICT are not always useful
when consideration is given to functional difficulties. For example, concerns were expressed about
usefulness being influenced by slow connection speeds, flat batteries and bad keyboards and loading
times.
Empowerment refers to a feeling of control or of freedom to work and experiences of independence
and self-confidence with ICT during class. The words control, independence and freedom were the
words of the students as in evidence in the following examples. We are more in control of our
learning. When you do things independently you get more confidence to do it by yourself. The concept
of control was further elaborated in this example, You can forget what the teacher says but on the
computer it is always there for you. The idea of independence was embedded in this example: You
can work it out yourself instead of having to ask a question in the first place. The idea of selfconfidence is further elaborated within this data; Through the school year you can learn a lot more
and do a lot more.
Page 121 of 487
These dominant constructs show students as thinking critically about ICT, their usefulness and their
role. Students compare both negative and positive aspects. However, it is evident that students readily
associate the online environment with opportunity for learning and wasting time. Students balance
some of the irritating characteristics within the usefulness construct with the extended learning made
available by the online environment, for example, you can work it out yourself. The student
perceptions outline a role for the student as the person responsible for learning. The ability to initiate
and direct learning from a variety of sources is recognised as a characteristic of the online
environment.
Furthermore, there is evidence of constructing an identity as a learner. Comments such as you can
forget what the teacher says but on the computer it is always there for you indicates a level of
metalearning. Students learn the ways by which they learn to facilitate future access to information
when needed. They perceive that information is no longer limited by the words of the teacher but can
be enriched and extended by online access and access to peers. The role of motivation is evident in
comments such as through the school year you can learn a lot more and do a lot more; the identity
of students who want to learn.
Both constructs are aspects of knowing the contemporary student as the basis for designing learning
in the classroom. (Lynch & Smith, 2006) Teachers establish an understanding of their students by
talking to them about how they view the usefulness of ICT in the classroom and view ways in which
ICT can be useful in engagement and participation (Freebody, Freebody, McRae & Muspratt, 2006).
In this way, teacher decision-making about ICT in learning is further informed to manage learning in
ways that align with their students.
The latter five constructs were identified with far less frequency than the first two, in particular the
last two constructs, visual aspects and youth culture. The perception of students is that the teacher
continues to play a vital role within a classroom environment in association with an online component.
The role of the teacher is evident in the constructs, namely, teacher interaction, sociability and
differentiated learning. Students identified a role of less direct, whole class instruction and more
interactive, side-by-side, one-on-one focused learning. There is a clear perspective that the online
environment enables teachers to vary both type and quantity of interaction dependent on student
requirements. Students are defining an environment in which all students are working and the teacher
focuses attention on identified students when necessary, with the intent of specifically scaffolding
learning for that student. The input of the teacher is necessary in supporting learning and
understanding of mathematics during online lessons.
Teacher interaction describes teacher presence to assist learning, offer support and or add input during
online mathematics lessons. The following comments identify both the role and worth of teacher
presence and the way in which that teacher presence is useful: We want the teacher around so they
can come to you when you want them. It is a bit easier if you have the teacher right there beside you.
Teachers act different in lessons using ICT because the focus is off of them. The teachers are more
lenient they are more relaxed.
Sociability was defined as greater autonomy with fellow students to communicate with one another,
friendliness of their teacher and having fun or emphasising camaraderie when using computers to
learn mathematics. This data identifies a range of ways in which social practices differ in a classroom
where an online learning environment is being used, including student-student interaction, studentdirection, and positive attitude. While we were on the computer I said, Let’s do our homework and
we did it. Using computers in the mathematics lessons helps us learn in a fun way. Time passes
quicker. The lesson is interesting. The lesson is cool. However, for some students there is an aspect
of anti-sociability; When you’re on the computer you're kind of locked into it without socialising with
anyone.
That students respond differently to online environments and have different needs when engaging in
online environments in evident in these comments. I'm a visual person and doing mathematics online
Page 122 of 487
is a lot of visual. I find I work better on computers. I can concentrate better on the computer.
Computers extend my understanding. More of a variety. Using the computer is more fun than just
copying what the teacher tells us to write. I do better work now. It is too hard by myself. On computers
you are going as fast or slow as you want to. When the teacher is going slower/faster than you, you
can learn however you need. If some people are slow in your class it gets annoying and you look out
the windows. These comments formed the basis of the construct: Differentiated learning. This
construct identifies the opportunity provided by ICTs to work at a pace or in ways consistent with
their mathematical abilities. Combined with the next construct, visual aspects, there is cause to
consider how the information about students is used; to design learning that is the same for all students
at one time or the need to design different approaches to the same learning for different students.
Though the following data are not as strong as for other constructs, the range of data readily identifies
the ‘look’ as an aspect of motivation for engagement. (Freebody, Freebody, McRae & Muspratt,
2006) Visual aspects refers to the ‘look’ of online learning during mathematics class. It is better than
a teacher doing it all on the board. I like the bright colours. Our textbook colours are faded. You can
read the instruction over again. The pictures and diagrams are more clear. I like the zoom. Diagrams
on the computer are easier to follow than the textbook. My textbook is full of graffiti and is worn out.
It is easier to follow the pronumerals when they are the same colour. The computer holds my focus.
You’re locked into the computer screen better than when looking at a hard copy of the textbook. These
comments on visual aspects are particularly pertinent to inform the teacher and designers that students
are clear on the range of elements makes them comfortable and more likely to learn. (Freebody,
Freebody, McRae & Muspratt, 2006; Loong, Doig & Groves, 2010)
The last construct, student culture, speaks most directly of contemporary times. (Gee, 2000) Students
see ICT as an aspect of the second decade of the twenty-first century. In so doing, the data suggests
student culture as the adoption of ICT for and by young people or when participants critiqued adult
usage or participation. We get to learn how we want. Lets student use something they know how to
use. We get to do what we enjoy and are used to doing. Teachers have their own way and if you don't
understand their way you kind of suck. They (adults) don't use it as much. We learn how to do it
easier. Computers make it a less old- fashioned classroom. We try more stuff and new stuff on
computers. Computers belong to young people. We are like the technology age so we like it. Once
again, however, the strength of this construct is limited due to the quantity of data to support it.
In conclusion, the regularity with which words such as learn are used, indicates that students recognise
that the purpose of the online environment in the classroom is for learning. There is evidence that
students know about learning, barriers to learning and factors that enhance learning. In addition, there
are some ideas that attempt to define learning. In these cases, learning is defined as figuring things
out for oneself, going to a range of sources, reviewing many times and sometimes taking time to go
more slowly. This view of learning was elaborated upon with learning being viewed as more than
regurgitating or just copying what the teacher tells you to write. From the findings, it is possible to
posit that online learning is seen by students as an appropriate environment for learning and learning
is seen as an activity that is their own and happens differently for different people. (Lynch & Smith,
2006) Students have shown that they can talk about learning in ways familiar to teachers. (Mishra &
Koehler, 2010)
Both the roles of the learner and the teacher in an online environment were evident. Perceptions of
interactions of students with ICT, students with students, students with the teacher and teachers with
ICT were evident in the data. There is a perception that the roles of learner and teacher interact
actively and that an online environment influences the nature of the interactions. Some students
expressed a view on how the online environment best functions to facilitate learning. Furthermore,
some perception of the difference between classrooms without ICT and classrooms with ICT exists.
Students identified many aspects of the learning environment that involve online learning. In so doing,
it is clear that there are negative and positive aspects. Furthermore, aspects defined by the constructs
are not of equal importance to them; usefulness being very important and the fact that it is an aspect
Page 123 of 487
of contemporary culture being of minimal importance. The findings must now be considered in the
context of and the structure of the learning environment.
Conclusions
Though these data represent only partial data collection for the study, this section of the data provides
much that is worthwhile to teachers in the contemporary classroom. While the data represented here
only partially answers the two research questions, it does go some way to doing so. In identifying the
aspects that dominate student online experiences during maths class from the data, it becomes clear
that students value usefulness and empowerment when judging the worth of ICT in their online
learning. Furthermore, they perceive the teacher-student and student-student relationships integral to
working online during maths class though different to learning without ICT. The constructs of teacher
interaction, sociability, differentiation, and student culture, though of far less consequence than
usefulness and empowerment, demonstrate that students consider the socio-cultural aspects of the
online learning environment as elements of the learning environment. Visual aspects of the learning
environment are a construct seen as an element of online experiences, but not of much consequence.
The constructs do not fall neatly into answering the research questions. Rather, it can be seen that
usefulness and empowerment are closely related to aspects that dominate the experience. Constructs
such as teacher interaction, sociability, differentiation and student culture provide insight into both
questions while visual aspects relates more closely to online experiences. These contributions form
two categories: firstly, aspects that impact on student online experiences during mathematics class
and secondly, perceived relationships amongst students and with teachers when online during
mathematics class.
These two categories are used to organise statements that capture the key understandings that have
their origins in the findings:
A. aspects that impact on student online experiences during mathematics class
1. Students value control in their learning environment and that the learning
environment has connections with that with which they are familiar. (Construct:
empowerment)
2. Students identify learning as the purpose of using online learning
environments. (Construct: usefulness)
3. Students are pragmatic about ICT usage in classroom learning. (Construct: usefulness.
They readily weigh up the negative and the positive of using ICT.)
B. perceived relationships amongst students and with teachers when online during mathematics
class:
1. Students value the integration of human interactions and online environments in a
learning environment and recognize the contribution of both to the learning of
mathematics.
2. Students outline the difference in the nature of teacher-student interactions in an online
environment and the capacity for teachers to interact with different students in different
ways.
Implications
The findings of the research suggest that students are able to enunciate clearly their perceptions about
learning, learning environments and ICT. (Appleton, Heldsinger, Hunt & Thrupp, 2005, Attard, 2010,
Thrupp, 2008) The way students explain the use of online learning environments corresponds with
those aspects of the learning environment of importance to teachers; a place where learning occurs
for as many students as possible and a context in which students are motivated to learn. The results
demonstrate that middle years students want to learn with their teachers but in online environments
where it is useful and worthwhile. Consequently, collaborative discussion between teacher and
Page 124 of 487
students can provide input to future planning. Students and teachers work together to design useful
online learning environments. This design process has two components: the ICT and the teacher role.
Students want to use ICT when its use is designed in a way that promotes learning; suggesting that if
the use of ICT that does not align with what needs to be learned, it will be viewed of little value by
students. Teachers need to design their role as a key component of any online environment; interacting
and supporting use of the online artefact. Students expect that these interactions will differ in nature
with the teacher moving from student to student, interacting in ways that match with the student’s
needs, both with the software and with mathematics. Finally, though of least importance, students
view learning embedded with ICT to be consistent with their times. Students may consider
mathematics learning environments without ICT as not contemporary, thereby affecting attitudes to
learning.
From the foregoing, a key classroom practice is identifiable from this study, namely, the practice of
teachers and students working together to define and construct learning environments that effectively
make the most of the benefits of ICT.
It is possible to envisage teachers and students in two-way conversation that informs the design of
the learning environment for the next unit of work. For example, in co- planning, students and
teachers discuss what learning needs to occur and together identify ways by which this can happen
effectively for as many students as possible. Another approach is student and teachers reflecting
together on the effectiveness of a learning environment in a past unit of work; thus providing the
teacher with student ideas and opinions that may be useful for planning in the next unit of work.
Conclusion
This paper provides an opportunity to consider that which guides students’ choices about engagement
and participation and reflections about connecting with mathematics learning by using ICT. This
study provides directions for teachers to adapt ICT to education in ways that promote learning and
provides ways by which teachers can make decisions about the benefits to education of those ICT
developed for education. It provides for an understanding that co-planning with students for learning
has potential as an approach to learning design appropriate for contemporary learners. It is this coplanning that provides for critical viewing of particular ICT artefacts as to their worth and for design
of use of ICT artefacts in ways that are useful to learning. Knowing students through dialogue about
learning in an online environment has the potential to take the guess-work out of the design for the
use of these environments. In so doing, it informs teacher decisions about design of learning
environments for mathematics learning.
In essence, this study has provided two models. Firstly, it has modelled an approach for students and
teachers working together to design learning environments that suit the learning requirements of both
curriculum and students. It demonstrates that students do have perspectives about their learning, how
it best happens and that they are ready and able to discuss it. Secondly, it provides a set of constructs
to support teacher design of the use of ICT for learning. In using these constructs, teachers can make
informed decisions about the learning environment they create when designing for learning, with ICT.
Now, learning is personal.
References
Akpinar, Y. (2008). Improving children’s learning of science and mathematics through
contextualized learning objects.
Retrieved from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xofnw0KgIkJ:ietc2008.home.anadolu.edu.tr/ietc2008/231.doc+Improving+chlidren”s+learning+of+s
cience+
and+mathematics+through+contextualized+learning+objects&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au.
Page 125 of 487
Appleton, K., Hunt, J., Thrupp, R., & Heldsinger, D. (2006). Information communication
technologies uptake and usage by primary-aged students. Queensland: Central Queensland
University.
Attard, C. (2010). Students' experiences of mathematics during the transition from primary to
secondary school. Paper presented at 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research
Group of Australasia. Freemantle: MERGA.
Beastall, L. (2008). Enchanting a disenchanted child: Revolutionizing the means of education using
information and communication technology and e-learning. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 27(1), 97–110.
Freebody, P., Freebody, K., McRae, D., & Muspratt, S. (2006). New curricular ways with new
technologies: The Le@rning Federation’s learning objects arrive in classrooms. Professional
Educator, 5(2), 14–17.
Gee, J. (2000). New people in new worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and schools. In B. Cope. &
M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social future. (pp. 43-64).
Melbourne: Macmillan Australia.
Goos, M. & Bennison, A. (2008). Surveying the technology landscape; teachers’ use of technology
in secondary mathematics classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 102-130.
Haughey, M. (2005). Evaluating learning objects for schools. E-Journal of Instructional Science and
Technology, 8(1) Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/ejist/docs/vol8_no1/fullpapers/eval_learnobjects_school.htm
IIomaki, L., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (2006). Case studies of learning objects used in school
settings. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(3), 249-267.
Lynch, D & Smith, R (2006). 'The learning management design process. In R Smith & D Lynch (eds),
The rise of the learning manager: changing teacher education, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs
Forest, NSW, pp. 53-67.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for
Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record. 108 (6). 1017–1054
Loong, E., Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2010). Students' and teachers' use of ICT in primary mathematics.
2010: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Conference of the Mathematical Association of Victoria, pp.
99-106, Mathematical Association of Victoria, Melbourne, Vic.
McGehee, J. & Griffith, L. (2004). Technology enhances student learning across the curriculum.
Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(6), 344-349.
Thrupp, R. (2008). Social groups and information communication technologies: Exploring primaryaged learners’ identities. Rockhampton: CQUniversity.
Page 126 of 487
INVESTIGATING 3-5 YEAR-OLD’S PARENTS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARDS USE OF IPAD
Leigh Disney
Gretchen Geng
School of Education, Charles Darwin University
Abstract:
This paper investigated 3 – 5 year old children’s parents’ attitudes towards use of iPad in
Child Care Centres. A survey was used and eighty parents participated in this study. The
major findings include most of the parents agreed that Apps designed for preschool
educational purposes was indeed assistive of children’s learning, and the most
participating parents thought that use of educational media could be used to teach
literacy, numeracy, science, and art. However, they did not agree that educational media
could be used to teach physical education. Moreover, it shows that the most parents
thought that use of educational media could be used for children’s cognitive development,
fine motor skills development and language development. However, they did not agree
that educational media could be used for children’s social development and gross motor
skills development. Early childhood educators and parents may find this paper useful
about the use of iPad in early childhood settings.
Parents and Use of iPad
The role of educational media, such as use of iPad, in the current early childhood educational
environment is becoming more prevalent and accepted in terms of being a mainstream pedagogical
tool. In their book, Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives, Palfrey and
Gasser (2008) describe that currently we are undergoing the most rapid technological transformation
in terms of information. Children are being born into a digital age where by how they gather and
interpret information will be different to previous generations, including their parents. In order to
effectively educate the ‘digital child’ parents need to address their own attitudes towards use of iPad
and how the technological advancements fit within their comprehension of children and the concept
of early childhood (Palfrey & Gasser, 2008).
Within the new digital age, parents have access to and are allowing children to be exposed to a wider
variety of educational media alternatives, such as iPad, to enhance and build on children’s experiences
and develop their own pedagogical practices (Colker, 2011). Historically used educational media
devices such as television and standard desktop/laptop computers still have a prevalent place in
children’s homes and educational settings (Blackwell, Lauricella, Wartella, Robb & Schomburg,
2013). However there are multiple issues when using such devices with preschool aged children;
television is a passive/one way communication device (Rosen & Jaruszewicz, 2009) which is opposite
to the play based active learning promoted by early childhood educators (Fleer, 2013). Desktop
computers are problematic in terms of children’s fine motor control when using a standard
mouse/keyboard setup. Therefore a device that uses a gestural interface such as that of an iPad suits
the developmental characteristics of active engagement coupled with developmentally appropriate
fine motor controls (Siegle, 2013).
With growing curricula expectations that educational media, such as iPad, become a part of
mainstream pedagogy, combined with the fall in price of technological products, has led to a
proliferation of educational media alternatives being brought to the attention of children (Fleer, 2011).
According to Jay Blanchard (2010) and Scooter et al. (2001), cited in Shoukry (2013), there are a
perceived number of benefits of educational media for children, this includes improved: cognitive
and social development; self-concept and attitudes to learning; spoken communication and
cooperation; leadership skills and interactional opportunities; visual attention and processing speed.
Page 127 of 487
But not all parents are welcoming of the integration of educational media and the ensuing
technologies into early childhood settings. Furthermore, there is an undercurrent that educational
media, particularly technological products are drastically altering the landscape of early childhood to
its detriment (Plowman, McPake & Stephen, 2010).
There are a variety of reasons that parents, children’s first educators, will have differing views about
the role and value of screen based media in early childhood education. The Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (as cited in Blackwell et al., 2013) explains that four
major constructs influence people’s use with technology: performance expectancy (will the
technology achieve what I want it to achieve), effort expectancy (how easy is it to use the technology),
social influence (how do other people in the same situation use technology) and facilitating conditions
(will I get help to use and access the technology). In this case it is the parent who is deciding wether
the technology is suitable for use with their children. Hence, before parents allow their children to be
exposed to new forms of technology need to decide if the technology will assist the child’s learning
(performance expectancy), be easily useable given the developmental characteristics of the child and
my own understanding of the technology (effort expectancy), gauge how and why other
parents/educators use technology (social influence), and if they will be supported in terms of access
and understanding of how to use the technology (facilitating conditions).
Therefore, this paper investigated 3-5 year old children’s parents’ opinions about the use of iPad in
early childhood education from the following areas: (a) parents’ knowledge about Apps, (b) Attitudes
towards Apps designed for preschool educational purposes are indeed assistive of children’s
learning, (c) Attitudes towards the use of touch screen devices for pre-schoolers, (d) Attitudes towards
the use of educational media for teaching literacy, numeracy, science, art and physical education, and
(e) Attitudes towards the use of educational media for children’s development in the domains of
cognitive development, gross motor skills development, fine motor skills development, language
development, and social development.
Method
A survey was used and eighty parents participated in this study. As Gay and Airasian (2003) and
Leedy and Ormrod (2005) stated that survey research involved acquiring information about one
people or a group of people. Their characteristics, options, attitudes, or previous experiences were
asked through questions and their answers were analysed. The purpose of a survey research was to
learn about a population by surveying a sample of the population. The intention of the surveys for the
present study was to investigate the attitudes from parents. The research instrument for the survey for
parents was developed after analysing the responses from the parents from the pilot study. Out of the
80 parents, 59 (73.8%) were female, and 21 (26.3%) were males. The age range was from 26 to 50
years old, with 7.5% being 26-30 years old, 28.8% being 31-35 years old, 51.3% being 36-40 years
old, 10% being above 41 years old. Forty parents were from South Australia and forty parents were
from Northern Territory.
The questionnaire survey was administrated with the assistance from the child care centres. The
survey was conducted from May to September, 2012. Survey instruments, in hard copy, were handed
out to the participants and collected from the participants later with the assistance from the child care
centres.
Data were transcribed, entered and the researcher took approximately 4 weeks to enter all the written
answers into the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), and spent another week to confirm all
the data were entered correctly. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS) and alpha was set at 0.05 for purpose of the present study.
Page 128 of 487
Results
Parents’ skills of using technology
All the parents used technology at home, and their skills of using technology were presented, using a
5-point scale (1 = novice user, and 5 = expert user).
According to their self-reports, 3 parents (3.8%) rated themselves 2, 42 (52.5%) parents rated
themselves 3, 20 parents (25.0%) rated themselves 4, and 15 parents (18.8%) rated themselves 5 (see
Figure 5.2). The mean of the 80 parents was 3.49 (see Table 1). This variable was referred as parents’
skills of using technology.
Table 1
Means and SD of parents’ skills of using technology
Parents’ self-rated skills of using technology
Mean
SD
N
3.49
.84
80
Knowledge about Apps
Parents’ confidence of knowing Apps was also rated on a 3 point scale : 1= I don’t know what an
App is, 2 = I have heard what an App is, but I’m not totally sure, and 3 = I am very confident that I
know what an App is. It was found all the participating parents knew Apps to a degree, with 87.5%
choosing they were very confident about what an App was.
Attitudes towards Apps designed for preschool educational purposes are indeed
assistive of children’s learning
The participating parents were asked to rate their agreement level towards whether apps designed for
preschool educational purposes is indeed assistive of children’s learning, on a 5 point scale: 1=
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
It was found that most of the parents agreed that Apps designed for preschool educational purposes
was indeed assistive of children’s learning, µ = 3.79, σ = 0.87 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Parents’ attitudes towards Apps designed for preschool educational purposes
are indeed assistive of children’s learning devices (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Attitudes towards the use of touch screen devices for pre-schoolers
Page 129 of 487
This section firstly reports the parents’ opinions towards the use of touch screen devices, then it
presents their knowledge about Apps and the usefulness of Apps designed for preschool educational
purposes. Detailed reasons of their opinions are also reported.
It was found that most of parents thought use of touch screen devices were appropriate for preschool
age children, µ = 3.55, σ = 1.12 (see Figure 2).
Figur 2. Parents’ attitudes towards Use of touch screen devices (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).
Twenty-seven (27) out of the 80 parents also presented reasons for their attitudes towards the use of
touch screen devices. The reasons were categorised as following, and the number in brackets
represents the frequencies of the factors.
Reason 1: children’s age (3)
Reason 2: being unfamiliar with technology (2)
Reason 3: children’ daily use (3)
Reason 4: children’s communication and interaction (3)
Reason 5: easy use of screen (8)
Reason 6: children’s enjoyment (4)
Reason 7: educational use (5)
Reason 8: use as a reward (1)
Reason 9: useful for children’s development (2)
Reason 10: life-long learning for children (3)
Table 1 shows an example of the parent’s response to the question “Do you agree that touch screen
devices, such as Apple’s iPad, Sony’s Tablet S or Samsung’s Galaxy Tab are appropriate for use by
children aged 3 to 4 years of age? Please explain your reasons why?”. The parent’s response “Young
children… “ was categorised into Reason 1, as “Young” matched the classification. Moreover,
“…find direct contact easier to control. Get frustrated with conventional screen” was categorised
into Reason 8, as “easier to control” and “screen” was categorised into Reason 8.
Page 130 of 487
Table 1
An example of parent’s response “Do you agree that touch screen devices, such
as Apple’s iPad, Sony’s Tablet S or Samsung’s Galaxy Tab are appropriate for use
by children aged 3 to 4 years of age? Please explain your reasons why?”
Question: Do you agree that touch screen devices, such as Apple’s iPad, Sony’s Tablet S or Samsung’s
Galaxy Tab are appropriate for use by children aged 3 to 4 years of age? Please explain
your reasons why
Parent #4: Young children (Reason 1) find direct contact easier to control (Reason 8). Get frustrated
with conventional screen (Reason 8).
Interpretation: This table illustrates categorises Reasons 1, and 8.
Attitudes towards the use of educational media for teaching literacy, numeracy,
science, art and physical education
This section reports the participants’ parents’ attitudes towards the use of educational media for
teaching literacy, numeracy, science, art and physical education.
Table 2 shows that the most parents thought that use of educational media could be used to teach
literacy, numeracy, science, and art. However, they did not agree that educational media could be
used to teach physical education.
Table 2 Parents’ opinions about the use of educational media teaching literacy,
numeracy, science, art and physical education (Means)




numeracy/mathematics
literacy/language
science
art

physical education
Mean
4.19
4.13
3.60
SD
0.73
0.64
0.84
N
80
80
80
3.45
1.03
80
2.30
1.00
80
Note: (a) The means were presented in order, from highest to lowest using a 5 point scale anchored (1=
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). (b) A repeated measures
ANOVA on the above means revealed a significant effect, F (4, 316) = 112.06, p <.01.
Table 3 presents the percentages of parents’ opinions attitudes towards the use of educational media
for teaching literacy, numeracy, science, art and physical education. It was found that more than half
of the parents agree that use of educational media could be used to teach numeracy/mathematics
(86.3%), literacy/language (87.6%), science (63.8%), and art (57.6%). It was also noted that most the
parents (57.5%) did not think use of educational media could be used in teaching physical education.
Page 131 of 487
Table 3
Parents’ opinions about the use of educational media teaching literacy, numeracy,
science, art and physical education (percentages)




numeracy/mathematics
literacy/language
science
art

physical education
1
0
0
1.3
2
2.5
1.3
11.0
3
11.3
11.3
25.0
4
51.3
61.3
55.0
5
35.0
26.3
8.8
5.0
13.8
23.8
46.3
11.3
25.0
32.5
31.3
10.0
1.3
Note: (a) All above figures represents percentages within each item.
(b) 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree
Attitudes towards the use of educational media for children’s development in the
domains of cognitive development, gross motor skills development, fine motor skills
development, language development, and social development
This section reports the participants’ parents’ attitudes towards the use of educational media for
children’s development in the domains of cognitive development, gross motor skills development,
fine motor skills development, language development, and social development.
Table 4 shows that the most parents thought that use of educational media could be used for children’s
cognitive development, fine motor skills development and language development. However, they did
not agree that educational media could be used for children’s social development and gross motor
skills development.
Table 4
Parents’ opinions about the use of educational media for children’s development in
the domains of cognitive development, gross motor skills development, fine motor
skills development, language development, and social development (Means)




cognitive development
fine motor skills development
language development
social development

gross motor skills development
Mean
4.21
3.93
3.46
SD
0.88
0.90
0.90
N
80
80
80
2.45
0.94
80
2.01
0.96
80
Note: (a) The means were presented in order, from highest to lowest using a 5 point scale anchored (1=
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). (b) A repeated measures
ANOVA on the above means revealed a significant effect, F (4, 316) = 142.33, p <.01.
Table 5 presents the percentages of parents’ attitudes towards the use of educational media for
children’s development in the domains of cognitive development, gross motor skills development,
fine motor skills development, language development, and social development. It was found that
more than half of the parents agree that use of educational media could be used in the domains of
cognitive development (83.8%), fine motor skills development (76.3%), and language development
Page 132 of 487
(58.8%). It was also noted that most the parents did not think use of educational media could be used
in the domain of children’s gross motor skills development (73.8%) and social development (57.6%).
Table 5 Parents’ opinions about the use of educational media for children’s
development in the domains of cognitive development, gross motor skills
development, fine motor skills development, language development, and social
development (percentages)
1
1.3
2.5
2.5
2
3.8
3.8
13.8
3
11.3
17.5
25.0
4
40.0
51.3
52.5
5
43.8
25.0
6.3




cognitive development
fine motor skills development
language development
social development
13.8
43.8
27.5
13.8
1.3

gross motor skills development
35.0
38.8
16.3
10.0
0
Note: (a) All above figures represents percentages within each item.
(b) 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree
Discussion and Conclusion
In relationship to the reason that people use technology, the UTAUT cited in Blackwell et al. (2013)
indicates that effort expectancy is one of the four key determining factors in peoples use or non-use
of technology. It was found in this study that 96.3% of parents indicated that they were between a
mid to expert user of technology and that 87.5% of parents were very confident about what an App
was. Therefore parents have exposed themselves to technology and feel confident when using
technology for themselves. This is consistent with Cocker (2011)’s statement that parents have access
to technology and through their own experiences are allowing children to be exposed to a wider
variety of educational media alternatives, such as iPad, to enhance and build on children’s
experiences and develop their own pedagogical practices. In addition, the most commonly listed
reason as to why a gestural interface device is appropriate for young children was the “easy use of
screen”, thus appropriately linking effort expectancy for the child.
Additionally within the UTAUT cited in Blackwell et al. (2013) another key factoring when choosing
to use or not use technology is performance expectancy. It was found that most of the parents agreed
that Apps designed for preschool educational purposes was indeed assistive of children’s learning.
Moreover, the participating parents’ thought use of touch screen devices were appropriate for
preschool age children. This finding is consistent with Fleer (2011) and Plowman, McPake and
Stephen (2010)’s findings that the use of iPad and its touch screen is appropriate within early
childhood. In terms of performance expectancy for curricula domains participating parents thought
that use of educational media could be used to teach literacy, numeracy, science, and art. However,
they did not agree that educational media could be used to teach physical education. Moreover, in
terms of child development, it shows that the most parents thought that use of educational media
could be used for children’s cognitive development, fine motor skills development and language
development, which is consistent with findings by Jay Blanchard (2010) and Scooter et al. (2001),
cited in Shoukry (2013). However, contradicted those findings as the participating parents did not
agree that educational media could be used for children’s social development.
There are limitations to the present study. The data were drawn from 80 parents in South Australia
and Northern Territory in Australia. A number of research directions can be identified. Data need to
be gathered from other states and territories. Further research will be needed to understand the
educators’ and child care directors’ attitudes towards the use of iPad in educational settings to
Page 133 of 487
compare their attitudes and therefore develop strategically the teaching approaches with the use of
iPad in early childhood settings.
References
Blackwell, C.K., Lauricella, A.R., Wartella, E., Robb, M. & Schomburg, R. (2013). Adoption and
use of technology in early education: The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher attitudes,
Computers & Education, 69, 310-319.
Colker, L., J. (2011). Technology and learning what early childhood educators have to say. Teaching
Young Children, 4(3), 25-27.
Fleer, M. (2011). Design and technology for children. Sydney, Pearson Australia.
Fleer, M. (2013). Play in the early years. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.
Gay, L. R. & Airasian, P. (2003). ‘Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application’.
7th Edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Leedy, P.D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and Design. 8th Edn. New Jersey:
Pearson Education International.
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New
York: Basic Books.
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2010). The technologisation of childhood? Young children and
technology in the home. Children & Society 24, 63-74.
Rosen, D. B., & Jaruszewicz, C. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Technology Use and Early
Childhood Teacher Education. Journal Of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30(2), 162-171.
Shoukry, L. (2013) Child-Centered Design of Educational Mobile Games for Arab Preschoolers
(Master’s
thesis)
Retrieved
http://www.academia.edu/2334346/Masters_Thesis_ChildCentered_Design_of_Educational_Mobile_Games_for_Arab_PreschoolersSiegle, D. (2013). iPads:
Intuitive technology for 21st century students. Gifted Child Today, 36(2), 146-150.
Page 134 of 487
ACEC2014 - DEVELOPING QUICKSMART ONLINE TO ENGAGE
LEARNERS
Helen Doyle, Stephanie Belson, Lorraine Taber & Chris Reading
University of New England, Australia
Abstract
Literacy and numeracy are identified as necessary skills for employment. QuickSmart
Online (QSO) was developed with the aim of closing the gap in numeracy skills to enable
the unemployed to break the cycle of long-term unemployment. QSO focuses on the learner
developing fast and accurate basic skills, which in turn develops their neural pathways,
allowing the learner’s working memory to be freed up to enable further learning. This
paper focuses on researching facilitator stories based on feedback from learners and
teachers, and on observations of QSO usage. These stories reported on the learner
experience during the initial development of QSO. The program was informally trialed for
a period of twelve months with learners, ranging in age from eight to the late fifties, from
a variety of learning institutions. There was some evidence of engagement with the
program. The five main aspects of the program that impacted on this engagement: learner
confidence, learner support, learner e-literacy, online environment style, and context of
learning are described. Key recommendations to increase learner engagement for the next
iteration of QSO are outlined.
More than seventy-five percent of employers in 2009 reported that their businesses were affected by
low levels of numeracy and literacy skills amongst their workforce (Ai Group, 2010), whilst the
Industry Skills Council (ISC) reported more than half of working age Australians have Language,
Literacy and Numeracy (LLN) problems (Industry Skills Councils, 2011). Successive Australian
Governments have reported low LLN skills of Australians. The Australian Government has cooperated with The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2013)
resulting in an International Report on LLN skills of adults, which described such skills every
individual needed to participate in society. Capraro, Capraro, and Jones (2014) also stressed that
numeracy is an important skill for full participation in the workforce. The Science, Information and
Communication Technology, and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia National
Research Centre (SiMERR) received an Australian Federal Government (AFG) Grant in 2012 to
develop and produce an online version of QuickSmart, called QuickSmart Online (QSO) targeted at
Adult Job Seekers with identified low levels of LLN skills. This grant was part of the NBN-enabled
Tele-education Trial to support the Australian Government’s Digital Economy Goal for expanded
online education (Hand, 2013). This paper focuses on the numeracy component of QSO. First, some
background is provided about QSO, engagement with learning and the QSO software development
cycle, then, some results are discussed from the initial trialling of QSO. The results include the main
aspects of QSO that impacted learner engagement and recommendations for improving QSO to
increase engagement.
QuickSmart
QuickSmart (QS) was first developed in 2001 as a face-to-face (f-2-f) early intervention numeracy
program for middle-school students, followed by an additional literacy component. QS focused on
enhancing the students’ fluency in either numeracy or literacy (automaticity) through improving their
working memory. Students work in pairs with an instructor for thirty minutes, three times per week,
for an average of thirty weeks. Pegg, Graham, and Bellert (2005) defined automaticity as learners’
fluency and facility with basic number facts. They researched the links between working memory and
the ability to recall basic number facts and found that improvements made to a person’s processing
speed of basic skills frees up his/her working memory capacity, which then becomes available to
address more difficult mathematical tasks. This research also showed that the improvements made to
Page 135 of 487
a person’s working memory continued for at least twelve months following the completion of the QS
intervention program.
QuickSmart Online
The QS f-2-f program was the framework used to develop QSO numeracy. A team from SiMERR
was responsible for creating the content while an emerging software development company was
contracted for the technical development of the online environment. Like QS the development of
QSO was aimed at improving a person’s automaticity in numeracy, thereby freeing up his/her working
memory to allow him/her to perform more complex tasks. It is important to emphasise that QSO is
not intended to be a computer game. However, QSO does align with Whitton’s (2014) game definition
of providing a challenging activity and containing structure, rules, goal progression and rewards. The
numeracy component of QSO commenced trialling in April 2013. The remainder of this paper focuses
on this trial of QSO numeracy.
The QSO numeracy program consists of seven components: Warm-Up, Focus Facts, Flash Cards,
SpeedSheets, Fast and Accurate Basic Skills (FABS), Problem Solving (PS) and a game. After
enrolment into the program, the learner completes an eighty-question pre-test covering each of the
four basic mathematical operations. This was designed to establish a learner’s entry point into QSO.
Many learners have low e-literacy skills and/or low LLN. A calibration activity to assess a learner’s
keyboarding skills was included for the timed activities, i.e., Flash Cards, FABS and SpeedSheets.
All seven components of QSO were designed to help the learner engage with his/her learning.
Engagement with Learning
To better report on aspects of the engagement of learners when using QSO, it is first necessary to
clarify what is meant by engagement. Engagement, energy in action (Russell, Ainley, & Frydenberg,
2005), focuses on the connection between the learner and the activity. Care must be taken not to
confuse engagement with motivation, which is about energy and action and focuses on the reasons
for behaviour (Russell et al., 2005). Engagement is more likely than motivation to be affected by
learning experiences and rapport with people involved with those experiences. Students who are
motivated are not necessarily engaged. Teachers need to be able to design learning environments (f2-f or online) that will engage students.
Three distinct types of engagement: behavioural, cognitive and emotional, as described by Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004), provide a useful framework for elaborating the concept of engagement.
Behavioural engagement involves: positive conduct, e.g., absence of non-disruptive behaviours; and
involvement in learning tasks, e.g., persistence. Emotional engagement involves: affective reactions
in learning situations, e.g., interest; and affective reactions to those delivering the learning, e.g.,
respecting teacher. Cognitive engagement involves psychological investment in learning, e.g., desire
to go beyond the requirements; inner psychological investment, e.g., desire to learn; and selfregulation, e.g., evaluating cognition when accomplishing tasks. Although categorising these three
types of engagement can assist in expanding perceptions of engagement, care needs to be taken as
confusion can result from these three types of engagement being “dynamically interrelated within the
individual” (Fredricks et al., 2004, p. 61). Such an expanded view of engagement, with three types,
provided a suitable framework for considering how learners were engaging with QSO.
QSO Software Development Cycle
QSO needed a software development cycle to monitor and evaluate each step of the development
process. The Most Significant Change (MSC) technique, developed by Davies and Dart (2005), was
favoured as a framework to collect stories from researching facilitators, hereafter called facilitators,
working closely with the QSO trial. MSC is primarily a monitoring technique (Willetts & Crawford,
2007) involving collecting significant change stories from the people who are most closely involved
Page 136 of 487
with a program and then the most significant of these is selected by the stakeholders. Adapting the
MSC technique for implementation in a specific evaluation situation, Willetts and Crawford (2007)
developed a monitoring and evaluation model, called the Monitoring and Evaluation Data Cycle
(M&E). Learning rather than accountability is the focus of the M&E Data Cycle.
The QSO Software Development Cycle (Figure 5), was created as an adaption of the M&E Data Cycle.
The six stages in the process were: 1) Identification - involves selecting the data to be captured with
indicators tracked throughout the life of the project; 2) Capture - involves collecting data, through
informal and formal processes, relevant to the chosen indicators; 3) Analysis - involves analysing the
raw data and developing recommendations for further software development; 4) Development (Dissemination in M&E Data Cycle) involves acting on the recommendations to develop the next
iteration; 5) Implementation - (Utilisation in M&E Data Cycle) involves the implementation of the
new iteration; 6) Assessment - involves assessing and reflecting on whether or not the indicators in
the Identification stage were the most appropriate and whether they need to be refined in subsequent
iterations. This paper focuses on the first three stages of the development cycle, coloured green in
Figure 5, as undertaken in the QSO trial.
Method
The QSO trial occurred in 2013, with three facilitators who worked with 40 early-school-leavers and
adult learners and 44 school-aged learners. The early-school-leavers participated in a youth-off-thestreets program and the adult learners in a government education program. Both programs required
the study of basic skills because these learners had been identified as having skills too low for
satisfactory employment. The school-aged learners struggled with mathematical skills, but were not
necessarily the lowest achievers in their respective cohorts.
Unlike QS, where instructors work with pairs of students, QSO was designed for the learner to use
independently. For the trial both teachers/teacher aides and facilitators were present during each
Page 137 of 487
session. The teachers/teacher aides were there to learn how to support the use of QSO in their class
rooms. The three facilitators were there to assist with overcoming any technical issues, and to observe
the learners, which informed the monitoring, and evaluation of the program. Each of the facilitators
attended at least one session weekly.
The research presented in this paper aimed to monitor and evaluate the trial of QSO to determine
improvements needed to increase student engagement. The first three stages of the QSO Software
Development Cycle (see Figure 1), as followed in the QSO trial, are now described. The first stage,
Identification, involved choosing the data to be collected. In accordance with the MSC approach, the
most significant change stories provided by the three facilitators were chosen. These facilitators had
the opportunity to observe the learner use of, and reaction to QSO and also to have informal
conversations with the learners and the teachers/teacher aides. The key indicator of interest was
student engagement. The second stage, Capture, involved the three facilitators writing their individual
stories recording their observations of student engagement with QSO, including identifying
significant changes that occurred. The third stage, Analysis, involved the facilitators collaborating
with an independent researcher to combine the three stories to synthesise the most significant
outcomes and impacts about learner engagement. The indicators of engagement, as evidenced in the
combined story, are reported across all three types, behavioural, emotional and cognitive, to
demonstrate the breadth of engagement.
The Story
During the Analysis phase information shared by the three facilitators about their observations during
the trial of QSO varied considerably, justifying the need to consider the stories from all three
facilitators, rather than just using feedback from one. Two important common themes were that QSO
gave the learner the opportunity: to improve basic number skills thus developing automaticity; and to
practice those skills with contextually appropriate problems. As a consequence of the improved skills,
learner confidence increased both within and beyond the learning environment.
However, consideration of the diversity within the three stories showed that the learner experience
varied accordingly to three key factors: perceived employment opportunities, learner age, and teacher
engagement. First, employment opportunities, as perceived by the learners, differed between
geographic locations with some learners believing that there was no point in engaging with the
program when there were no job opportunities relevant to their skill levels. Second, the learners varied
in age from eight to late fifties. Typically, school-aged learners could overcome technical issues and
engage from the outset and the early-school-leavers did not engage because of recent failure with the
school system, while adult learners could see the value in trying a new approach to learning LLN.
Third, teacher engagement decreased during the trial, when it became apparent that QSO was not
aligned to their specific curriculum requirements and that they were unable to access learner results
to map performance outcomes. Learners were more engaged when teachers were engaged.
Analysis of the stories showed that some learners were more engaged than others. Evidence of
engagement spread across all three types of engagement: behavioural - seeking assistance, persisting
with difficult tasks, completing work above minimum requirements, and assisting peers; emotional liking the facilitators, reacting positively to progress, and reacting positively to constructive
comments; and cognitive - using feedback, interpreting progress graphs, recognising when a fact is
“learnt”, linking progress to non-QSO life events, and acknowledging the value in learning.
Of most importance to the QSO team was identifying what had the greatest impact on learner
engagement and what recommendations could be made to inform the next iteration of QSO in the
Development stage of the QSO Software Development Cycle. The five main aspects of QSO found
to impact on learner engagement were: learner confidence; learner support; learner e-literacy; online
environment style; and context of learning. These are elaborated below.
Page 138 of 487
Learner Confidence
The trial commenced with learners displaying varying levels of confidence. There were many issues
that affected their confidence, most importantly, socio-economic status, family attitude to education,
fear of mathematics, and prior learning experiences. Despite lacking confidence, some learners were
excited to be part of the trial. Generally, the school-aged learners lacked confidence in their
mathematical abilities, however were confident using the online environment. Early-school-leaver
confidence was affected by previous failures at school. Being labelled as an early school leaver
defines a person as a failure, not achieving success in current societal norms (Schwab, 2012). The
confidence of many adult learners was affected by the fact that they previously achieved recognition
for attending and completing courses, yet were self-aware that they still lacked the basic skills.
Generally, adult learners were confident that QSO provided an alternate learning environment beyond
what they had previously experienced. They willingly persevered and continued to engage with the
program even when they experienced little academic progression due to technical issues.
Both starting level and automaticity were important influences on learner confidence. QS was
designed to start a lesson with Focus Facts, where the learner starts with facts already known and then
moves onto the unknown (Pegg et al., 2005). For the trial, QSO was designed so that every learner
started from the easiest Focus Fact, plus 2. For some this meant working on facts already known.
However, being able to answer the questions correctly helped the learner to develop confidence before
going on to the questions at a higher level for a new Focus Fact. Similarly, the rate at which
automaticity was achieved was linked to developing confidence. On completion of the trial, many
learners demonstrated greater confidence with most able to articulate that they had noticed
improvement in their confidence, both within and beyond the online learning environment.
Recommendation 1: QSO calibration be adjusted to start a learner practicing new skills at
one level lower than the level at which he/she tested successfully and to stop the learner
from spending anymore than six sessions on each Focus Fact.
Learner Support
There were four types of learner support involved: from facilitators; from progress feedback within
the online environment; from engaged teachers; and from peers. Initially, increased engagement with
QSO occurred when the learner had a facilitator encouraging him/her to get started and/or continue.
The facilitator continually encouraged the learner to attempt the questions. The facilitators realised
that QSO failed to replicate, within the online environment, what the instructor does in the f-2-f QS.
There are two types of progress feedback within the online environment: results, which are graphed
in a learner portfolio and incorrect answers which are displayed at the end of each activity. When the
learner engaged with his/her portfolio, there was a greater understanding of results and what was
necessary to achieve automaticity. Support from the teacher is important to a learner’s success in
QSO. Teachers were more likely to support learners if QSO helped the learners to achieve curriculumbased outcomes. Many teachers admitted to having poor e-literacy skills themselves and therefore
were not confident using QSO without facilitators to support them. A few teachers showed an obvious
lack of engagement with the learners and with QSO and generally when this occurred learners were
not engaged. Support from peers appeared to have more benefits for the peer who provided the
support than for the actual learner. In fact, some of the peers providing the support increased their
own confidence to such an extent that they went on to further study.
Recommendation 2: QSO incorporates features to replicate the facilitator in the classroom
by providing assistance through intelligent feedback and presenting progress graphs on
completion of each activity.
Page 139 of 487
Learner e-Literacy
Many of the learners had low levels of e-literacy, with a few having never used a computer prior to
the trial. The exception being some of the school-aged learners who had computers and internet access
at home. This lack of e-literacy had not been anticipated. Enrolment in QSO required each learner to
have an email address, which the majority of the early-school-leavers and adults did not have or if
they did they did not know how to access. Therefore, the facilitators were required to enrol each
learner with a username and password. This included a master list given to the teacher to assist those
learners who could not remember their details from session to session. The facilitators spent valuable
time in the beginning teaching basic keyboarding skills to the learners, including skills as simple as
the use of enter key and the numerical keypad on desktop computers. The learners tended to switch
between data entry methods throughout an activity between the numerical keypad, the numbers on a
standard keyboard, and pointing to the onscreen keyboard using the mouse. This then had the
unintended effect of compromising the calibration data in the timed activities, and hence the ability
to achieve automaticity.
Recommendation 3: QSO restricts learners to one entry method for numeric characters
and incorporates the capability for bulk enrolment of learners.
Online Environment Style
Three important aspects of the QSO environment style related to learner engagement: the interactivity
in screen layout, the capability for learners to have individualised programs and the opportunity for
non-judgemental anonymity. For the QSO trial, the screen was divided visually into three sections,
the centre, left side and right side. Screen layout design was found to have less impact on engagement
of the school-aged learner than the older adult learners. School-aged learners were observed to be
more adaptable and confident with the screen layout design, enabling them to proceed with few
difficulties. The early-school-leavers generally wanted the QSO screen design to be more interactive
or game like. Due to their generally poor e-literacy levels the older adult learners found the screen
layout design not to be intuitive and they required more help. The adult learners found the lack of
explanation as to why they were doing the activities and how they were to do the activities
confronting, likening QSO to just one test after another and expressing fear of being unsure as to what
was expected next. This affected their academic progress, particularly in the timed activities, and
hence their automaticity.
Many learners were more engaged because the individualised learning program nature of QSO gave
them the opportunity to learn at their own pace. This was the first time they had felt like they were
actually achieving on their own merit. Previously some adult learners had “completed” courses in
LLN, however they still could not read or complete basic mathematical skills. These particular
learners gained an enormous amount of self-efficacy when they were engaged willingly with QSO to
achieve on their own merit.
Some adult learners articulated that the online learning environment was non-judgemental which
made it more comfortable than a f-2-f learning situation. This gave the learners the security to engage
with QSO and not be embarrassed by having incorrect responses made public. It had been observed
that many of these learners sat very quietly in a traditional classroom situation, not engaging and/or
not comprehending the classroom instruction.
Recommendation 4: QSO be more interactive by following a logical flow process through
the activities and presenting components of QSO when they are needed, making the
environment more App-like.
Page 140 of 487
Context of Learning
To engage the early-school-leaver and the adult learner with QSO, the trial identified the importance
of linking Problem Solving (PS) learning material to the course(s) being studied and the application
to their everyday life, e.g., Foundation Skills Course (FSK). From the adult trial, it was also evident
that teacher engagement and support for QSO is dependent on the learning material being linked to
relevant curriculum. The classroom teacher requires access to the learners’ results of the PS learning
material in order for them to be able to validate the learners’ progression through their overall course
of study. The engagement of the school-aged-learners was not linked to the learning material of the
PS activity. However, conversations with the school principal said that PS was a focus of their school
and would recommend that the learning material be linked to the Australian Curriculum
(Mathematics).
Recommendation 5: QSO includes a teacher-accessible mapping of the problem solving
activity questions to the foundation skills package for numeracy and the Australian
Curriculum (Mathematics).
Conclusion
Engagement with QSO was evident to varying degrees across the range of learners who participated
in the trial. The fact that a variety of engagement indicators were reported indicates that the learners
were able to engage with QSO. The breadth of aspects of the QSO experience that impacted the level
of engagement indicates that designing an engaging online environment to “house” a learning
experience previously designed for a f-2-f situation is not such a straight-forward task. This is
especially true when the learners have low levels of literacy and/or numeracy and have previously
experienced failure in formal learning situations.
As a consequence of the trial, five key recommendations were reported to enhance QSO and thus
better engage the learner. These will inform improvements to be made to QSO in the Development
stage. Although these reported findings are specific to QSO, there are lessons to be learnt for other
educators designing online environments for learning basic skills. First, the designers must be aware
of learner background. Previous education experiences and level of e-literacy impact on learner
engagement. What is suitable for school-aged learners may not be suitable for early-school-leavers
and adults. Second, the designers need to build in suitable support structures. These should replicate,
as closely as possible, learner needs as previously identified in successful f-2-f learning situations.
Finally, the designers must set the learning activities in a suitable context. This would ideally include
a specific curriculum focus and linking to practical applications. Further research into building such
online environments is encouraged to maintain learner engagement.
References
Ai Group. (2010). National workforce literacy project: Report on employers views on workplace
literacy and numeracy skills. North Sydney, NSW.
Capraro, M. C., Capraro, R. M., & Jones, M. (2014). Numeracy and Algebra: A Path to Full
Participation in Community and Society? Reading Psycholgy, 1-15. doi:
10.1080/02702711.2012.739263
Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) Technique. A guide to its use
Retrieved 30/09/11, from www.kepa.fi/tiedostot/most-significant-change-guide.pdf
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research, 74(1), 59-109.
Page 141 of 487
Hand, T. (2013). eduONE Trial Evaluation Report (pp. 1-92).
Industry Skills Councils. (2011). No More Excuses: An Industry Response to the Language, Literacy
and
Numeracy
Challenge,
from
http://www.isc.org.au/pdf/NoMoreExcuses_FINAL%20single
%20page.pdf
Pegg, J., Graham, L., & Bellert, A. (2005). The effect of improved automaticity and retrieval of basic
number skills on persistently low-achieving students. Paper presented at the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Melbourne, Australia.
Russell, V. J., Ainley, M., & Frydenberg, E. (2005). Schooling Issues Digest: Student Motivation and
Engagement, from www.dest.gov.au/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_
issues_digest_motivation_engagement.htm
Schwab, R. (2012). Indigenous early school leavers: Failure, risk and high-stakes testing. Australian
Aboriginal Studies, 1, 3-18.
Whitton, N. (2014). Digital Games and Learning: Research and Theory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Willetts, J., & Crawford, P. (2007). The most significant lessons about the Most Significant Change
technique. Development in Practice, 17(3), 367-379. doi: 10.1080/09614520701336907
Page 142 of 487
iPADS IN THE PRIMARY SCHOOL:
EMERGING FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH
Garry Falloon
Associate Professor
Faculty of Education
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand
Abstract
Since its introduction in 2010, Apple’s iPad has received much attention from education
commentators, citing its unique touch screen, portability, relative low cost and huge array
of apps, as offering significant potential to support learning at all levels.
This paper summarises key findings from the first two phases of a 3-year study exploring
primary school students’ use of iPads and apps in general class settings. These phases
focused on using iPads for developing foundation literacy, numeracy and problem-solving
skills, and analysed the nature of oral discourse that occurred while students were
completing iPad-based learning tasks.
Data were collected using a specially-developed ‘observeware’ app that recorded the
iPad’s display and student verbal interaction while they were working with a range of
open and closed-design apps.
Findings highlight a complex relationship existing between student knowledge and
dispositional factors, peer-interaction, and app design, content and features that
influences the quality of learning students generate. Furthermore, they suggest using
open-design apps in pairs or small groups can provide valuable opportunities to develop
exploratory talk, when iPads are used as public work space devices.
This paper will present illustrative data from the study, and raise considerations for
teachers, researchers and app developers to help inform more effective designs and use
of apps for learning.
Introduction
While much rhetoric surrounds the advent of iPads to the array of digital resources available to
teachers and students (Apple Inc., 2014), limited empirical research presently exists analysing how
their much-heralded features, such as touch screen interface, huge range of low-cost ‘educational’
apps, portability and connectivity, offer unique possibilities for supporting student learning. While
some qualitative, perceptions-based studies have been undertaken, many of these have focused on
information management or logistical efficiency benefits, such as supporting moves towards
paperless environments or advantages from ‘anywhere, anytime’ access to information and online
services (Shepherd & Reeves, 2012). Other studies have documented often anecdotal perceptions of
learning and motivational advantages from iPad use in special education (Cumming & Strnadova,
2012; Jowett, Moore & Anderson, 2012), early years literacy development (Dobler, 2012; Getting &
Swainey, 2012; Harmon, 2012), pre service teacher education (Saine, 2012) and English language
learning (Godwin-Jones, 2011).
Media reports have also highlighted moves by a number of schools towards ‘Bring Your Own Device’
or BYOD programmes, where parents are encouraged to purchase tablet devices such as iPads for
their children to use at school, in much the same way as conventional stationery (Bilby, 2013; Irwin
& Jones, 2014). Some schools have even gone as far as providing a device for each student (Jones,
2014; Moran, 2014). However, until recently few studies have moved beyond the use of qualitative,
Page 143 of 487
self-report data in attempting to reveal more about the potential of these devices to support student
learning. In particular, limited visible evidence has been gathered of the specific nature of students’
interactions with each other and the device while using them to solve learning problems, and the
influences on this process.
From early 2012, a researcher from the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand, has used a
unique display recording app to gather video and audio data accurately portraying young students’
interaction pathways and strategies when using iPads and selected apps for a range of learning tasks.
This paper describes the methodology and summarises the main results from the series of studies. As
detailed outcomes from each study have been published separately elsewhere (Falloon, 2013a;
Falloon, 2013b; Falloon & Khoo, 2014), it provides a synthesis of these and draws out implications
for practice.
Research Establishment and Context
Since the launch of the iPad in 2010, some commentators have pointed to the relative affordability of
iPads as the key to addressing the perennial issue of access to sufficient devices to make them useful
in a conventional classroom (eg., Conn, 2012). However, the reality is that few schools have sufficient
funds to purchase devices for their students, instead relying on BYOD-type programmes to address
this issue. Acknowledging this fact, in late 2011 an application was made to Waikato University’s
Education Faculty research fund to purchase eight iPads. These were to be used in the junior area of
the primary school on a one-device-per-student-pair basis, to investigate their potential to support
literacy and problem-solving skill development. The selected school was a decile2 5 contributing
primary (Years 1-6) with a roll of 360 students, located in a small semi-rural town approximately
20kms from Hamilton city.
The school was chosen following a positive response to a personal communication inviting
participation, and followed on from previous successful studies the researcher had undertaken with
the school. Junior students were targeted following indications from other research that suggested
evidence of enhanced learner engagement from iPad use contributed to significant literacy learning
gains in young children (McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy, & Tate, 2012). Subsequently, eight iPad
3s were purchased in February 2012, and research foci and goals collaboratively negotiated with the
school. A broad implementation plan was also developed, providing a structure to support the study
for its first year. This was subsequently revised and redeveloped for the second year, to reflect
emergent findings from year 1.
After discussion with the principal and because a number of junior school teachers indicated keenness
to be involved, ‘expressions of interest’ were called for from teachers wishing to participate. This
required them to respond to specific criteria relating to their motivation for involvement and outlining
their pedagogical and curriculum strengths, as well as suggesting ways in which the devices could be
used to support the research foci within the context of their classroom programme. The school’s senior
management team selected an experienced practitioner, based on her “history of receptiveness to
innovation, and very sound, child-focused pedagogy” (Principal, interview, June 2012). The selected
teacher, Tonia, had been teaching for 16 years, the last 5 of which had been at the school in year 1-3
classes. At the time data collection commenced she was in her third year of teaching new entrant/year
1 classes. A series of planning meetings were held with Tonia during May and June 2012, during
which specifics of data collection for Phase 1 were negotiated. It was decided that data aligned with
each research question would be collected separately across the two years, due to their dependence
on students using apps of different designs for different learning purposes.
2
A full explanation of the New Zealand school decile system can be found at
www.minedu.govt.nz/Parents/AllAges/EducationInNZ/SchoolsInNewZealand/SchoolDecileRatings.as
px
Page 144 of 487
Research Classes and Questions
The research was structured with two different classes – the first phase focused on question 1 (data
collection from July-December, 2012) and the second phase on question 2 (data collection from June
– November, 2013). The 2012 class comprised 18 students (11 girls and seven boys, making up nine
pairs) while the 2013 class numbered 19 students (10 girls and nine boys, making up eight pairs and
one threesome).
The following questions guided data collection for the study:
1. How do design and content features of selected apps used on iPads affect the learning pathways of
pairs of young students using them independently for problem-solving tasks?
2. What is the nature of student talk when planning and creating literacy-based content in pairs using
open-design iPad apps?
Research Method and Data Collection
Across both years, case study method located within an interpretive theoretical framework informed
the research approach used. Following unsuccessful trials of over-the-shoulder video and observation
for data collection that resulted in ‘staged’ student performances, university computer support
personnel adapted code from a Cydia app called Display Recorder that allowed recordings to be made
of the iPad’s screen and audio via the built-in microphone, while students were working. The app
also recorded using a white dot student finger placement on the display, so actions associated with
the video and dialogue were captured (see Figure 1). The recorder was activated via a combination
of finger taps on the left top corner of the display, but no other evidence of the recorder’s operation
was visible to students. Following each recording session (of between 25-40 minutes) the video files
were downloaded to the researcher’s laptop for later analysis. In all, nearly 72 hours of student data
were collected across the 2 years, of which just over 37 were analysed using Studiocode.
Page 145 of 487
Figure 1. Screenshot from Pic Collage showing recorder finger-placement indication
App Selection and Device Organisation and Use
In both research phases, iPad use was integrated with the normal classroom programme as much as
possible. The apps were selected by Tonia to meet what she judged to be the learning needs of her
students, within the curriculum topics being studied over the course of data collection. Selections
were made following appraisal of reviews in Apple’s App store, online and own-school assessments
made by other teachers, and a personal evaluation based on use with her own primary-aged children.
Apps selected for Phase 1 were of a problem-based, ‘learning game’ design (see Appendix A). They
required students to work together to complete literacy (mainly spelling and phonics) and numeracy
(number) learning problems, often embedded in game-like formats. They were generally of a closed
design – that is, students were required to work within defined parameters imposed by the structure
and format of the app, usually responding to cues and prompts to select from a range of provided
responses, or enter their own in pre-set fields.
Phase 1 apps were organised into separate folders according to the different days of the week, and
were changed regularly. This decision was made following early realisation that having access to
many apps at the same time led to a ‘lolly scramble’ effect, where students skimmed from one to
another without substantially engaging with any. During Phase 1, use of the iPad was integrated into
the class’s literacy tumble so different pairs of students from targeted reading groups could access the
devices at different times, as shown in Figure 2. Within each reading group pairs were teacherselected, and remained stable for the duration of the trial.
Page 146 of 487
Figure 2. The Literacy Tumble Planner incorporating the iPads
The apps selected for Phase 2 were of a more open design, allowing students to generate and input
their own content far more flexibly, in response to learning outcomes rather than app-imposed
parameters. Apps used in this phase comprised mindmapping (Popplet), graphic/design (Pic Collage)
and oral language/storytelling (PuppetPals HD). In Phase 2, the whole class accessed and used the
apps for units involving story planning (Popplet), celebrations (Pic Collage) and drama recount
(PuppetPals HD).
Data Coding
Studiocode is an analysis tool for coding video data according to identified themes or repeated
occurrences existing across datasets. It allows the creation of analysis tags or labels identifying
specific incidents within videos aligned to a particular theme, which have usually been identified
through an initial review of a data sample. Coded incidents can be replayed collectively by activating
the appropriate code label on a timeline, or single samples accessed individually by double-clicking
(see Figure 3). Due to the time-consuming nature of coding video data and resource constraints, not
all data were coded. Data aligned with each question were purposively selected for coding after an
initial appraisal was made to ensure a balanced coverage of apps used, inclusion of at least one sample
from each student pair, and representation within all curriculum topics where apps were used. Overall,
24 hours of video were coded from Phase 1, while just over 13 were coded from Phase 2. To enhance
reliability, the researcher employed a postgraduate student to carry out a blind review of data samples.
Inter-rater agreement calculations were then performed on the samples using Kappa coefficient ( K).
After some adjustment and negotiation, coding agreements in Landis and Koch’s (1977) good to
substantial range were secured3.
3
Further details of this process can be found in Falloon, 2013a; Falloon, 2013b; Falloon & Khoo, 2014.
Page 147 of 487
Figure 3. A Studiocode coding window showing timeline, code labels and video sample for Phase 2
data
Results Summary
Detailed tables, results and analysis of data from both research phases have been published elsewhere,
and due to space constraints, will not be repeated here (see Falloon, 2013a; Falloon, 2013b; Falloon
& Khoo, 2014). What follows is a summary of the main findings from each phase, and a discussion
of the implications they hold for teachers integrating iPads into their classroom programmes.
Phase 1
This phase focused on analysing student learning pathways while using selected ‘closed-design’ apps.
In particular, it targeted the relationship between app design and/or content features and student
interactional strategies, in an attempt to discover if and how particular combinations of these
supported (or not) their learning progress. Figure 4 summarises the findings from this phase. It depicts
the interaction of four key ‘drivers’ – knowledge, cognitive effort and strategy, device/app content
design and response, and student work techniques, as influential in determining the quality of
‘learning value’ students derived from their use of the apps.
Data clearly indicated the cornerstone of quality learning interactions with the apps was the existing
knowledge students, metaphorically-speaking, ‘brought to the table’. This knowledge took two forms
– declarative (knowing what content and conceptual knowledge was needed to solve the problems)
and procedural (knowing how to solve the problems - both technically and conceptually). While the
apps created highly engaging and motivating interactional environments, due to design limitations
restricting the nature and type of feedback they gave in response to student inputs, their capacity to
help students generate new knowledge or remedy mistakes, was limited.
Page 148 of 487
Figure 4. Factors influencing students’ learning pathways while using the apps (from Falloon, 2013a)
Page 149 of 487
A characteristic of most of the learning game apps used to provide only positive or negative affective
feedback (eg., hand claps, cheers, animations, star/reward charts or ‘try again’ type voiceovers) did not
assist students to learn new knowledge or the strategies needed to advance their learning. Virtually no
apps provided feedback of a formative or corrective nature, which would have allowed students to
analyse mistakes and learn from them, to improve future performances.
Additionally, a noticeable trend during Phase 1 was the diminished benefit of affective feedback from
the start of data collection compared to the end. Put simply, the more feedback of this nature students
received, the less impact it appeared to have. In fact, towards the end of Phase 1 data collection, affective
feedback appeared to inhibit the quality of some students’ learning. End point data contained several
examples of students deliberately inputting incorrect responses or randomly guessing answers in order
to beat their workmate to the finish, which more often than not was marked by an entertaining image or
animation. A good example of this was seen in the app Rocket Speller, where students were often
recorded challenging each other to see how many pieces they could get the rocket to explode into upon
its return to earth, by making it fall the quickest (see Figure 5).
This phenomenon was labelled gamification, and was a very common occurrence in data. Basically, it
referred to students diverting their attention from learning engagement with the app to entertainment
engagement. Gamification was generally triggered by two scenarios. The first, which was labelled ‘app
fatigue’, came from student over-exposure to, or over-familiarity with, an app or apps. If an app was
used too frequently, these young students quickly became bored or mastered techniques that enabled
them to skip through parts they found repetitive, unappealing or routine, to get to entertaining or game
content. While restricting the numbers of apps in the daily folders helped lessen the ‘skimming’ effect,
it was equally important to ensure there was regular turnover to avoid app fatigue.
Figure 5. The exploding rocket in the app Rocket Speller
Gamification also occurred in situations where app content became too difficult for students to work on
independently. Most often this resulted from apps automatically increasing the level of content difficulty
Page 150 of 487
in response to students’ answers, or where initial level selection had been set beyond the students’
capability (or they had done this themselves). While a few students displayed a combination of
perseverance, effort and strategy that allowed them to attempt more difficult problems, all eventually
reached a point where their cognitive and affective resources ‘ran out’. At this stage some reverted to
gamification, while others opted to close the app and select a different one. This latter characteristic was
labelled bailing out (Figure 4). As previously, the absence of built-in scaffolds or formative feedback
was instrumental in limiting the progress students could independently make.
Recordings also provided evidence of different ways these students worked with each other and the
iPads, while completing learning tasks. These were coded as collaborative, semi-collaborative and noncollaborative, and were influential in how much progress pairs were able to make. The output from pairs
coded as collaborative in Phase 1 (n=4) could best be described as joint efforts, where recorded discourse
indicated decisions were negotiated and agreed upon, and where evidence existed of both students
having reasonably equal device access in pursuit of a commonly-viewed goal/s. Student pairs coded as
semi-collaborative (n=3) at times displayed some of the characteristics of collaborative pairs, but were
more inclined towards shared device access (often determined by equal ‘hands on’ time) and separate
decision-making, albeit while working on the same app and towards the same goal. Two pairs were
coded as non-collaborative, and typically these pairs shared the iPad, but seldom on an equal or equitable
basis. Access was usually determined through a ‘battle of wills’ or physical interaction of some type,
and generally resulted in one student dominating to the detriment of the other. Although device access
time was shared in some way in these arrangements, often students chose to work on different apps,
closing their partner’s when their own turn eventuated. Thus for these pairs, progress towards task goals
was, at best, incremental.
Data collected during Phase 1 suggested merit in exploring in greater depth the oral interaction between
students, as they appeared highly influential on their decision-making when solving learning problems
in the apps. This observation provided the direction for the second phase of the research (2013) that
focused on analysing student interactional talk while using the iPads for content-creation tasks.
Phase 2
Data for Phase 2 were gathered while student pairs were using apps of an open-ended, content creation
design, within literacy-based units of learning. This was a deliberate decision motivated by Neil
Mercer’s (1994) SLANT (Spoken Language and New Technology) research with primary school
students, that suggested learning benefits could be gained through small group exposure to software
where students are required to negotiate and talk when making content-related decisions. Three apps
were selected for this phase (Popplet, PuppetPals HD and Pic Collage). Student pairs were once again
teacher-selected, but unlike Phase 1, pairings were social and not achievement-based. The pairs had
been formed three months into the school year and approximately two months before data collection
commenced, and had remained largely unchanged. Tonia made this decision based on her earlier
observations of ‘learning efficiency’ benefits from maintaining stable groups, or as she put it, “they
seem to settle down more quickly and just get on with it” (Tonia, personal communication, July, 2013).
To help make sense of the recorded oral interaction between students, codes were developed based on
Mercer’s ‘talk type’ classifications of disputational, cumulative and exploratory. Briefly, talk coded as
disputational indicated defensiveness, disagreement, competition or person-focused conflict, with
individuals possessing contributions rather than collaborating in joint content development. Talk coded
as cumulative was affirming but non-critical in nature, often building on previous activity but in a nonexpansive, passive manner. Exploratory talk was more critical, but focused on critiquing ideas with the
goal of improving content, rather than being of a personal nature.
Talk coded as exploratory frequently indicated negotiation, synthesis and respectful cognitive
engagement with others’ views, with the purpose being to improve decision-making and content quality.
This talk type, Mercer suggested, should be encouraged, as it is integral to the role of educational
institutions in societies where principles of “accountability, (of) clarity, constructive criticism and
Page 151 of 487
receptiveness to well-argued proposals” (1996, p. 370) are valued. As for Phase 1, specific codes aligned
to each of Mercer’s talk-type classifications were entered into Studiocode (Figure 3), and oral
interactions recorded by the display capture app were coded using these.
Analysis of Talk Types
Figure 6 summarises the percentage of student talk coded under each of the talk type categories. It also
includes recorded talk not specified by Mercer’s original categories (ie., teacher-student, working and
other). However, these were not included in the time analysis, as they did not represent task-related
student-to-student dialogue. Typically, these categories comprised teacher-to-student (one-to-one or
pair), ‘working’ (talk-to-self or thinking aloud) or ‘other’ (student-to-student non-task related, or teacher
to whole class) exchanges. As indicated in Figure 6, the most frequently occurring talk type was
cumulative, with the sub-code of consensus talk featuring prominently across all pairs. Although taskfocused, these interactions were typically compliant, consensus-oriented and non-critical, and
contributed to outputs that met the intended learning outcomes, but in a safe, unchallenging and nonexpansive way.
Figure 6. Talk type summary for student pairs (Phase 2)
Only one pair (Pair 1) displayed emerging evidence of exploratory talk. This talk was mainly channelled
towards seeking justification from their partner relating to suggestions they made about content, or
debating the merits of including particular content in terms of its value for improving overall work
quality. An apparent difference between the talk of these students and that coded as predominantly
cumulative, was their willingness and ability to question their partner in a way that focused on critiquing
the suggested course of action or input, not their partner. This pair frequently used carefully worded
open questions and sought explanations, or made suggestions about how inputs could be changed to
improve overall work quality. Audio evidence was gathered of repeated debate and collective refinement
and revisiting of content, to improve its quality before submission. Although evidence of this talk was
restricted to a single pair, it at least suggests that potential exists for iPads, when shared or used in small
groups, to support the development of this desirable talk type. This will be discussed in more detail later.
Page 152 of 487
Three pairs (2, 3 and 6) at times exhibited disputational talk of a competitive or defensive nature,
although overall percentages were minimal (5-6%). This talk was usually associated with perceptions
of unfairness about the amount of device access time each student had (defined as ‘hands on’), or about
whose idea should be prioritised when deciding on inputs. Such events spasmodically punctuated the
talk of these three pairs and did slow work progress, but once resolved (usually determined by who
backed down first), appeared to have limited overall effect on work quality.
An interesting statistic related to this revealed by Studiocode, was the extremely high percentage of talk
across all pairs that was ‘on-task’ (ie., clearly focused on learning outcomes). Overall, this accounted
for nearly 95% of talk (including that in the three additional categories), indicating very high and
sustained levels of learning goal focus by all students.
Reflecting on these results and their significance prompted attention to research completed by Fisher,
Lucas and Galstyan (2013), that investigated the affordances of iPads as public work space devices.
Although their study was undertaken at university level, their results suggested that iPad attributes such
as flat, ‘top-of-the-desk’ and unobstructed access, ease of physical device transfer between
collaborators, portability, wide viewing angle and multi user-accessible interface, offered unique pointsof-difference supporting more collaborative use, when compared to other devices such as laptops or
desktop computers. Display-recorded evidence in the current study appears to offer some support for
these claims also being applicable to younger students. Particularly evident in the video data was how
easily the students passed or slid the device between each other, and how multiple contact points (fingers
obviously belonging to different individuals) were often recorded simultaneously interacting with
content. Although these behaviours were recorded at some time with all pairs, they were especially
prevalent in the actions of Pair 1 (coded exploratory-emergent). It tentatively suggests that such handler
affordances may be useful for supporting students to work towards using more exploratory talk, although
further research is needed to draw firmer conclusions.
Implications for Research and Practice
First, researchers now have the capacity to use innovative digital tools such as the recording app
developed for this study, to gather data that naturally and accurately depicts student work practices with
devices like iPads, without reliance on self report data, or risking observer effects from observational or
over the shoulder video methods. Such data is valuable in that it provides real-time visual and audio
evidence of how students apply different strategies and resources to solve learning problems, and how
design and content elements of apps either support or inhibit this process. This knowledge can then be
used by developers to improve the learning design of apps, and by teachers to help them make betterinformed choices about features and content of apps suited to the learning needs and preferences of their
students. Additionally, this type of evidence could be useful to help make explicit to parents and other
stakeholders the learning progress of students when using digital technologies, as clips may be extracted
and used for reporting purposes, perhaps by being incorporated into digital or online portfolios.
Second, results suggest teachers need to be mindful of the limitations of ‘learning game’ type apps for
building student knowledge. While much evidence from this study points to these apps being highly
engaging in terms of student attention, it also indicates that without sufficient conceptual and domain
knowledge, students can struggle to derive much ‘learning value’ from them. Most apps used lacked
embedded formative feedback mechanisms that students could use to learn from their mistakes, and
thereby make learning progress. The absence of these triggered a range of responses that included
repeating the same errors, random guessing, gamification, bailing out and app skimming. From a
distance this activity may have appeared to be thoughtful learning engagement, but as revealed by the
recording app, this was often not the case. While iPads and apps can provide engaging environments for
students to practise learnt skills and exercise knowledge, teachers have a very important duty to ensure
they have sufficient cognitive and affective resources to purposefully apply to the task.
Page 153 of 487
Third, tentative evidence exists in these results indicating that if devices are shared, there may be some
benefit from maintaining stable group or pair access arrangements for significant periods of time.
Acknowledging there were different classes and apps used in each study phase, feedback from the
teacher and cumulative Studiocode on-task time data, suggested maintaining reasonably stable
arrangements decreased the amount of time students spent preparing and negotiating work
arrangements. The stable structure appeared to help them slot back into a known organisational system
and quickly get on with the task at hand, without the need to repeatedly form new arrangements.
Fourth, Phase 2 data suggests the use of open-ended, content creation apps embedded in authentic
learning tasks, could provide useful opportunities for teachers to help students develop exploratory talk
capability. Given current educational drivers emphasising the desirability of critical and higher order
thinking skills for ‘21st Century Learners’, it seems reasonable that such opportunities should be
capitalised upon. Although emerging evidence of exploratory talk was only found in the data of one
student pair, the volume of cumulative talk generated signalled potential to evolve this into talk of a
more exploratory nature, perhaps through deliberate teaching focused on building questioning and
critical thinking skills. Additionally, the handler affordances of the iPad when used as a public work
space device, appeared ideally suited to supporting this. Just as knowledge was vital to maximising the
learning potential of game-like apps, questioning, debating, negotiating and critique are important
resources promoting exploratory talk, which is likely to support higher quality outputs when students
use apps for creating and sharing content.
Conclusion
As indicated in the introduction, this paper synthesises key findings of the first two phases of a threeyear research project. More details and other findings have been published elsewhere (Falloon, 2013a;
Falloon, 2013b; Falloon & Khoo, 2014). The display recording app used in this research has provided
unique insights into how students work with these devices, their problem-solving strategies, how
different features of apps affect their learning, and the nature of discourse as they interact with each
other when using them. The final phase of the project in 2014 will use the recording app to explore older
students (year 5&6) use of iPads within inquiry-based units of learning in BYOD classrooms. It will
investigate if and how iPads and apps when used within inquiry-based pedagogical frameworks, might
promote student thinking skills as outlined in the Key Competencies of the New Zealand Curriculum
(2007).
References
Apple Computers Inc. (2014). The iPad in Education: Teacher stories. Retrieved from
http://www.apple.com/education/ipad/teacher-stories/
Bilby, L. (2013, June 9). IT Classrooms of the Future. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10889272
Conn, C. (2012). Managing and Maximising a Class Set of iPads. Learning and Leading with
Technology, June-July 2012, p. 32-34.
Cumming, T., & Strnadova, I. (2012). The iPad as a Pedagogical Tool in Special Education: Promises
and Possibilities. Special Education Perspectives, 21(1), 34-46.
Dobler, E. (2012). Using iPads to Promote Literacy in the Primary Grades. Reading Today, Dec
2011/Jan 2012, p. 18-19.
Page 154 of 487
Falloon, G.W. (2013a). Young Students Using iPads: App design and content influences on their
learning pathways. Computers & Education, 68, 505-521.
Falloon, G.W. (2013b). What’s Going on Behind the Screens? Researching young students’ learning
pathways using iPads. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning (Nov). Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12044/full DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12044
Falloon, G.W. & Khoo, E. (2014). Exploring Young Students’ Talk in iPad-Supported Collaborative
Learning Environments. Computers & Education, 77, 13-28.
Fisher, B., Lucas, T. & Galstyan, A. (2013). The Role of iPads in Constructing Collaborative Learning
Spaces. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 18, 165-178.
Getting, S., & Swainey, K. (2012). First Graders with iPads? Learning and Leading with Technology,
Aug 2012, 24-27.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging Technologies: Mobile apps for language learning. Language,
Learning and Technology, 15(2), 2-11.
Harmon, J. (2012). Unlocking Literacy with iPads. Learning and Leading with Technology, June-July
2012, p. 30-32.
Irwin, B. & Jones, N. (2014, January 25). Pack your Laptop, We’re off to School. The New Zealand
Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11191631
Jones, N. (2014, February 4). School Gives an iPad to Every Pupil. The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11196246
Jowett, E., Moore, W. & Anderson, A. (2012). Using an iPad-based Video Modelling Package to Teach
Numeracy to a Child with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 15(4),
304-212.
Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.
Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E. & Tate, S. (2012). How Use of an iPad Facilitated Reading
Improvement. TechTrends, 56(3), 20-28.
Mercer, N. (1994). The Quality of Talk in Children’s Joint Activity at the Computer. Journal of
Computer-Assisted Learning, 10(1), 24-32.
Mercer, N. (1996). The Quality of Talk in Children’s Collaborative Activity in the Classroom. Learning
and Instruction, 6(4), 359-377.
Moran, A. (2014, February 8). Local Schools Struggle to Keep Up with IT. The Bay of Plenty Times.
Retrieved
from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plentytimes/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503343&objectid=11198240
New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning
Media Ltd.
Saine, E. (2011). The Game Changer: Using iPads in college teacher education classes. College Student
Journal, 45(1), 758-768.
Shepherd, I., & Reeves, B. (2012). iPad or iFad – The Mobile Classroom. Journal of Higher Education
Theory and Practice, 12(5), 40-53.
Page 155 of 487
Appendix A
Apps used during Phase 1
1. Play Square
2. Rocket Speller
3. Smarty Pants School series
4. BlobbleWriteHD
5. Mr Phonics series
6. Pinocchio
7. Icky bathtime
8. Cat in the Hat (Lite)
9. Scramble PCS 3 Letter Words
10. Hay Day
11. Pirate School
12. Where’s my water?
13. Cut the Rope
14. Treasure Hunt
15. Pet Shop
16. Green Farm
17. Kids’ Puzzles
18. Pattern Game
19. Animal Fun
20. Matches
21. PickinStick Classic
22. Math Bingo
23. Game of Life
24. Dots for Tots
25. Jungle Time
26. PopMath
27. Rocket Maths Free
28. Geometry Maze
29. Toy Puzzles
30. Logos Quiz
31. Blitz
32. Reading Comprehension
33. Princess Pea
34. The Three Pigs
35. Gingerbread Maker
36. Snow White
37. Hairy Maclary
38. Golden Lite
39. Magnetic ABC
40. Talking Tom and Ben News
41. My Dogs
42. The Emperor
43. Little Mermaid
44. The Berenstain Bears Lite
45. Pirate Treasure Hunt
Page 156 of 487
MOOCS AND QUALITY ISSUES: A STUDENT PERSPECTIVE
Glenn Finger
Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Lisa Capan
The Community College of Baltimore County, Catonsville, United States of America
Abstract
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become the focus of exploration and
analysis as a disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997) to education. There are
significant claims made about the potential of MOOCs to transform schooling and higher
education (Ernst & Young, 2012; Norton et al., 2013). Education policy and practice is
guided by considerations of quality. This paper provides a student perspective ‘from the
inside’ in relation to MOOCs and questions of quality. The perspectives are situated
within wider, more general, questions about quality issues about MOOCs ‘from the
outside’ which remain largely unresolved (Kinash, 2014). Those concerns about quality
include questions relating to the business model to sustain MOOCs, intellectual property
issues, course design including the assessment design, and questions about credit for
completing a MOOC. Value propositions for students and for faculty staff involved in the
design, creation and delivery of MOOCs are discussed. The paper concludes that, while
MOOCs are potentially a disruptive innovation, it is possible that future designs of
MOOCs will see improvements on the current learning design evident in early versions
of MOOCs.
Introduction – MOOCs, Quality and Student Perspectives
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become the focus of exploration and analysis as a
disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997) to education. There are significant claims made about the
potential of MOOCs to transform schooling and higher education. This is reflected, for example, in
the Ernst and Young (2012) report University of the future A thousand year old industry on the cusp
of profound change which sees digital technologies and global mobility as two of five megatrends as
drivers of change that will transform higher education; namely,
 Democratisation of knowledge and access,
 Contestability of markets and funding,
 Global mobility,
 Integration with industry, and
 Digital technologies (Ernst & Young, 2012).
In relation to digital technologies and MOOCs, they indicate:
The so-called Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are an early stage example of the
search for new models. Some of these models will decline and fail, others will create very
substantial economic value. Winners are likely to be a mix of new, pure play online
businesses and traditional businesses with powerful online models and capability. (Ernst &
Young, 2012, p. 9)
In relation to global mobility, they warn:
Global mobility of academic brands is a newer phenomenon, but is also growing in
importance. ‘MOOC-based’ distribution of content by the likes of Harvard, MIT and others
is creating a global brand impact, if not revenue at this stage. (Ernst & Young, 2012, p. 10)
While these transformations might be possible (Ernst & Young, 2012; Norton et al., 2013),
education policy and practice is guided by considerations of quality. Similarly, as shown in the
Page 157 of 487
review of relevant literature presented in this paper, the growth of MOOCs has been accompanied
by questions of quality (Fain, 2012; Legon, 2013; Quality Matters, 2014) with unresolved issues
(Kinash, 2014). This paper provides a contribution to this ongoing MOOC conversation by
providing a student perspective in relation to MOOCs and questions of quality. The perspectives
have been generated by a co-author as participant in the Surviving Disruptive Technologies MOOC
offered by Coursera in late 2013.
Thus, this paper, in presenting these student perspectives from the inside (Everet & Louis, 2001), is
situated within wider, more general, questions about quality issues about MOOCs from the outside
which remain largely unresolved. Those concerns about quality include questions relating to the
business model to sustain MOOCs, intellectual property issues, course design, the assessment
design, and questions about credit for completing a MOOC. Value propositions for students and for
faculty staff involved in the design, creation and delivery of MOOCs are discussed. The paper
concludes that, while MOOCs are potentially a disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997), it is
possible that future designs of MOOCs will see improvements on the current learning design evident
in these early versions of MOOCs.
Review of relevant literature
This review of relevant literature examines the emergence of MOOCs, and then proceeds to examine
and identify some of the issues being raised in relation to MOOCs and quality.
Emergence of MOOCs
The rapid emergence of MOOCs in 2012 and their subsequent growth has been highlighted well by
Norton et al. (2013) in the Grattan Institute report The online evolution: when technology meets tradition
in higher education.
In higher education, 2012 was the year of the MOOC – the massive open online course. At
the year’s end, several million students had enrolled in education providers started during
the year. The big MOOC providers – Coursera, edX and Udacity – were the fastest-moving
start-ups in higher education history. (Norton et al., 2013, p. 5)
To illustrate the growth of MOOCs, that report published in April 2013 stated that Coursera had “signed
up over 60 top-tier universities from around the world and enrolled more than three million students in
330 courses” (Norton et al., 2013). At the time of writing this paper, approximately 12 months later in
March 2014, this had grown to Coursera having 108 partners, with more than 6,500,000 ‘Courserians”
and Coursera now offering 631 courses.
Similar growth and presence is evident in edX (edX, 2014 - see https://www.edx.org/) governed by MIT
and Harvard University, and Udacity (Udacity, 2014a - see https://www.udacity.com/), started by
several scientists from Stanford University. There are similar themes conveyed in their respective
missions. For example, Udacity claims that:
Our online courses are rigorous and may even make you sweat. Tackling projects built by
tech leaders like Google, AT&T, and Intuit, you’ll stretch yourself and learn new and relevant
skills. Enroll today—we’ll help you succeed and cheer you on every step of the way!
(Udacity, 2014b)
Elsewhere, the Coursera mission is outlined on their website as follows:
Coursera is an education platform that partners with top universities and organizations
worldwide, to offer courses online for anyone to take, for free.
We envision a future where everyone has access to a world-class education. We aim to
empower people with education that will improve their lives, the lives of their families, and
the communities they live in. (Coursera, 2014a)
Page 158 of 487
Undoubtedly, the emergence of MOOCs reflects not only significant growth in the numbers of students
and courses being offered, but there have been associated issues in relation to MOOCs and quality,
which are discussed briefly in the following section.
MOOCs and quality
An excellent starting point in discussions about quality of online courses is the Quality Matters (QM)
Higher Education Rubric (Quality Matters, 2014) which highlights the importance of alignment of
course components, including the Learning Objectives, Assessment and Measurement, Instructional
Materials, Learner Interaction and Engagement, and Course Technology and how these enable students
to develop and demonstrate the learning outcomes. The rubric provides 8 general standards and 41
specific standards and can be used to evaluate the design of online and blended courses. Moreover,
“The Rubric is complete with annotations that explain the application of the standards and the
relationship among them” (Quality Matters, 2014, p. 1). To illustrate, one of the standards – Standard 5
– focuses on Learner Interaction and Engagement and provides 4 indicators; namely,
5.1 The learning activities promote the achievement of the stated learning objectives.
5.2 Learning activities provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning.
5.3 The instructor’s plan for classroom response time and feedback on assignments is clearly stated.
5.4 The requirements for student interaction are clearly articulated.
Earlier in 2012, the Gates Foundation which had offered grants to support the development of MOOCs,
engaged QM involvement with that grant program in what might have been “the first effort to test
whether MOOCs can meet quality design standards, incorporate proven methods of effective online
instruction, and be effective for different learners” (Quality Matters, 2014, p. 1). The QM review
involved MOOCs delivered through various platforms, including Blackboard, Udacity, Coursera,
D2Learn, and EdX. In relation to QM standards, the outcomes of that review were disseminated in
December 2013. Twelve courses were completed by the review deadline, with three courses meeting
the standards after the first review, one course met the standards after an amendment, and one MOOC
is expected to meet the standards after changes are made. Consequently, the inference can be made that
the other seen courses were problematic on one or more of the QM standards.
Shown in Table 1 is a synthesis from the summary provided in Quality matters applied to MOOCs
(Heidi, 2 December 2013) drawn from the Eli Webinar presented by Deb Adair, QM Managing Director
and Chief Planning Officer, and this represented QM’s first attempt at applying QM to MOOCs.
Page 159 of 487
Table 1 Synthesis of Key Findings – Quality Matters applied to MOOCs (Source: Heidi, 2013)
What was done well
 Course Overview and Introduction
 Assessment and measurement
 Instructional materials – depth and quality seemed to be strong
 Technology – navigation was clear and functional
QM Standards Issues*
 Technology skills expectations clearly stated, articulation of course support
services, uses accessible technologies - 50% missed these standards
Learning outcomes clearly stated, module learning objectives measurable,
articulate accessibility policies - 42% missed these standards
 Course learning objectives measurable, response time clearly stated - 33%
missed these standards
* It was determined that many of the accessibilities issues were related to the chosen
delivery platform, not necessarily an issue with the way the MOOC was developed.

The Bottom Line
These non-credit bearing MOOCs could have obtained certification by addressing
some basic policy information that should be standard in any course.
Elsewhere, Fain notes that “Early returns show that massive open online courses (MOOCs) work best
for motivated and academically prepared students” (Fain, 2012, p. 1). However, Fain suggests that the
question which the Gates Foundation wanted to answer was - could high-quality MOOCs benefit a
broader range of learners? Similarly, Ron Legon, Executive Director of QM, in commenting on the
quality of MOOCs, argued that far too little attention has been evident, and stated:
On the face of it, the organizing principles of MOOCs are at odds with widely observed best
practices in online education, including those advocated by my organization, the Quality
Matters Program. Many of the first MOOCs are providing quality of content, but are far
behind the curve in providing quality of design, accountable instructional delivery, or
sufficient resources to help the vast majority of students achieve a course’s intended
learning outcomes. (Legon, 2013, p. 1)
Importantly, Legon suggests that “the best MOOC 2.0 courses may turn out to be “hybrids” that
combine the characteristics of quality online courses with a lower threshold for risk-free exploration,
enabling them to reach more online learners and stimulate them” (Legon, 2013, p. 1). Elsewhere,
Gregson (2013) identified several concerns about the MOOC agenda. These included risks associated
with corporate sponsorship and influence over content, MOOCs might become the ‘cheap seats’ of the
increasingly, stratified, unequal higher education sector, and that MOOCs represent a “fairly naked
threat to the working conditions of existing and future higher education workers” (Gregson, 2013, p.
33). Gregson concludes with a strong caution in relation to MOOCs and quality.
MOOC fans will say this horse has long since bolted and those of us who still think quality
pedagogy requires time and space are hopelessly utopian, but if we do not retain some
vision of what quality higher education should look like, this form of online 'learning' may
well become just another sign that the real focus is on the price!cost of education and not
its true value.” (Gregson, 2013, p. 33)
Page 160 of 487
The co-authors of this paper attended and participated in the eLearn 2013 World Conference Pre Conference Symposium dedicated to MOOCs in Las Vegas, and actively engaged in the MOOCs
and Course Quality roundtable. Associated with the QM issues identified in the literature review,
that roundtable identified issues associated with the monetisation and business models to sustain
and grow MOOCs, intellectual property issues, MOOCs and assessment design, and credit issues.
Evident also was the question – what is the value proposition for students and for faculty staff
involved in the design, creation of MOOCs? At that symposium, George Siemens, in his presentation
MOOCs: Where next?, suggested that, “While MOOCs as a concept are over-hyped and will likely fade
in prominence, the attention now being directed to online learning, development of new software, new
assessment techniques, and new pedagogies will last” (Siemens, 2013). The emerging analysis of this
discourse about MOOCs reflect questions of quality and questions of what MOOCs might become
and/or inform other forms of online learning.
Research design
This study aimed to investigate a student’s perspective on the experience of studying a MOOC in order
to make assessments about MOOCs and quality issues. The course selected for this study was Surviving
Disruptive Technologies offered by the University of Maryland, through Coursera, and was undertaken
in late 2013. The authors disclose from the outset that the co-author was a participant in this study, who
undertook this course, and successfully completed the assessment tasks for the course. This is important
to disclose, so that critical perspectives are not seen as being influenced by a negative outcome achieved
by the co-author as the course participant. Thus, this should not be seen as an assumption that the
outcome was negative from this student perspective. Similarly, as this student succeeded in this course,
it should not be assumed that everything about the MOOC experience was positive.
Consequently, rather than relying solely on reports and research by other parties about MOOCs, this
study was initiated by a desire to gain first hand experiences through a student perspective by one of the
co-authors engaging in a MOOC. The co-author became a participant in the course. Therefore, the
methodology was guided by this aim of the study which focused on a values-based approach, as there
was a need to work within a qualitative, naturalistic paradigm in which the inquiry is value-bound,
influenced by inquirer values as expressed in the choice of the problem itself, and in the framing,
bounding and focusing on that problem (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2004, p. 137). In addition, as a
co-author was involved in a program of learning, the context within which the study took place assumed
that the attribution of meaning was continuous and evolving over time (Cohen et al., 2004, p. 137).
Elsewhere, in relation to organisational research, relevant to this study are two different paradigms
discussed by Evered and Louis (2001) as inquiry from the inside and inquiry from the outside, with the
former evident in this study in which the researcher is a participant in the course, rather than being
detached from the outside. However, from the inside observations are complemented by an analysis from
the outside, by couching the student perspectives of participating in the Surviving Disruptive
Technologies course within wider literature, implications and issues.
In summary, data were collected throughout the course from the inside, focusing on the design and
implementation of the course, including the content, delivery (such as the Video Lectures, Discussion
Forums), and the assessment design (Mid Term and Final Term Projects. Specifically, these are couched
within the 10 unresolved MOOC issues from the outside, as identified by Kinash (2014) and shown later
in this paper in Table 2 in the following section, which provides a summary of the findings from a
student perspective. This reflects alternating between inside and outside perspectives, and addresses the
limitations associated with being limited to only the inside set of perspectives (Evered & Louis, 2001).
Page 161 of 487
Summary of Findings – A Student Perspective
About the course – Surviving Disruptive Technologies
The course Surviving Disruptive Technologies was offered by the University of Maryland through
Coursera. As shown in Figure 1, the purpose of this course was “to help individuals and organizations
survive when confronted with disruptive technologies that threaten their current way of life” (Coursera,
2013). The aim of the course goes on to outline the focus of the course; namely,
We will look at a general model of survival and use it to analyze companies and industries
that have failed or are close to failing. Examples of companies that have not survived
include Kodak, a firm over 100 years old, Blockbuster and Borders. It is likely that each
of us has done business with all of these firms, and today Kodak and Blockbuster are in
bankruptcy and Borders has been liquidated. Disruptions are impacting industries like
education; Coursera and others offering these massive open online courses are a challenge
for Universities. In addition to firms that have failed, we will look at some that have
survived and are doing well. What are their strategies for survival? (Coursera, 2013).
Figure 1: Coursera - Surviving Disruptive Technologies – University of Maryland
It was easy to enrol online, and there were no costs associated with enrolling. The admission
requirements indicated that:
By registering or participating in services or functions on the Sites, you hereby represent
that you are over 18 years of age, an emancipated minor or in possession of consent by a
legal parent or guardian and have the authority to enter into the terms herein. In any case,
you affirm that you are over the age of 13 as the Site is not intended for children under 13.
If you are under 13 years of age, do not use the Sites. (Coursera, 2014b)
Therefore, as a student, it was noted that, with parental consent, a student might be 13 years or over. In
addition, it was noted that there were no other entry requirements, such as previous secondary school or
tertiary qualifications. This is an important consideration when assessment design is discussed later in
this paper, particularly in relation to the use of peer assessment.
Course Format
The 7 week course format consisted of a ‘Syllabus’ which had two ‘classes’ each week. For example,
Week 1 consisted of Topics, such as Class 1 – Survival, and Class – 2 Kodak misses its moment. As
shown in the Course Menu in Figure 2, the course design provided Video Lectures, Discussion Forums,
Weekly Assignments, details about the Mid Term and Final Term Projects, the Syllabus, Surveys, Course
Wiki, and Join a Meetup.
Also, as shown in Figure 2, these video lectures ranged in duration from 4:56 minutes through to no
Page 162 of 487
longer than 21:47 minutes. Interestingly, from a student perspective, the asynchronous access was an
effective design, as the student was travelling from Australia to the United States, Singapore and
Malaysia during this course. From a student perspective, it seemed that videos that were 4-6 minutes
seemed optimal, while those longer than 10 minutes seemed to be too long. Thus, weekly topics broken
into smaller video lectures seemed to reflect better design than, for example, presenting a single one
hour video lecture each week.
Figure 2: Surviving Disruptive Technologies Course Menu and Video Lectures
Student Perspective – Course quality – Discussion forums and peer assessment
There was a heavy reliance on the participation of students in the Discussion Forums, and all assessment
tasks relied totally on students undertaking peer assessment.
While participation on the Discussion Forums was not an assessable component of the course, there was
the generation of ‘Forum Reputations’. To some extent, this incentivized and encouraged the co-author
as participant to engage in the forums. As shown in Table 1, the co-author as participant created 4
threads, provided 50 posts, and achieved 10 points, ranking 7th on the Forum reputations.
Page 163 of 487
Table 1 Forum Reputations – at 16 December 2013 after the course was completed
Name
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
ACEC 2014 Paper Co-author as participant
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Student Name Removed
Threads
6
9
12
4
11
6
4
2
7
7
1
16
2
Posts/Comments
30
83
31
76
45
20
50
11
27
30
11
34
7
Upvoted/Downvoted
26
0
22
0
19
0
20
0
25
11
23
0
13
0
14
0
16
0
13
0
15
0
10
0
24
0
Points
25
17
15
14
13
12
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
As the Course Statistics are unknown, no commentary can be provided in relation to the number of
students undertaking this course and the percentage of students who contributed to the Discussion
Forums. However, it seemed that most of the discussion was contributed to by approximately 20-30
highly engaged, visible students in these forums. In addition, it was observed that comments were
frequently about course related matters, rather than substantive dialogue about the content and the
development of deep learning.
These perspectives are consistent with the findings by Brinton et al. (2013) who investigated forum
activities, since social learning is a key MOOC design feature and driver in scalable models. They noted
two features of MOOC forum activities, namely, a high decline rate whereby the volume of discussions
in the forum declines continuously throughout the duration of the course, and that ‘high-volume, noisy
discussions’ are evident. They warn that approximately 30% of the courses produce so many new
discussion threads that it is not feasible for either the students or the teaching staff to read through and
respond to these. Furthermore, a substantial portion of the discussions are not directly course-related, as
experienced in the Surviving Disruptive Technologies discussions. Examples include the introductions
which sometimes result in threads which talk about the roles and locations of students, rather than the
course content.
Brinton et al. studied the discussion threads associated with 73 courses offered by Coursera, involving
115,000 students who wrote over 800,000 posts in 170,000 different threads. They noted a dramatic
decline as a course progressed, and, classify the posts into three categories; i.e. small talk (student
introductions that are of little use in completing the course), discussions about course logistics (such as
when to submit assignments), and course-specific questions which are the most useful for students. This
is consistent with the experience of the student in this study.
Student Perspective – Assessment issues
Students undertaking this course were not required to complete the assessments. However, for those
seeking the Certificate, there was a Mid Term Project and a Final Term Project. For a student to have
her/his work assessed, there was a requirement that the student agreed to peer assess at least 5 other
student assignments. Both the Mid Term Project and the Final Project were peer assessed.
In relation to the Mid Term Project, no clear statements about the standards, criteria, length or
referencing system and expectations were provided. Therefore, there were no standards descriptions for
calibrating and moderating to guide the making of judgements about the standards of work being
assessed. Importantly, there was no process for developing assessor capabilities. Given that enrolment
Page 164 of 487
in this course was ‘open’ to anyone over 13 years and previous tertiary experience was not required for
admission, this held the potential for a novice student to be assessing the work of another student at a
University level.
These concerns were evident in the discussion forums after the Mid Term Project had been assessed. To
illustrate, the co-author as participant stated:
As a student in this course who wanted my work assessed, and therefore I agreed to assess
the work of others, I had searched carefully for standards and criteria upon which to create
my assignment, and to be able to reliably assess the work of other students. I was quite
surprised when I saw these when I undertook the assessment of other students. (Co-author)
Another student commented, “I must say that the midterm exam was the worst exam I’ve ever taken”.
In the Discussion Forums, the co-author noted that some who undertook the peer assessment said that
they marked students low if their responses were short, while others indicated that they marked students
low if they provided long answers. The way in which this was designed and implemented did not enable
inter-rater reliability. For students who believed that there were problems in their marks, there was no
review of grade or appeals process. In terms of quality and governance of assessment, Universities must
have well articulated assessment policies which include these provisions. These were not evident in this
MOOC.
Professor Hank Lucas, who was the lecturer for this course, provided the following, honest explanation,
though this did not engender confidence in relation to inter-rater reliability. It is interesting that he refers
to ‘grading rubrics’ as none were provided. This might be explained as he indicates that he found these
difficult to construct.
I have found creating the grading rubrics the most difficult part of preparing the course. I
do not particularly like multiple choice questions and objective tests because they tend to go
after facts. An essay lets people show that they can think about the issues and reason from
what they have studied. I hope that in evaluating answers people will use the rubric as a
guideline. In most cases I think the answers should say mention some of the items in the
rubric. For example, in question 1 a student should observe the relationship between loss of
viewers, loss of advertising and then loss of revenue. However, if there is a great answer that
deviates from the rubric I would give it full credit. (Professor Hank Lucas)
It seemed that fewer students completed the Final Term Project, which logically meant that it was more
likely that the students completing this were more likely to have been engaged and understood the key
concepts and content being developed in the course. It was perceived, from comments in the Discussion
Forums, that those who failed the mid term project were less likely to complete the final project.The
student perspective was that, while there were issues relating to inter-rater reliability for the Mid Term
Project, the marks and the quality of the comments received for the Final Term Project seemed to have
been provided by a smaller set of students who had developed deeper learning in this course.
Student Perspective – Unresolved MOOC issues
Due to length limitations of this paper, these are presented in summary form in Table 2. From the
outside, Kinash (2014) identifies 10 unresolved MOOC issues which are used as organising issues in
Table 2, and supporting commentary from Kinash is provided to elaborate on those 10 unresolved issues.
These are used to frame student perspectives gained by being a student in this MOOC from the inside.
Page 165 of 487
Table 2 MOOC Issues - A Student Perspective on Surviving Disruptive Technologies
Unresolved MOOC
Issues
Supporting Commentary
(Kinash, 2014)
1. High drop-out
rate.
“Estimates vary, with some
news articles listing drop-out
rates of 40-85 per cent.
…Surveys from people who
have failed to complete
MOOCs state that it was not
what they expected and/or
that the quality of the MOOC
they tried was poor.” (Kinash,
2014, p. 57)
2. MOOCs are
online.
“Advocates for a blended
approach believe that some
learning content and activities
are best suited for online (e.g.
multimedia lectures) whereas
others must be facilitated
face-to-face with educators
present (e.g. labs).” (Kinash,
2014, p. 58)
“A high proportion of
surveyed employers have
indicated that they would not
consider graduates from
university programs offered
via MOOC… MOOCs often have
no criteria and poorly
developed pre-requisites for
student enrolment.” (Kinash,
2014, p. 58)
3. MOOCs produce
sub-standard or
lower tier
graduates.
4. MOOCs have
proliferated before
a rigorous and
robust business
model has been
developed.
Page 166 of 487
“Is there cost-recovery for the
original university?” (Kinash,
2014, p. 58)
Student Perspective in
relation to Surviving
Disruptive Technologies
Course through Coursera
 Course statistics were
sought by several students, but
these were not provided.
 Indications were that few
students successfully
completed the Mid Term
Project, and even fewer
completed the Final Term
Project.
 It was perceived that to
succeed, a student needed to
have the academic capabilities
for independent, self-directed
learning.
 The content of this course
was suitable for being
provided online.
 As the student was
travelling overseas during the
course, online was very
effective.
 Due to the issues associated
with the assessment design,
there are major concerns
regarding the relationships
between the learning
outcomes expected and the
way that students were asked
to demonstrate these through
the assessment tasks.
 Peer assessment lacked
inter-rater reliability.
 There were no costs for
students to enrol. However, it
was evident that considerable
investment had been made to
construct this course, and to
employ those who delivered
the course.
 There was an option to pay
a small amount ($39) to
5. The
development of a
crediting system.
9. MOOCs heighten
intellectual
property issues.
“Who decides which MOOCs
are credited for which
programs in which
universities? Will there be a
global master-list of transfer
credits? Will there be an
accreditation process and
quality audits? …What if the
subjects are offered through
corporations rather than
universities?” (Kinash, 2014,
p. 58)
“There is a fear that a few
powerful universities will
situate themselves to offer,
credit and advertise MOOCs,
and that the current context of
diversity and multiculturalism
through numerous
universities in each nation will
be replaced by online global
learning through a few
dominant institutions.”
(Kinash, 2014, p. 57)
“…requires a team who
understands the discipline and
curriculum, pedagogy,
contemporary students, and
technology-enabled and
technology-enhanced
learning.” (Kinash, 2014, p. 58)
“Universities must invest time
and money into keeping the
content, pedagogies and
technologies current, up-todate and cutting edge.”
(Kinash, 2014, p. 58)
“Who has the copyright on
online materials?” (Kinash,
2014, p. 58)
10.
Many
universities are
hesitant to enter
the MOOC arena is
that they worry
“The curriculum and teaching
approaches may provide a
market advantage to the
university. Putting those
strategies up online for their
6. Will MOOCs
become the
enactment of an
Ivory Tower
Imperialism?
7. Quality MOOCs
are resource
demanding in the
design, student
administration and
teaching phases.
8. MOOCs are new
in their
development.
Page 167 of 487
undertake the ‘Signature
Track’.
 While the intention was not
to gain credit, the Certificate
was able to be recognised
through the student’s profile
on LinkedIn.
 Importantly, the student
can claim that they were
immersed in a course offered
by the University of Maryland,
which provides some status to
this course.
 There is a perception that
MOOCs might be positioning
themselves to be the ‘Google of
Higher Education’.
 While this was not
researched, it was evident hat
significant resource
investments had been made to
construct and deliver this
course.
 If this course is offered
again, it will need upgrading in
terms of content.
 Course improvements are
needed, for example, in
assessment design.
 There were some student
concerns that solutions
provided by them became the
intellectual property of
Coursera.
 The co-author as
participant undertook this
course with the purpose to
learn both the content and to
about sharing
trade secrets
competitors to see may be
counter-productive.” (Kinash,
2014, p. 58)
learn how this MOOC was
designed.
 A great deal was learned
from this immersion in this
MOOC, which can be used to
inform online course
development elsewhere.
Conclusion
This paper examined MOOCs and quality through the presentation of a student perspective through
immersion in the Surviving Disruptive Technologies course offered by the University of Maryland
through Coursera. These perspectives from the inside were situated within 10 unresolved MOOC issues
provided from the outside by Kinash (2014).
This paper has identified and examined the challenges associated with improving the quality of MOOCs,
and associated questions relating to the business model to sustain MOOCs, intellectual property
issues, course design, the assessment design, questions about credit for completing a MOOC, and
the value propositions for students and for faculty staff involved in the design, creation and delivery
of MOOCs.
To conclude, while MOOCs are potentially a disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997), we agree
with Legon (2013) and Siemens (2013), that it is possible that future designs of MOOCs will see
improvements on the current learning design evident in these early versions of MOOCs. It is also
likely that there will be business models which monetize MOOCs to enable their financial
sustainability. The next generations of MOOCs are also likely to be more seriously informed by
quality frameworks, such as Quality Matters (2014).
References
Brinton, C.G., Chiang, M., Jain, S., Lam, H., Liu, Z., F Wong, F. (2013). Learning about social learning
in MOOCs: From statistical analysis to generative model. Retrieved March 24, 2104 from
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.2159.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator's Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2004). Research Methods in Education. 5th Edition. New
York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Coursera. (2013). Surviving Disruptive Technologies, University of Maryland. Retrieved March 24,
2014 from https://www.coursera.org/course/sdt.
Coursera. (2014a). Coursera – Our Mission. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
https://www.coursera.org/about/.
Coursera. (2014b). Coursera – Terms of Use. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
https://www.coursera.org/about/terms.
edX. (2014). EdX. Take great online courses from the world's best universities. Retrieved March 24,
2014 from https://www.edx.org/.
Page 168 of 487
Ernst & Young. (2012). University of the future A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound
change. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_of_the_f
uture_2012.pdf.
Evered, R. & Louis, M. (2001). Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: ‘Inquiry from
the Inside’ and ‘Inquiry from the Outside’. Academy of Management Review, 6 (3), 385-395.
Fain, P. (2012). Gates, MOOCs and Remediation. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/14/gates-foundation-solicits-remedial-moocs.
Gregson, S. (2013). MOOCs Tailored or Taylorised Education? NTEU ADVOCATE, 20 (3), November
2013, 32-33.
Heidi. (2013). Quality matters applied to MOOCs. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
http://heidi.community.uaf.edu/2013/12/02/quality-matters-applied-to-moocs/.
Kinash, S. (2014). MOOCing About MOOCs, Education Technology Solutions, Issue 57, Dec/Jan
2014.
Legon, R. (2013). MOOCs and the Quality Question. Inside Higher Ed, April 25, 2013. Retrieved
March 24, 2014 from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/04/25/moocs-do-not-representbest online-learning-essay?goback=.gde_4466238_member_235556216 .
Lucas, H. C., Jr. (2012). The Search for Survival: Lessons from Disruptive Technologies. Santa
Barbara, CA., Praeger.
Norton, A., Sonnemann, J., & McGannon, C. (2013). The online evolution: when technology meets
tradition in higher education, Grattan Institute.
Quality Matters. (2012). Raising the Issue of Quality of MOOCs: Gates Foundation RFP- QM to
Provide Course Reviews. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from https://www.qualitymatters.org/raisingissue-moocs-gates-foundation-rfp-provide-course-reviews.
Quality Matters. (2014). Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
https://www.qualitymatters.org/rubric.
Siemens, G. (2013). MOOCs: Where Next? Keynote presentation at MOOCs and Open Education
around the World Preconference Symposium, E-Learn, October 21, 2013, Paris Hotel, Las Vegas.
Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
http://www.trainingshare.com/pdfs/Preconference_Symposium_Handout.pdf.
Udacity. (2014a). Udacity. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from https://www.udacity.com/success.
Udacity. (2014b). Udacity. Commit to your success. Retrieved March 24, 2014 from
https://www.udacity.com/success.
Page 169 of 487
CALCULUS FOR KIDS
Andrew Fluck, Christopher K.H. Chin, Dev Ranmuthugala, Irene Penesis
University of Tasmania and Australian Maritime College
Abstract
The ‘Calculus for Kids’ project builds on ‘Calculus in Primary’ which was conducted with
final year primary school and first year secondary school students aged between 10-12 years
old in four Australian states. Classroom teachers were trained to provide instruction in the
use of MAPLE mathematics software. They taught their students in 1:1 laptop classrooms
(and one computer laboratory) to use MAPLE to solve real-world problems using integral
calculus. After eleven lessons, the students took a version of the first year engineering degree
calculus examination, where they gained an average Distinction grade. The project was
significant because it showed very young students could achieve at much higher levels when
using computer technology. The resulting discussion can examine the ethics of withholding
such support in mainstream classrooms and what we mean by ‘knowing calculus’. Both
questions are reviewed in this presentation.
‘Calculus for Kids’ was designed to extend the project to include lessons in which similarlyaged students devise mathematical models to describe real-world activities. With funding
from the Australian Research Council (linkage project LP130101088) the project has been
extended to more states and schools over a longer term of engagement.
Introduction
Educators have long held high hopes for the use of computers in schooling. These hopes have included
access to advanced ideas at a younger age. Seymour Papert suggested this would be possible in the area
of mathematics:
Many topics that were unteachably abstract in the context of pencil and paper technologies
will be considered as appropriate for children in the context of a digital technology that
makes the previously formal become concrete. (Papert, 2000).
The implications are that the right choice of software can provide students with opportunities for practice
and rapid feedback in a motivating environment or have higher order cognitive goals (Wenglinksy,
1998). The Calculus for Kids project was created to take advantage of this potential. It also provides a
chance to address a looming shortage of mathematics skills in Australia.
Universities have reported falling numbers of enrolments in tertiary mathematics, but in New South
Wales at least, pre-tertiary mathematics completions with studies involving calculus have remained
fairly constant since 2001 (MANSW, 2014). In the USA, SimCalc (Kaput Center, 2014) has been used
to assist 12 to 14 year old students develop conceptual understanding of key concepts in Calculus
(Rochelle & Kaput, 1996). This provided the impetus to re-think the curriculum by considering that the
“most effective way of promoting learning is to embed basic skills instruction within more complex
tasks” using computer technology (Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordon & Means, 2000). Further studies
with SimCalc revealed student-level effect sizes of .63, .50, and .56 (Roschelle, Shechtman, Tatar,
Hegedus, Hopkins, Empson, Knudsen, & Gallagher, 2010), all above the ‘hinge point’ of .4 (Hattie,
2009). An effect size of 1 is typically associated with advancing learners' achievement by one year, or
improving the rate of learning by 50%, and corresponds to one standard deviation. Effect sizes above .4
are unusual in educational research. This demonstrates the correct use of software has significant
potential in addressing the shortage of these STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)
skills.
Australia’s international ranking for school mathematics is declining. In the international PISA studies
it was ranked 8th in 2003, 9th in 2006 (DEEWR 2008) and 15th in 2010 (PISA 2010), placing Australia
Page 170 of 487
below several Asian countries and New Zealand. In his 2011 report, Gonski recommended the need for
additional investment (Gonski et al., 2011). “Australia’s weak performance in reading and
mathematics…illustrates a serious cause for concern and suggests significant education reform is
needed…”
The obvious disjunction between ICT use in the world of work and the less consequential uses in schools
can be seen as a reason why students feel disenfranchised and disengaged with education. The responses
of some education systems can seem quite dramatic. For instance, the US state of Indiana no longer
requires cursive writing to be taught because of the perceived importance of keyboards (Loughlin, 2011).
Therefore, the lack of STEM skills appears to be an important problem which could well be addressed
by the correct choice of software and an appropriate pedagogical approach.
Literature
Expectations computers will transform learning
There has been speculation that children can learn concepts, including mathematics, at younger ages if
they have free access to computers, are as ICT-literate as they are reading-literate, and are unfettered by
traditional age-related achievement. A first demonstration using the acquisition of systems concepts
(Resnick, 1998) has hinted at the validity of this idea. Following the 2007 Australian Federal election,
the first item on the new cabinet’s agenda was computers in schools. An interview with Mark Pesce
(2007) highlighted ICT in schools as a Trojan horse to force teachers to think about not only their training
but also changing the curriculum. Principals interviewed on the same program expressed their
expectations that the $1.2 billion initiative (Rudd, Smith & Conroy, 2007) would provide a real vision
and move the system forward. The Australian Government committed to a Digital Education Revolution
with a focus on schooling in Years 9–12, where students nationwide were to be provided with computer
access throughout every school day.
Disjunction between ICT in school and at work
We witness on a daily basis the stark difference between traditional calculus instruction in schools and
practical applications by professional engineers. Traditionally students have been taught how to integrate
a function from first principles using a series of rules or patterns they memorise. This helps students to
understand how to integrate a new function in the future. However, as the catalogue of function integrals
grows, the use of poorly-memorised results using ‘first principles’ can impede practical calculation.
Therefore professional engineers use a variety of specialist software to ‘crunch the numbers’. One might
argue that reliance on computing equipment in engineering is analogous to the widening use of word
processors in lieu of pens in newspaper offices; there is certainly a discussion to be had about the way
these technologies redefine the underlying skills or their acquisition. The crucial transformational role
of ICT in schooling is underlined by the need to introduce ICTs as an integral component of broader
curricular reforms that are changing not only how learning occurs but also what is learned – identified
for the Australian government in Making Better Connections (Downes, Fluck et al., 2002).
Some educational institutions are realising the importance of bringing engineering applications of
calculus into the mathematics classroom. Horowitz and Ebrahimpour (2002) described the use of Matlab
software at Penn State University (USA) to solve optimisation problems and predict the effect of drag
forces. Tang, Ram and Shah (2005) used multimedia instructional materials and the Maple software
(Maplesoft, 2014) to work on the inventory control problem and do curve fitting. The use of computers
to better match the activity of professional engineers was a feature in both these approaches.
Some major reports into the efficacy of ICT as a support for student attainment in numeracy and literacy
showed it can be limited when used in an inappropriate curriculum (e.g. Robertson & Fluck, 2006 and
Page 171 of 487
Dynarski et al., 2007, the former carried out for the Australian Research Council). Parr (2000) showed
ICT is about as effective as other methods for improving education, such as decreasing class sizes, when
assessed using non-ICT based tests. Therefore we argue the impact of ICT as a general capability to
assist the teaching of conventional subjects is likely to be severely limiting when assessed using
conventional methods.
Method
The aim of the project was to show that advanced mathematical concepts can be taught to and understood
by primary school students, who can then use these new skills to solve real-world problems usually only
attempted by senior secondary students. This was achieved using specialist computer software and the
development of an integrated ICT system, curriculum, and associated teacher training. The trial was
conducted using a sample of students from 5 schools. The project aimed to:
 introduce techniques to assist children to learn and better understand concepts such as areas
and volumes;
 develop improved ways of teaching children to understand the structure of mathematical
equations through optimising the mechanisms they use to symbolically represent those
equations;
 create learning modules for integral calculus and differential equations accessible by
primary students;
 enable students to collaborate in problem-solving activities during the learning process.
Our main conceptual tools were Rogers’ theory of innovation adoption, the non-template problemsolving method of Allen (2001), a realistic mathematics education approach (Gravemeijer, et al, 1999),
and a methodology we developed on the transformational use of ICT in school education which
combines professional software tools with multimedia instructional materials.
The basic design for the research was an intervention method using a cyclic approach, consisting of four
stages: produce/modify procedures and material, train the teachers, intervention in schools, and assess
results. We recruited schools for the project from four Australian states, ensuring a wide range of ICSEA
scores (see Table 1). The local facilitators were chosen by each participating school and attended a oneday training session at the University of Tasmania. The preference was for situations where students
were allocated a laptop for the duration of the program; however, due to the unavailability of equipment,
a class in one school used desktop computers in a laboratory.
In each teaching package we provided materials (see Figure 1) for 12 one-hour modules to be taught
over six weeks with links to worked examples in MAPLE worksheets and extension activities for
students to autonomously consolidate learning. The material consisted of real-life situations presented
through high-visual-impact media that students can understand and apply the mathematical techniques
to solve them. Our challenge was to provide teachers with the confidence that they could master and
convey the material. This included grounding in the operational aspects of the mathematics in the
training day, followed by the other calculus topics in subsequent sessions. Ethics approval was gained
to use a purely post-test method since we understood virtually no student would have learned calculus
beforehand. The post-test contained 14 application questions taken from the first year engineering
calculus examination, with one affective question: “What is calculus good for”? Students were allowed
to use the MAPLE software as they undertook the post-test.
Page 172 of 487
Figure 1 Example of interactive learning materials
The highly visual teaching format used full-colour cues, both stationary and animated, to create a
delivery tool that suited the learning styles of both girls and boys, in a topic that is currently skewed
towards males both in terms of school-curriculum and career choice. Groups of upper-primary-school
children from five schools followed the learning module during one term. The initial lessons focused on
the use of MAPLE, to ensure students could use this tool to solve familiar problems. Once the
operational aspects of the software had been mastered, the concept of integral calculus was introduced
in the fifth lesson. By the eighth lesson, students were quite happy to put together a combination of
definite integrals (as per Figure 1). They went on to solve problems using integral calculus involving
real-world applications, such as the quantity of wood chips required to fill a curved garden bed and how
much paint will be needed for a decorated theatre wall.
Results and Discussion
Our small proof-of-concept pilot project addressed the major issue of STEM skill shortages faced by
many Australian universities. To our surprise, the students scored highly on the university-level posttest, gaining Distinction and Credit grades. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the results by school and
gender.
Page 173 of 487
Table 1 Student demographics, location, school advantage, and overall performance by
gender in post-test questions
9
9
17
12
7
n
11
10
8
11
7
73
89
56
67
86
17
8
13
23
7
n
27
23
16
23
11
Standard
Deviation
74
87
73
70
90
Scores - combined
Mean (%)
n
16
13
8
12
4
Standard
Deviation
ICSEA
*
1004
1118
984
959
887
Scores - Males
Mean (%)
Location
Urban
Urban
Rural
Rural
Rural
Standard
Deviation
State
NSW
QLD
VIC
TAS
TAS
Mean (%)
Scores - Females
75
88
58
63
90
18
9
27
26
10
* Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA): The mean ICSEA value is 1000 with a
standard deviation of 100. Values below the mean indicate schools with fewer advantages.
The results were astonishing, since young children demonstrated competence of what is currently
university-level integral calculus (although the engineering undergraduates have to solve the problems
without a computer). In just one narrow topic, 2D integral calculus, it was possible to harness children’s
passion for engaging with computers, with skill acquisition beyond the project expectations, both in
terms of visual conceptualisation and the understanding of a set of mathematical processes (Fluck, et al,
2011).
The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2014) offers a number of content descriptors for the study of
integral calculus.
 Senior Secondary | Mathematics | Mathematical Methods | Unit 3 (e.g. ACMMM115)
 Senior Secondary | Mathematics | Specialist Mathematics | Unit 4 (e.g. (ACMSM124).
These units are normally studied in Year 12, whereas the students in this project were in Years 6 or 7.
Therefore the students were using computers to learn and demonstrate achievement at a level five years
in advance of their chronological age. An effect size of 1.0 is associated with advancing learner’s
achievement by one year (Didau, 2014), so this project might reasonably claim an effect size of 5.0. This
is well beyond Hattie’s (2009) hinge point of 0.4 as a measure of medium educational impact.
The project has led to numerous journal papers, a book chapter, an outstanding paper award at an
international conference, positive feedback from the local community and the local press,
commendation from the State Education Minister and media interviews. This success story is featured
in the Maplesoft “User case studies” (Chin, et al, 2012) and was presented at the Australasian
Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) conference in 2011 (Penesis, et al, 2011), where it was
commended by engineering peers.
Each participating school received a community report suitable for the school newsletter. The success
of one school (where students were selected from several classes and used a computer laboratory) was
congratulated by the Tasmanian Minister for Education who stated in the local press: “This is an
outstanding result, given that integral calculus is a branch of mathematics which has widespread
applications in science, economics and engineering”. It was also outstanding in that this school had the
lowest index of community socio-educational advantage.
This project demonstrated that primary school students, some of whom were as young as 10 years of
age, can handle integral calculus when equipped with computer tools. With time on their hands after
finishing the project early, students in one school went on to experiment with features of the software
which were not taught. They discovered a wizard for calculating volumes of revolution, and used this to
design goblets. Figure 2 illustrates one such exploration, showing how the students were familiar with
the mathematical notation yet playful in their activity, a good omen for future curriculum transformation.
Page 174 of 487
Figure 2 Goblet design in progress using the volume of revolution wizard in MAPLE
Conclusion
A 2014 Australian Research Council grant will enable this project to go into more schools and track its
impact on NAPLAN numeracy results. In addition, it will allow students to look at a greater range of
real-world problems and construct their own functions to model them. Two additional lessons have been
inserted into the learning materials on parabolic functions. The main reason for this was to counter
criticism that the students in the project were ‘merely pressing buttons’. The lessons on parabolas will
provide students the opportunity to tailor a function to fit a real-world situation, then use the tools of
integral calculus to solve the problem. Such a criticism brings into stark relief what we intend when we
say a student ‘understands calculus’ or has mastered the subject. If passing an examination in the topic
at an academically advanced level does not signify such understanding, then what does? Or do we
always mean this understanding must always be demonstrated without the help of electronic equipment?
This cuts to the core of what might be entailed in the re-design of curricula through the use of computers.
If our social decision is that calculus comprehension must be demonstrated without electronics (even
four-function calculators), then it would be strange if authors were asked to give up their word
processors.
As the Calculus for Kids project proceeds, we will be keeping a close eye on ways this activity impacts
upon general numeracy, hopefully through generating mathematical understanding and delight in
successful achievement. Our other eye will be on the future of existing curricula, wondering what other
projects can contribute in a meaningful way to transformation and re-design using computer tools.
Page 175 of 487
References
ACARA (2014) The Australian Curriculum. Author. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au.
Allen, D. (2001). “Learning integral calculus through non-template problem solving”, Primus:
Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies 11(2), pp. 147–160.
Chin, C.K.H., and Penesis, I., Ranmuthugala, S.D., and Fluck, A., (2012). Maple Helps Teach
Calculus to 11-Year Old Students, Maplesoft, Media, User case studies, online.
http://www.maplesoft.com/company/publications/articles/view.aspx?SID=136487
DEEWR, Australian Government (2008). Schooling Issues Digest: Performance of Australian
School Students in International Studies in Mathematics. Canberra: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/87CE2596-8129-4024-8EA0B4803640879F/22658/SN27633_DEEWR_Schooling_DigestFA.pdf
Didau, D. (2014). Old Hat(tie)? Some things you ought to know about effect sizes. The learning
spy: brain food for the thinking teacher (blog). http://www.learningspy.co.uk/myths/things-knoweffect-sizes.
Downes, T, Fluck, A, Gibbons, P, Leonard, R, Matthews, C, Oliver, R, Vickers, M, & Williams, M.
(2002). Making Better Connections. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and
Training.
Dynarski, M., Agodini,R., Heaviside,S., Novak, T., Carey, N., Campuzano, L., Means, B., Murphy,
R., Penuel, W., Javitz, H., Emery, D, and Sussex, W. (2007). Effectiveness of Reading and
Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Fluck, A., Ranmuthugala, SD., Chin, CKH. and Penesis, I. (2011). Calculus in elementary school:
an example of ICT-based curriculum transformation. SITE 2011, Nashville, USA.
http://www.editlib.org/j/SITE/v/2011/n/1, pp. 3203 - 3210.
Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B. and Tannock, P. (2011). Review of
Funding for Schooling, Retrieved from
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/ReviewofFunding/Documents/Review-of-Funding-forSchooling-Final-Report-Dec- 2011.pdf
Gravemeijer, K. and Doorman, M. (1999). Context problems in realistic mathematics education: a
calculus course as an example, Educational Studies in Mathematics 39, pp.111-129.
Hattie, J. (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to
Achievement. Routledge: Abingdon, UK.
Horowitz, H. and Ebrahimpour, A. (2002). Engineering Applications in Differential and Integral
Calculus. International Journal of Engineering Education 18(1)78-88.
http://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol18-1/Ijee1262.pdf
Kaput Center (2014) SimCalc MathWorlds Software. Board of Trustees of the University of
Massachusetts. http://www.kaputcenter.umassd.edu/products/software.
Loughlin, S. (2011). Archaic Method? Cursive writing no longer has to be taught. The Tribune Star
(newspaper, 3 July). http://www.tribstar.com/news/x1435410216/Archaic-Method-Cursivewriting-no-longer-has-to-be-taught
MANSW (Mathematical Association of New South Wales) (2014). Mathematics Education in
NSW: A Level Playing Field for All? Author.
Maplesoft (2014) Maple 18 software. http://www.maplesoft.com
Papert, S. (2000) Technology in schools: To support the system or render it obsolete. Milken
Family Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=106 on 17 October 2010.
Page 176 of 487
Parr, Judy M. (2000) A review of the literature on computer-assisted learning, particularly
integrated learning systems, and outcomes with respect to literacy and numeracy. Auckland, New
Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=5499 on 3 November 2002.
Penesis, I., Chin, C.K.H., Ranmuthugala, S.D., and Fluck, A., (2011). An investigation into the use
of ICT to teach Calculus to Australian Primary Schools, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual
Conference for the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE 2011), 5-9
December 2011, Fremantle, Australia, pp. 331-337, ISBN 9780858259980.
Pesce, M. (2007). Transcript: ALP education revolution in the spotlight – reporter Mary Gearin.
Broadcast 4Dec07, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
PISA (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do - student performance in reading,
mathematics and science Vol. 1. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
Resnick, M. (1998) Technologies for Lifelong Kindergarten. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 46(4).
Robertson, M. and Fluck, A. (2006). Children online learning and authentic teaching skills in
primary education - final report. Department of Education, Science and Training.
Rochelle, J. and Kaput, J. (1996). SimCalc Mathworlds for the Mathematics of Change.
Communications of the ACM 39(8)97-99.
Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordon, D. N. and Means, B. M. (2000). Changing
how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children
10(2)76-101.
Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J. and
Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Integration of Technology, Curriculum, and Professional Development for
Advancing Middle School Mathematics: Three Large-Scale Studies. American Educational
Research Journal 47:833-878.
Rudd, K., Smith, S. and Conroy, S. (2007). A Digital Education Revolution. Retrieved from
http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_digital_education_revolution_campaign_launch.pdf
on 31 December 2007.
Tang, G., Ram, B. and Shah, M. (2005). Incorporating Engineering Applications into Calculus
Instruction.
https://www.academia.edu/294415/Incorporating_Engineering_Applications_Into_Calculus_Instru
ction#
Wenglinksy, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and
student achievement in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Page 177 of 487
eEXAMS TRANSFORMING CURRICULUM
Andrew Fluck1 and Mathew Hillier2
1University of Tasmania
2University of Queensland
Abstract
The eExams project in Australia has sought to prove a sustainable, scalable and secure
pathway for computers to be used in examinations. Initially developed at the University of
Tasmania, it has been used in various degree courses and in the pre-tertiary sector across
the state.
Over a thousand students have used the eExam System since its launch in 2009. Candidates
bring their own devices to the examination, and boot up from a specially crafted USB stick.
This provides the same modified Ubuntu software environment (based on Linux) and a full
office suite to every candidate; access to the exam materials and a secure partition for the
candidate’s answers.
As with any long-term software development project, the eExam System continues to evolve.
Work on the version 5 began at the University of Queensland in 2013. This will add a copy
of the learning management system Moodle on the USB stick to include a range of computer
marked question types, such as short answer and multiple-choice. A restricted network
connection to an institutional LMS is also possible, using a secure gateway.
This presentation illustrates the way users have made the transition from paper-replacement
to post-paper examinations. The style of emerging post-paper exams illuminates the way in
which curriculum change may be facilitated through this new assessment format.
Introduction
The fundamental role of computers in education at all levels is evolving. In many cases they are used to
support the existing curriculum. As students become more able to bring their own devices, this situation
may change to re-define curricula (Puentedura, 2013), perhaps even schooling itself (Downs, Fluck, et
al., 2001, p.23). In a cautious way, the Exams project seeks to accelerate understanding and capability
where it is prudent to do so.
In 2014 the inception of the new Digital Technologies subject is foremost in many Australian computer
educators’ minds. They may have some difficulty assessing student achievement in the subject without
using computers. It would seem anachronistic this subject should be wholly assessed on paper. This
makes a case for a computer-based assessment environment that can be implemented on a class-by-class
basis. A good solution will scale from individual classrooms to nation-wide assessments. The eExam
System provides this range using free and open-source software whilst re-using USB sticks for each test.
In other subject areas, teaching topics and skills using school computers which will be assessed without
them may be discordant to many teachers. One of the authors has personally witnessed the distress for
both teacher and Year 5 student when the latter requested the use of a computer ‘like I normally do’ at
the commencement of a NAPLAN literacy test.
Our speculation is that the introduction of a method for conducting assessments on student computers
in a fair and secure fashion will provide a useful lever for transforming curricula in the future. Our
project and its future extension should change high stakes testing and by implication give students a
wider range of contexts for assessing new digitally-based skills. These skills have been shown in the
parallel ‘Calculus for Kids’ project as outpacing chronological age by many years (Fluck,
Ranmuthugala, Chin & Penesis, 2011).
Page 178 of 487
This is important because of the tension between the high rate of innovation in the information
industries, and the slow rate of technology adoption in education. Computers are rapidly changing our
world. But school curricula change slowly, at the mercy of politics, restricted resources for teacher
professional development, and well-intentioned social inertia. An individual teacher desiring to innovate
by presenting newly discovered knowledge in the classroom has to provide evidence of student
achievement at the end of each year according to pre-ordained accountability frameworks, mostly using
pen-on-paper techniques. There are tensions between information technology and school use as
expounded by the former prime minister of Australia:
While ICT has fundamentally reshaped whole industries, revolutionized production processes
and generated massive improvements in productivity in our workplaces, our education
systems have been slower in adapting. (Gillard 2008)
Previous work
Paper-based exams in the UK are a major barrier to curriculum change (Ripley 2007, p.10). This helps
to explain why the recent revision of the English National Curriculum, which schools have to implement
from September 2014, makes almost no reference to digital technology. To tackle this deficiency, three
ministers (Education, Skills and Enterprise, and Higher Education) have set up the Educational
Technology Action Group (ETAG) in order to advise government on how to overcome barriers to
transformation of the education system through the use of digital technology (Hancock 2014).
There is extensive work on educational transformation, and widespread agreement that assessment is a
major barrier to, or enabler of, change in education. We need to develop new ways of assessing people,
to better reflect the knowledge, skills and personal attributes that are needed in the Information Age
(Heppell 1994, p.154; Twining et al. 2006). There is a significant mis-match between current assessment
practices and new learnings like computational thinking that digital technology facilitates (e.g. Ridgway
& McCusker 2004, p.38; Venezky & Davis 2002, pp. 11-12). Computational Thinking (Wing 2006) is
at the heart of the new subject released by Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
(ACARA) in February 2014. This project works to make this kind of thinking evident in many other
subjects. There is strong support for the need to change how we assess learning in order to rectify this
mis-match (for example Lemke and Coughlin 1998, p.18; Lewin et al 2000; McFarlane et al 2000;
Barton 2001 pp.27-28; ICTRN 2001; Trilling and Hood 2001). Newhouse (2013, p.15) writing on
computer-based transformational assessment identified the “lack of experience for students and teachers
[as] a constraint in using ICT to support summative assessment, particularly where the stakes are high”.
As indicated above, accountability and assessment are strong levers determining the nature of skills and
content in educational curricula at all levels. The qualities of e-assessment (if and how computers are
used in the assessment process) and the extent of e-assessment are important determinants of the
relationship between rapid technological innovation and socially conservative education. Ripley (2009)
presents two ‘drivers’ of e-assessment: business efficiency and educational transformation. Drivers
emanating from the business efficiency have focussed upon computer-based assessment. This is often
implemented as multiple choice questions (MCQ), as is common within learning content management
systems, and have the advantage of automated marking. There is extensive literature on the business
efficiency aspects, but the eExam System is a new approach that aligns well with the need for
educational transformation. Candidates start up their own personal computers from a specially crafted
USB drive in an eExam.
The USB drive controls the computer throughout the exam, providing a secure operating system which
prohibits access to any other drive or communication function. By putting the computer into the hands
of every examination candidate, assessors can leverage educational transformation and include the use
of professional software tools into the curriculum. Knowing candidates can be asked to undertake highly
complex investigations or engineering design work in the exam hall can boost expectations in the
classroom.
Page 179 of 487
The technology for implementing examinations on computers is developing. Some systems rely upon
institutional equipment and ‘thin client’ (dumb computers) with networking connections to a central
server. These are reliant upon all elements in the communication link remaining operational throughout
the critical period of the exam; if any one element, such as a wireless access point, should fail, the
examination has been jeopardised. Also, each candidate is restricted to questions of a very simple nature
within the confines of a web page window. Typically question material relies upon pre-set text stimuli,
or diagrams, video or interactive elements at successively rising cost making them viable only for very
large cohorts. Multiple choice question types are popular within this paradigm.
Fluck, Pullen and Harper (2009) in explaining the eExam system, described how candidates boot their
own personal computers from a live operating system USB and complete short and essay style questions
while preventing access to unauthorised networking or other data sources. They are also able to run
specialist software (beyond Office tools) within the secure eExam system. The specialist software can
include Windows programs running under the Wine compatibility layer or any other program chosen by
the assessor which runs in a native Linux/Ubuntu environment. Examples include educational software
(which candidates have critiqued in the examination, or digital multi-media products from school pupils
which candidates have assessed). This goes beyond the limited MCQ aspects of previous systems.
The eExam System is therefore scalable (not reliant on institutional equipment limitations), resilient
(communications infrastructure is not essential), fair and unbounded (every candidate gets the same full
operating system environment; no-one has personal access to software unavailable to other candidates).
The eExam System provides a unique opportunity to transition to paper-replacement exams on
computer, and then beyond to post-paper exams. This simple pathway for adoption is possible because
existing exams translate easily to the new computer-based environment (in the paper-replacement stage),
whilst laying the foundation for running complex software applications as part of the exam in post-paper
tests. The technological advantages with this implementation pathway are a winning combination. The
icing on the cake is the free and open source nature of the system, eliminating licencing costs and extra
fees for students.
Figure 1: Example security image on desktop of student personal computer
booted from eExam USB.
Deciding upon an eExam Platform
The idea of using word processors for text production appears un-controversial; but improving academic
performance through the use of advanced software is far rarer in other fields such as mathematics or
Page 180 of 487
science. Yet important discoveries are being made in the latter, for instance the award of Nobel prizes
for computational chemistry in 1998 and 2013. This symbiosis of human endeavour with computational
techniques generates important new knowledge to which students need access. By allowing examination
candidates to demonstrate proficiency using software tools, they will be able to perform more complex
tasks which will also be more authentic in relationship to the real world and professional practice.We
argue the use of computers in final exams (as a component of balanced assessment methods) will remove
hurdles to curriculum transformation.
There is fierce competition from proposers of various exam-on-computer vendors. At the heart of this
contention are key philosophical debates relating to costs, the ideal format, and technological delivery
platforms. Who should pay – should the candidate, teaching institution or qualification authority pick
up the cost? Would a free, open source (FOSS) method be better (compare Microsoft Windows – a
commercially available operating system, with Ubuntu, a FOSS equivalent). Beyond this debate is that
of reticulation. Is the current internet infrastructure reliable, resilient and sufficiently capacious to be
trusted with people’s lives as determined by the outcome of a high stakes assessment? Finally, in this
tense area, can all assessment questions be sufficiently well posed within the confines of a web-window
as part of a locked-down test oriented software application; or should we be looking to assess student
ability within an unrestricted computer operating system where specialist software of any complexion
can be run? Is there an implicit cultural bias embedded in a particular system? Would Australia be better
to adopt a system devised locally, or to import a commercial system from the USA, or a FOSS system
from Finland?
This area of intellectual enquiry is new ground. It is particularly important we gather impartial, unbiased
knowledge in this area because adoption of particular strategies can have a knock-on effect. Thus, when
a state university adopts an eExam strategy, there is huge incentive for feeding school systems to adopt
the same eExam approach with its associated benefits or restrictions (Fluck & Mogey, 2013).
Current status of eExams
eExams have been used at the University of Tasmania since 2009, and with official sanction in the formal
exam halls since 2011 following their acceptance by academic senate in March of that year. A parallel
adoption was made by the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority in 2011, when a paper-replacement
eExam was used for Information Technologies and Systems at Year 11/12 pre-tertiary level statewide.
This was followed in 2012 by a post-paper eExam, where candidates were required to view a web-site
on screen – patently not possible on paper. In 2013 the Authority went further and held an open internetaccessible exam, which pushed the boundaries yet again.
Figure 2: An eExam USB.
Since that time, eExams have been held in a wide range of disciplines, ranging from educational
technology, constitutional law and history. They have also been held in a wide range of places – in the
conventional exam hall alongside candidates using pens; in formal computer laboratories; in public
libraries in Amsterdam (for students enrolled by distance).
Page 181 of 487
Three key security features make eExams fair. All communication ports are blocked or monitored by
the modified implementation of Ubuntu, as are all accesses to data storage devices other than the USB
boot device. The last feature is purely visual. Assessors are asked to supply a unique image to be placed
on the desktop at bootup; one which candidates could not acquire elsewhere. For non-technical exam
supervisors, this image assures them each candidate has booted up into the exam environment rather
than using the operating system on their own laptop hard drive. This guarantees every candidate has
access to precisely those software applications permitted for the exam.
In most cases, assessors begin by offering their students the choice of pen or keyboard for the
examination. This makes a low-impact change which individuals control their rate of adoption. We refer
to this stage as paper-replacement exams, because to all intents and purposes the nature of the assessment
is unchanged. Over various cycles, more and more students select the keyboard, and when a sufficiently
large proportion do so, the next stage can begin.
This is the post-paper exam. This kind of exam contains elements which are difficult, if not impossible
to present on paper. It may be something as simple as a full colour photograph; or perhaps include a
video file to be viewed as a stimulus. For instance, a mathematics education exam contained a video of
a teacher introducing a fractions topic – candidates were invited to comment on the pedagogical
techniques used in the lesson. These two examples could still have been delivered via a web-page, but
using current wireless network access point standards there would be great difficulty simultaneously
downloading a movie to several hundred candidates.
Table 1: Changing aspects of eExams
From 2007
120 candidates
Paper replacement
Institutional equipment
Educational computing
Launceston campus
To 2013
Over 1000 candidates
.. to full multimedia and questions requiring software operation.
..to personally owned computers
UTAS Law, Mathematics pedagogy, TQA Information Technology & Systems
Statewide, interstate and overseas
One of the authors trains teachers to assess digital products created by schoolchildren. These can include
narrated powerpoints with animation. This is an example it would be difficult to embed into a web-page.
The digital product could be a file from almost any program – not just from an Office application.
Therefore the full operating system available to each candidate becomes more important. Another skill
taught is that of evaluating digital educational resources. Using the eExam System, cadidates can be
asked to review a novel piece of software against pre-set criteria. Another post-paper examination could
ask candidates to use a particular software tool to accomplish a professional task and submit the output
file (a bridge design, an evaluation of a new molecule, a statistical analysis of two very large datasets)
as part of their response.
In this way the eExam System allows a transition to a testing environment which is far more
sophisticated than pen-on-paper. This facet provides strong support for curriculum transformation,
making it possible to assess new skills far beyond those which can be demonstrated using pen-on-paper.
Figure 3 illustrates the kinds of question we anticipate:
Page 182 of 487
Watch the video Complex DNA [95 seconds] and use
the enzyme replication simulation software to
construct a molecular junction inhibiting the binding
process.
Figure 3: Example of a possible future post-paper examination question
As at 2014, eExams are extending into several subjects at the University of Tasmania, whilst trials are
commencing at the University of Queensland.
Conclusion and future
The adoption of eExams by different bodies, even in the same state, has not led to uniform standards or
procedures. This is not intrinsically a bad thing. It surely indicates vibrancy and a range of
experimentation with an innovation. However, this diversity has illuminated some areas for discussion
and resolution of important new social issues.
For instance, university lecturers have accepted the idea of a graduated progression into eExams with
the initial foray being a paper-replacement stage. This means each candidate can be given the option of
using keyboard or pen, making individual choices up to the last minute (and sometimes beyond). In this
environment, ‘equity’ has been interpreted as ‘an equal chance to choose a suitable text-production tool’.
However, in the Year 11/12 context, with high-stakes testing leading to major life-forming educational
opportunities, the definition of equity became ‘one in, all in’. All candidates in this sector were required
to use a computer for the whole examination. No student could argue they were disadvantaged through
the use of a different assessment environment to any other.
Working through these divergent understandings of ‘equity’ will take some social adjustment and open
discussion. It’s especially important this happen, otherwise the paper-replacement stage will become a
hurdle preventing the more strategically vital post-paper stage emerging.
A similar project in Finland, the DIGABI project, has gone one step further. The focus of a hacking
competition to identify shortcomings of the original open-source core code, the Matriculation
Examination Board of Finland has published a schedule for the conversion of all examinations
(presumably for Years 11/12) to eExams by the year 2020. This international adoption of the technique
is instructive for other societies wishing to find some consistency in high-stakes assessment ‘going
digital’.
The future of the eExams project will build upon the current funding provided by the Australian
Government Office for Learning and Teaching. It will incorporate Moodle, an open-source learning
management system which facilitates automatically marked questions of several complexions. Trials for
this are expected in late 2014.
There is also discussion around the concept of establishing an ‘eExams Foundation’ analogous to the
Moodle Foundation, to promote further development of the open-source code base and underpin related
commercial services. This will provide a governance model for eExam development, a forum for interinstitutional sharing of ideas and a launchpad for supportive relationships with operational services
commercial entities.
The eExams project will continue to develop complementary research capabilities across the social and
economic sciences that can connect data-driven and analytical models to promote evidence based policy
Page 183 of 487
development. This project has the potential to generate student assessment material in digital format in
vast quantities, opening up the possibility of applying big data techniques. Providing ethical clearance
is obtained, we will use such data to answer questions such as ‘how much more text do students type
compared to handwriting?’ and ‘do candidates achieve at higher levels when using computers in a paperreplacement examination?’ Answers to such questions will provide the evidence to drive curriculum
transformation policy adoption.
References
Barton, P. E. (2001). Facing the hard facts in education reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service. http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICFACINGFACTS.pdf
Downes, T., Fluck, A., Gibbons, P., Leonard, R., Matthews, C., Oliver, R., Vickers, M., Williams, M.
(2001). Making better connections: Models of teacher professional development for the integration
of information and communication technology into classroom practice. Canberra: Australian
Curriculum Studies Association, Australian Council for Computers in Education, Technology
Education Federation of Australia.
Ferrell, G. (2012). A view of the Assessment and Feedback Landscape: baseline analysis of policy
and practice from the JISC Assessment & Feedback programme. JISC, UK.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/Assessment/JISCAFBaselineReport
May2012.pdf
Fluck, A and Mogey, N. (2013). Comparison of institutional innovation: Two universities' nurturing
of computer-based examinations. Learning while we are connected: proceedings of the 10th IFIP
World conference on computers in education, 1-7 July, Poland, pp. 11-20.
http://edu.rsei.umk.pl/wcce2013/publications/v1/V1.2_010-Fluck-fullR-FPR.pdf.
Fluck, A. and Pullen, D.L. and Harper, C. (2009) Case study of a computer based examination system.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25 (4) 509-523.
Fluck, A and Ranmuthugala, SD and Chin, CKH and Penesis, I, (2011). Calculus in elementary
school: an example of ICT-based curriculum transformation, SITE 2011, Nashville, USA,
http://www.editlib.org/j/SITE/v/2011/n/1 , pp. 3203 - 3210. ISBN 1880094843.
Fluck, A. (2013). Implementation of on-campus digital examination practices. Transforming
Assessment in a Digital Era conference, RACV City Club, Melbourne, 31 July.
Gillard, J. (2008). Address to the Australian Computers in Education Conference, Canberra, 1 October
2008.
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Documents/ACECMinistersSpeec
h_011008.pdf.
Hancock, M. (2014).
Speech on education technology at BETT show.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/matthew-hancock-speech-on-education-technology-atbett-show
Heppell, S. (1994) Multimedia and Learning: Normal children, normal lives and real change, in J.
Underwood (Ed) Computer based learning: Potential into practice. London: David Fulton Publishers.
ICTRN (2001). Building an ICT research network, Helping to create schools of the future, June 2001,
Coventry: Becta
Lemke C. and Coughlin E.C. (1998). Technology in American Schools: Seven Dimensions for
Gauging Progress. A Policymaker's Guide. Milken Exchange on Education Technology, Milken
Family Foundation. http://www.mff.org/assets/Uploads/newsroom_archive/publications/ME158.pdf
Lewin, C, Scrimshaw, P, Mercer, N and Wegerif, R (2000). Linking Schools and Home with Low-
Page 184 of 487
cost Word- processors. European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh.
McFarlane, A.E., Bonnett, M.R., Williams, J. (2000). Assessment and Multimedia Authoring – a
technology for externalising understanding and recognising achievement. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 16, 201–212.DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00133.x
Newhouse, P. (2013). Literature Review and Conceptual Framework. In P. J. Williams and C. P.
Newhouse (Eds.) Digital Representations of Student Performance for Assessment, 9-28. Sense
Publishers: The Netherlands.
Puentedura, R. R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation [Web log
post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html
Ridgway, J. and McCusker, S. and Pead, D. (2004). Literature review of e-assessment. Futurelab,
Bristol. http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1929/1/Ridgway_Literature.pdf?DDD29+ded0kmt
Ripley, M. (2007). E-assessment – an update on research, policy and practice. FutureLab: Bristol.
www.futurelab.org.uk/litreviews
Ripley, M. (2009). Transformational Computer-based Testing in The Transition to Computer-Based
Assessment: New Approaches to Skills Assessment and Implications for Large-scale Testing. F.
Scheuermann & J. Björnsson (Eds.) pp. 92-98.
Trilling, B and Hood, P (2001). ‘Learning, technology and educational reform in the knowledge age
or “We’re wired, webbed, and windowed, now what?”’, in Paechter, C, Edwards, R, Harrison, R and
Twining, P (Eds) Learning, space and identity, pp7–30, London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd
Twining, P; Broadie, R; Cook, D; Ford, K; Morris, D; Twiner, A. & Underwood, J. (2006).
Educational Change and ICT: an exploration of Priorities 2 and 3 of the DfES e-strategy in schools
and colleges. Coventry: Becta. (ISBN 1853794651) http://is.gd/niDK3f
Venezky, RL & Davis, C. (2002). Quo Vademus? The Transformation of Schooling in a Networked
World. Paris: OECD. http://www1.oecd.org/innovation/research/2073054.pdf
Wing, J. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3)33-35.
Page 185 of 487
REDEFINING EDUCATION: 1 TO 1 COMPUTING STRATEGIES IN
TASMANIAN SCHOOLS
Andrew Fluck & Peter Twining
University of Tasmania, Launceston & The Open University, Milton Keynes (UK)
Abstract
The Digital Education Revolution (DER) faced significant challenges in Tasmania because
of its distributed regional population. This resulted in the Year 9-12 DER funding being
diluted in high schools to support Years 7-8, outside the scope of the policy intention. In
addressing this challenge, two Tasmanian high schools adopted different strategies to
introduce, maintain and integrate 1:1 computing. The first school took a strategic and
informed decision to provide netbooks to all students in 2008 (prior to DER). These netbooks
subsequently percolated through the entire school and all curriculum areas. The second
school saw the potential in user-owned equipment at an early stage, and negotiated
administrative hurdles. These related to the security of the equipment (and potential
breakages) and access to the institutional wireless network. Students were allowed to bring
their smartphones, netbooks, tablets and laptops to school. Both schools were visited to
gather data through questionnaires, observations and interviews. This paper illustrates the
differences and commonalities between these two schools, exploring the decision-making
around ‘all the same’ and ‘Bring Your Own (BYO)’ policies. The learnings from these schools
should inform future practice and link with emerging trends emanating from related studies
in other Australian and UK schools.
Context
Some schools in the island state of Tasmania adopted one to one laptop policies as early as 1996. St.
Michael’s Collegiate School (for girls) introduced such a policy for Years 5-12 in that year. The Friends
School (co-educational and also situated in the capital, Hobart) introduced a similar policy based on
Apple Macintosh laptops in 1999 (Westwood & Dobson, 1999). In a state with a small but distributed
population, these examples became known and accepted quite quickly. Inevitably, such policies can
evoke disparate reactions from parents. Rosemary Sargison, a key figure in establishing the Collegiate
policy, told of one family withdrawing their child from the school because of the policy; but an entire
additional class of children enrolling for the same reason.
An Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP0210823) investigated the possibility of one-toone provision in government schools (Fluck, 2008). This used cheaper handheld computers (e.g. HP
Ipaq & Palm Zire) in conjunction with offline versions of online learning materials for health education
in Year 8. A critical part of the project was to equip whole classes with individual handheld computers.
One such class was in School 1 (see Table 1 below). A key finding of the project was that ‘trust’ was a
key ingredient for successful one-to-one implementation. Interviews with school staff at the end of the
experimental period made it clear they did not expect the handheld computers to survive or be returned.
However, by entrusting them to individual students, and condoning personalization, the researchers
demonstrated this assumption was incorrect. School 1 adopted a one-to-one netbook program in 2009
to counter intense competition for enrolments when the competing school in the city was rebuilt. This
strategy successfully countered the new buildings, and the school successfully leveraged the netbooks
into subsequent years. Initially based on school-provided equipment, this morphed over the years to an
optional BYO program.
Meanwhile, at the national level, the incoming Australian government of 2007 swiftly implemented its
undertaking for a Digital Education Revolution to equip all students from Years 9-12 with computers
throughout every school day (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008).
Page 186 of 487
However, this policy was put into practical effect by state governments in different ways. New South
Wales, for instance, lobbied and won additional funds to commit an individual netbook to every student
in the age-range, and contracted with IBM to install wireless networks in all affected schools. Tasmania
by comparison chose to replace old desktop computers with new ones, and considered equity issues in
schools where only half the students fell into the designated age-band. This diluted the impact in
government schools.
Looking again at a single school in Tasmania, the role of individual staff can be seen as crucial. An
internationally acclaimed key teacher at School 2 built upon her reputation to achieve a BYO policy by
2009. This was not achieved easily, in the face of organizational inertia. Understandably, cyber safety is
a topic to which administrators are sensitive (Department of Education, 2013), and therefore permitting
access to the Internet via government-provided wireless networks was contentious. Despite this, a ‘DoE
Guest’ virtual private network was created in School 2 (and subsequently state-wide) which allows
students and staff BYO Internet access but not peer-to-peer connections.
These individual actions, school histories and state-wide policy implementations made up the
background to these two case studies.
Methodology
The two cases reported in this paper form part of a series of 13 studies carried out in Australia between
September and December 2013, which are referred to as the Snapshot Studies (see
http://edfutures.net/Technology_Strategy_Case_Studies#The_Snapshot_Studies). These complement
22 studies carried out in England between September and December 2012, which are referred to as the
Vital Studies (Twining, 2014a).
The Snapshot Study schools were selected based on the researchers’ local knowledge of schools that
were engaged in the implementation of mobile device strategies. Table 1 provides a summary of these
two Snapshot Study schools.
Table 1 Summary of the Snapshot Study schools reported here
School 1
School 2
Type
State
State
ICSEA*
between 950 and 960
between 1097 and 1103
Phase
Secondary
Secondary
No. students on roll
between 550 and 630
between 770 and 820
Digital technology strategy
1:1 netbook strategy, but in
January 2013 moved to a
BYO approach
7&8
BYO strategy since 2010,
gradually extending it from
Year 7 to all year groups
7
Year group(s) observed
* The ICSEA value measures the socio-economic background and rurality of the school: the norm is
1000, with lower values indicating disadvantage.
The Snapshot Studies used a cut down version of the methodology used in the Vital Studies (see
http://edfutures.net/Research_Strategy). The Snapshot Studies involved data collection prior to and
during one day spent in school by the researchers. As one might expect given the practicalities of doing
research in schools, there were minor variations from the standard methodology in each of the Snapshot
Study schools. These are summarised in Table 2.
Page 187 of 487
Table 2 Variations in the methodology
School 1
School 2
No SLT questionnaire or interview
2 Teacher questionnaires (rather than 1)
2 Student portfolios (rather than 4)
No parent interview
2 observations (rather than 1)
2 Teacher interviews, one was very short (rather than 1)
No student focus group
2 Teacher questionnaires (rather than 1)
3 Parent questionnaires (rather than 1)
No Parent interview
2 Observations (rather than 1)
2 Teacher Interviews (rather than 1)
No student focus group
Ethical approval for the Snapshot Studies was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees
(HREC) in all of the researchers’ universities. This ensured that the Snapshot Study research complied
with the British Educational Research Association’s guidelines for educational research (BERA, 2011)
and with the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian ViceChancellors’ Committee, 2013).
Data analysis
Emergent Themes Analysis (based on Wong and Blanford, 2002) was used to identify ‘emerging trends’
from the 22 Vital Case Studies (Twining, 2014a). This analysis was then extended to include the 13
Snapshot Studies.
School 1
School 1 had institutionalised the processes for parents to select a school-provided netbook or choose to
send a BYO machine with their child. Most (about 90%) still opted to have a school-provided netbook.
This was an ACER TravelMate B113-M, priced at $590 (not a cost to parents except in the case of loss
or damage); parents paid a $60 levy each year as a contribution towards software licencing. Students
signed a care agreement, which included a requirement that devices are always charged overnight. The
most significant potential damage to these machines was a broken screen: hence the decision to provide
a hard clam-shell case (Figure 1) and an automatic procedure to bill parents for this kind of breakage.
Insurance costs were prohibitive, so the school used its own technical support staff to replace shattered
screens.
Students were permitted to bring their own devices (BYO) but the school asked that the device complied
with the following standards:
i) Windows 7 or 8, Apple MacBook or iPad
ii) It must be able to create files in Microsoft Office format – Word, Excel and PowerPoint (Pages,
Numbers and Keynote for iPad).
iii) It should be easy to carry, easy to secure, have a minimum 6 hours battery life, and WiFi.
The school documentation stated “mobile phones do NOT count as a device”.
Page 188 of 487
Figure 6: School 1 netbook in hard shell case
Figure 7: School 1, Year 7 History class
The observed class was undertaking a Year 7 History lesson focused on ancient Chinese dynasties (see
Figure 2). The teacher had prepared a WebQuest, which the students accessed from the learning
management system (Fronter) using their computers. Responses to the questions posed were to be
written up in a Word document, then uploaded into Fronter for teacher review.
The students encountered several problems, but were mostly able to accomplish the task. Some had
password problems, which indicated a lack of embedding into the curriculum; if computers were used
all day, every day, this issue would be minor because students would have solved it much earlier (this
was half-way through the final term of the school year). Some of the links provided on the WebQuest
worksheet were barred by the cyber-safety firewall filter, so students were not able to access the content.
This was a surprise to the teacher, and points to the need for teachers to be able to access the Internet (at
times, and even from home where a lot of preparation is done) just as student would. Without this
strategy, such barriers come as a complete surprise to the best-prepared teacher. Finally, the bandwidth
available for seeking information can limit the speed of access, and for this class, it was sometimes quite
slow. The wireless network appeared to be quite congested, and the off-site VLE server was a critical
element in slowing learning for this class. However, when students accessed third-party learning
resources, this increased their motivation and capacity to engage with the differences between the
Page 189 of 487
mindsets of various Chinese historical emperors.
Examples of the question students worked on (and responses) are shown in Figure 3.
You have been asked to research either the Shang, Zhou, Qin or Han Dynasty.
Name of the Emperor:
The first Emperors name was Shi Huangdi.
How did he rule? What was his style of leadership?
Shi ran his dynasty under absolute control and punishment.
What were some of the rules during this dynasty?
One of his rules was that people had to spy on each other at work, at
home, Etcetera. If people turned in lawbreakers they were rewarded if
they didn’t they were executed.
Another rule was that if people or peasants slacked off when they were
working they were sent to the Great Wall to work.
Philosophies and beliefs:
Shi was a legalist he believed that all people were bad. He believed that
you had to control and regulate everyone’s lives.
Inventions/discoveries/major achievements:
He introduced a currency. He also introduced a written language for all
of China to learn. He introduced a law group similar to the police we
have today. He also introduced a way to measure lengths and weights.
Figure 8: Chinese Dynasties worksheet with student responses
Students reported using devices in around half of their lessons. Generally this was for research (in
history); for solving mathematics problems; or for taking notes in other lessons.
A subsequent Year 8 class used Fronter in a similar way. Their task was to prepare “a creative product,
which could be a newspaper article, interactive PowerPoint, etc. Write it from the perspective of a little
Aztec boy.” One student had not charged up their netbook (perhaps because of shared parenting
arrangements) and was required to use an exercise book instead – a natural consequence of being
unready for the class. Off-task behaviour was easily hidden: one student was on a quiz website when
questioned, but quickly flicked the screen back onto the classwork. In explanation, the student claimed
schoolwork could always be finished outside school. However, just as off-task behaviour was easily
undertaken, about half the students worked independently on the set task.
School 2
School 2 had a more advantaged background with virtually all parents providing computers for their
Year 7 students. From 2011 the majority (~80%) of students brought their own Windows notebook to
school, with Macbooks (~15%) and iPads making up most of the remainder. Some students brought
more than one device (see Figure 4), and selected whichever best fitted the learning activity at any
particular time. The learning area leader - Digital Technologies noted that “parents are encouraged to
not spend too much ($400 -$600) and to get something small so that it is light, easy to carry and can fit
on the desk with their books. We make use of open source to help reduce costs (e.g. OpenOffice instead
of [Microsoft] Office)…. Cloud storage is a valuable way to stop students not being able to continue
Page 190 of 487
work because they have not got their device” (personal communication, December 6, 2013). School 2’s
acceptable use agreement was quite explicit about the breadth of choice for students: “Student Owned
Devices = any ICT device that a student owns and brings to school e.g. iPod, tablet, netbook or laptop,
personal data assistants (PDAs), cameras, mobile / smart telephones, etc.”.
In the first observed class, Year 8 students were undertaking a negotiated task at the end of the year, to
be assessed against English and History curriculum criteria. Most students appeared to be on task, and
when asked, thought that off-task behaviour was generally minimal throughout the year when using
computers for lessons. Once again evidence suggested self-directed ‘flipping’: where students claimed
to finish classwork at home after the end of the school day. As the school had an open BYO policy, there
was a much greater variety of devices in use. One student had a Windows tablet, and reported that text
could be input almost as quickly as when using a standard keyboard.
Figure 9: School 2 - "I'll just charge up my phone this lesson"
The last observed class was in a science laboratory. The teacher used the interactive whiteboard to
administer a short multiple-choice quiz at the start of the lesson, and reviewed answers at the end. The
focus of the lesson was the effect of Earth’s rotational axis on the seasons, using a worksheet located in
Fronter (but paper copies were given to students who had no device, and who also wrote on paper).
Students in this class regarded Fronter, Google (search) and Wikipedia as the most used ‘applications’
across the curriculum.
Student portfolios from this school illustrated a wide repertoire of applications, such as PowerPoint for
demonstrating knowledge of solar energy in science; BAMZOOKi for creating an attractive ‘creature’;
and Word for writing up an essay. This dovetailed well with the school’s vision to be a centre of
excellence for innovative creativity and excellence in teaching and learning.
Discussion
As with any of the Snapshot Studies, it is important to realise that most schools will have presented a
best possible face to external investigation. The leaders in these two schools appeared to be realistic
about the vital role of teachers in the implementation of their mobile technology strategy. Teachers
reacted to technical aspects of the computers actually in the classroom for each lesson, being more likely
to use computers in subsequent lessons if things went well. On the other hand, if students were unable
to access Fronter (because they had forgotten their password or their device was not charged) then
teachers were unlikely to rely upon this method of handing out worksheets. This increased their
workload, since paper copies were still needed.
Both schools offered a form of BYO. One still offered a subsidised choice for parents, and had an
historical policy of institutional provision to individuals, from which it was difficult to retreat. The other
had never made this kind of subsidised provision, and after just two years had created a culture whereby
most students brought a parent-funded (and maintained) computer to school. This reflects different
Page 191 of 487
funding models that were evident in the Vital Studies (see Table 3).
Table 3:
Funding model
School funded
Subsidised
Hybrid
Home
The school pays for all the digital technology used in the school. This funding might
come from specific project funding or commercial sponsorship, but not from parents.
Parents make a (voluntary) contribution towards the cost of digital technology that is
used in the school, often in the form of monthly payments over several years.
Parents make a (voluntary) contribution towards the cost of a mobile device for their
child, or if they already have a suitable device at home then their child uses that.
Parents buy a mobile device that their child uses in school.
With the ending of the DER funding, schools are inevitably moving towards BYO models. In order to
inform their decision making, an initial step should be to audit the Internet-enabled mobile devices that
their students have at home, and which they could use in school. This could be done using a free service
such as that provided by Your Own Technology Survey (YOTS) – see http://www.yots.org.uk. However,
a BYO approach may mean that students bring in a wide range of different devices. The breadth of
choice of devices in School 2 had the potential to make further difficulties for teachers. Alongside
‘planning for failure’ (which means paper copies of worksheets were sometimes needed for students
without a compatible or working device), there was the additional worry of digital materials not working
on a student’s device. A good example was the highly valued Scootle repository of Australian online
learning objects. Many of these interactive resources use Flash – a technology that is not well supported
on Apple iPads unless a third party browser like iSwifter is installed – for a cost. Form factor was another
significant issue to be considered, with schools navigating between smaller screens on mobile phones
and larger ones on full-size laptops. Aligned with this could well be the physical inactivity and posture
implications of day-long use of particular computing devices. This complex territory is just beginning
to be charted.
In School 1 there was an advisory framework around parent-supplied computers, which provided a
modicum of file-format compatibility between students’ and teachers’ devices. School 2 had a much
looser specification with a high emphasis on adoption of open source software. Given the higher socioeconomic status of the School 2 community, this seems counter-intuitive, but makes sense given the
breadth of equipment choices available. These differing approaches to BYO aligned with work in
Queensland (The State of Queensland, 2013), which introduced the notion of BYOx, as explained in
Table 4.
Table 4 Approaches to BYO
BYOD
BYOT
BYOx
Students are allowed to bring their own devices from home to use in school. Students have to
register their devices (e.g. provide the MAC address) so that the school can manage access to
and use of the school network.
Students are allowed to bring in their own devices from home to use in school. They do not
have to register their devices and can use the school network to access the Internet (usually
using their individual username and password).
Students are allowed to bring in their own devices from home to use in school, so long as they
meet school requirements. These requirements might specify a specific device (e.g. an iPad),
a whitelist (e.g. any one of a number of specified devices), or a technical specification (e.g. the
device must be able to create and edit Microsoft Office format documents, access the Internet
via WiFi and a browser).
In both schools there was an operating wireless network. These were essentially the same state-wide
offering for guest access to the Internet via government filters. However, the local implementations
appeared to be somewhat different, with no perceived congestion at School 2. The speed of Internet
access in School 1 negatively affected the observed lesson, and if replicated school-wide would reduce
learning opportunities, providing a(nother) reason for teachers to avoid using the technology. Managed
WiFi networks appear to be the answer to load balancing and mobile users, so the correct kinds of
Page 192 of 487
wireless access points with compatible management software may be the solution here. Schools provide
a rather harsh environment for this technology since the timetable forces large numbers of users to load
and save files simultaneously. This requires the network to handle huge peak flows of data with ease,
rather than traffic distributed evenly over the day. It is clear that having an adequate wireless network is
critical to maximizing the educational potential of mobile devices in schools (Twining 2014b).
In summary, these two schools were blazing a trail for many other Tasmanian government schools.
Catholic and independent schools have a much easier governance process for putting computing devices
onto the annual booklist for students, whilst government schools need to provide support mechanisms
for all parents. Perhaps the most significant impact for these schools will be the long term effects of
trusting students to care for equipment and the introduction of a state-wide guest wireless network.
References
Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. (2013). Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct
in Human Research 2007 (updated December 2013). Canberra: Australian Government.
Bassey, M. (1998). Action research for improving educational practice. In R. Halsall (Ed.), Teacher
Research and School Improvement: Opening Doors from the Inside (pp. 93–108). Buckingham:
Open University Press.
BERA. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research (2011). London: BERA. Retrieved from
http://bera.dialsolutions.net/system/files/3/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf
Burgess, R. G. (1984). Issues in educational research: qualitative methods. Lewes: Falmer Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrision, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London:
Routledge Falmer.
Department of Education (Tasmania) (2013). Online safety in Tasmanian government schools.
Retrieved from https://www.education.tas.gov.au/documentcentre/Documents/Infosheet-HealthCyberSafety.pdf
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2008). Success through
partnership: Achieving a national vision for ICT in schools: Strategic Plan to guide the
implementation of the Digital Education Revolution initiative and related initiatives. Canberra.
Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/
Fluck, A. (2008). AlwaysOn Case Study. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, 2.0 (1) pp. 144.
Hammersley, M. (1995). The politics of social research. London: Sage.
Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
The State of Queensland. (2013). BYOx research project. Brisbane: The State of Queensland
(Department
of
Education,
Training
and
Employment).
Retrieved
from
https://byox.eq.edu.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/byox-project-research-report.pdf
Twining, P. (2014a). Redefining education: 1 to 1 computing strategies in English schools. Now it’s
personal, ACEC, Adelaide, September 2014.
Page 193 of 487
Twining, P. (2014b). Digital technology strategies.
http://edfutures.net/Digital_technology_strategies
EdFutures.net.
Retrieved
from
Twining, P., Evans, D., Cook, D., Ralston, J., Selwood, I., Jones, A., Underwood, J., Dillon, G.,
Scanlon, E., Heppell, S., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., & Sheehy, K. (2005). Tablet PCs in
schools:
Case
study
report.
Coventry:
Becta.
Retrieved
from
http://oro.open.ac.uk/6407/1/BTE_case_study_print.pdf
Westwood, P., & Dobson, L. (1999). Implementing a successful laptop programme, International
Schools Journal, 19, 1, 56–65.
Wong, B. L. W., & Blandford, A. (2002). Analysing Ambulance Dispatcher Decision Making:
Trialing
Emergent
Themes
Analysis.
London.
Retrieved
from
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/16628/1/16628.pdf
Woods, P. (1986). Inside Schools: Ethnography in Schools. New York: Routledge.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park (CA): SAGE
Publications.
Page 194 of 487
INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
TRANSITIONAL FRICTION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UDL
Frederic Fovet
McGill University, Montreal
Abstract
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has gained momentum in post-secondary education
over the past decade in North America as a framework for the management of Disability
issues. It is increasingly attractive as it aligns service provision with the social model of
Disability, and shifts the discourse away from diagnosis. It is also conducive to an inclusive
educational setting. UDL however often requires and encourages the adoption and
integration of technology into curriculum development, class delivery and evaluation. This
is not always as smooth a process for instructors as the UDL literature lets us anticipate.
This paper seeks to examine the nature of the friction which occurs during the implementation
of UDL, more specifically as it relates to mastery and use of educational technology. It
highlights several variables which need to be taken into account, both globally and
individually, when devising UDL implementation plans on Higher Education campuses. This
study is unique in the sense that it examines IT integration into curriculum and evaluation
development under the lens of the Human Rights imperative for inclusion; this is a shift, it is
argued, which moves the discourse from mere best practices with IT to the realm of
pedagogical policy and urgent pragmatic implementation.
Introduction
The campus examined in this paper began dynamic Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
implementation in summer 2011. This effort has been recorded and examined from a variety of angles
ranging from student reactions to instructor feedback, without forgetting the administrative staff
perspective and the systemic perceptions of other campus stakeholders (Mole & Fovet, 2013; Fovet,
Beck, Mole & Noga, 2014). The paper carries out, more specifically, the analysis of qualitative data
collected from instructors in this three year drive to see implementation translate to metamorphosed
classroom practices. Previous exploration has allowed the author to distinguish a spectrum of variables
which are likely to impact this process and eventually lead to either enthusiastic adoption or rejection of
the model by teachers (Fovet, Mole, Syncox & Jarrett, 2013). One of these variables is explicitly the
instructor’s mastery and competency with technological tools. Qualitative analysis of the data collected
over these three years, quickly indicates that there is in fact an information technology (IT) dimension
related to each of the variables collected from the instructors participating.
Literature Review
Friction in the integration of technology in instruction is not a new topic per se. There has been abundant
research in this field, though the findings are much more abundant in K-12 than in post-secondary
education. The new dimension explored in this study consists of approaching instructor perceptions
from the angle of access to learning and Human Rights, rather than from the more personal criteria of
inclination, choice or curiosity. Before proceeding, this literature review must therefore briefly
summarize existing collective knowledge on IT integration in teaching, as well as UDL literature, and
motivational theory as it relates to post-secondary instructors. The term ‘instructors’, for the purpose of
this paper, will have ascribed to it the meaning it carries in North American education literature, that is
to say post-secondary teacher (irrespectively college or university setting).
Page 195 of 487
Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework which is increasingly appealing as it allows for
legal imperatives surrounding access to be addressed seamless in a manner that is sustainable and
inclusive (Howard, 2004). Design and conception are the focus, rather than the individual or any
specific impairment (Rose & Gravel, 2010). Universal Design is originally and historically an
architectural framework which includes 7 principles (Centre for Universal Design, 1997): equitable use,
flexible use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort,
size and space for approach and use. It has however later been applied seamlessly to the learning
environment. If, indeed, buildings can be designed in such a way that access is widened to the greatest
possible number of users, so can the classroom experience (Gradel & Edson, 2010).
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) more specifically is a teaching approach which considers how
curriculum, instruction and assessment can meet the learning needs of the greatest number and address
the diversity of students, while maintaining academic rigour (Rose & Gravel, 2010). UDL, in its three
core principles, encourages multiple means of representation, expression and engagement at all levels
of the course, be it instruction, resources or evaluation (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley & Abarbanell,
2006). Once again, just as was the case with the architectural interpretation of UD, the Social Model of
Disability (Barnes, Mercer & Shakespeare, 1999) is integrated as a canvas and it is argued in that
framework that it is the environment that becomes disabling for the student, when badly designed, rather
than any characteristics that are inherent to the individual (Howard, 2004). The experience of students
with ADHD, for example, finding Higher Education alternatively oppressive or congenial, depending
on the teaching style of their instructor and the tools used in classroom delivery, is an eloquent
illustration of the potent lessons the Social Model has to offer us with regards to post-secondary teaching
practices (Allsopp, Miskoff & Bolt, 2005), and of the relevance of the UDL principles as a tool for
pedagogical change.
There is some research emerging on the topic of resistance in the UDL implementation process (Spencer
& Romero, 2008) but little of it at this stage relates specifically to IT (Harrison, 2006; Yager, 2008;
Thomson, 2008). When UDL literature focuses on IT at present, it tends to examine web accessibility
(Thompson, Burgstahler & Moore, 2010), or the use of IT by students (Burgstahler, Anderson &
Litzkow, 2011), very specifically, but rarely does it purport to analyze instructor motivation towards IT
within the UDL implementation effort.
Instructor motivation
This is a vast topic, and one that the study cannot purport to review extensively. It may however be
useful to highlight the gap which exists between the current UDL outlook on teacher buy-in and
management of change, versus motivational theory as it appears in the industry and the private sector.
UDL literature seems indeed to conceptualize instructor buy-in as a positioning that is rationally
selected, unambiguously chosen and adhered to without ambivalence (Harrison, 2006; Gradel & Edson,
2010). In the light of this interpretation of instructor motivation towards inclusion, awareness and
professional development merely requires the presentation of evidence, facts and know-how.
The Human Resources literature, outside the field of post-secondary education, has long moved away
from such a uniform and simple vision of employee motivation in the management of change process.
The ‘personal reward-cost’ analysis that have become popular in social psychology when exploring
philanthropic desires, and more specifically prosocial behavior such as public willingness to be a good
Samaritan in emergencies (Amato, 1990; Bennett, 2003), have now been borrowed by Industrial
Relations literature to explain varying employee positioning towards change and adaptation to new
objectives (Borman, 2004).
In such a construct of motivation, individuals are influences by multiple and complex variables that can
Page 196 of 487
encourage them or deter them from embracing a proposed change or an innovative situation; variables
that encourage a positive attitude towards a proposed change can be seen as ‘facilitators’; other variables
will have a negative impact on individual decisions towards change, and can be seen as ‘stressors’. It is
the sum total of these stressors and facilitators that can lead a person to embrace change or contest it.
Such a lens on motivation has two distinct advantages: first of all it allows for a more subtle and complex
understanding of personal decision making in an institutional context of change; secondly, it readily
provides the researcher with a variables analysis that allows for the facilitators to be targeted in
professional development, training or awareness in order to secure a positive positioning towards change
(Finkelstein, 2006). The ‘personal reward-cost’ analysis is integrated in this study`s analysis of
instructor motivation in the UDL process of change.
Instructor`s integration of IT
Integration of technology into pedagogical practice (particularly delivery and evaluation) has given rise
to much exploration in K-12 instruction both with regards to pre-service (Kay, 2006; Mishra & Koehler,
2006) and in-service (Koehler, Mishra & Yahya, 2007) dimensions. It is, in particular, now well
established that there are several stages of IT integration in teaching and that teachers need to reach an
advanced level of integration and mastery before they truly start being creative about IT use in
instruction (Inan & Lowther, 2010).
While the use of technology in distance education is researched extensively (Rao, 2013; Wallace, 2007;
Southworth, Knezek & Flanigan, 2003), there is a relative paucity of findings when it comes to instructor
resistance and friction in the integration of IT in Higher Education teaching, in traditional, non-virtual
classrooms (Elzarka, 2012). Research is abundant with regards to virtual classrooms, hybrid classes and
other alternate virtual delivery formats (Tabata & Johnsrud, 2008).
What the study is concerned with is, however, integration of IT in traditional live classrooms,
particularly classrooms functioning within a regular setting, devoid of complex technical gadgets or
exceptional hardware resources. This is indeed the terrain in which access, for students with Disabilities,
must often be currently negotiated. There is nothing to lead theorists to hypothesize that the factors
creating resistance with regards to IT integration should, in essence, vary greatly in this context (Taylor,
Parker, Lenhart & Patten, 2011). On the other hand, it must be considered that the stakes are likely to
be different here, that the resources and leadership could be of a different nature altogether, and that
there may exist more factors of resistance amongst instructors who have to date not ‘taken the leap’ and
experimented or encountered virtual delivery to date.
Methodology
This study presents the analysis of qualitative data collected amongst instructors in an 18 month period
(phase 2) of UDL development with Faculty, which followed the initial 18 month period (phase 1) that
had triggered the original implementation effort on campus – amongst senior administration and campus
partners. With initial awareness in place, Phase 2 focused on progressively altering the model of delivery
and assessment used in this university through the integration and adoption of the three UDL principles.
Qualitative data was collected from students, faculty, administrators and employees at large through the
delivery of UD implementation workshops of various formats over a period of three years (Collins,
1998). By their very nature, these interactive workshops presented a perfect forum to collect qualitative
data in a semi-directive frame (Barbour et al., 2000). Data was collected both orally through the verbal
interaction, and through Quality Assurance surveys used systematically after each of these workshops
(Bogdewic, 1999). Instructor data was collected from the start in 2011, but it became more systematic,
and more detailed, as the implementation drive progressively focused on in-classroom integration
through Phase 2.
The implementation of UDL on this campus is still ‘work-in-progress’ and the process has not been
completed. There seemed, however, to be enough tangible findings registered already, to draw some
Page 197 of 487
conclusions on the impact of this initiative for faculty and learners at large on the campus.
A considerable amount of triangulation occurred through the data collection (Patton, 2001); systematic
feedback was collected from participants in the workshops and presentation, as the presentation material
evolved in order to progressively integrate feedback. Originally, for example, the content focused
primarily on the social model of Disability and the imperative for inclusion. As presentations were
delivered and feedback came in, it became pressing to also discuss the changing demographics of
Disability, the classroom management issues encountered by instructors and notion of sustainability in
teaching practices.
This triangulation constitutes a cornerstone of the qualitative processes used here: the UDL material
itself has substantially evolved over the three years of this promotional drive, in light of continuing
faculty feedback and reactions from participants. Although semi-structured interviewing and
questionnaires were used for the data collection (Mays & Pope, 2000), the bank of questions was
widened and changed as the data collection process evolved and become more systematic. Different
variables and thematic trends were explored as a result of participants suggesting their inclusion in the
data collection process: sustainability, relevance of buy-in from the unions, availability of IT support
were for example all presentation items introduced by participants. There was therefore an explicit
ethnographic dimension to the data collection, where participants themselves molded and framed the
direction of the process in order to reflect their own preoccupations (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995).
Manual coding was used systematically to analyze the raw qualitative data collected from participant
feedback, as well as the comments and suggestions received through triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005). The manual coding was refined through the use of two independent coders in relation to an initial
sample during the first six months of the UDL implementation drive (Given, 2008). The categories
emerged through the initial coding and were later consolidated through the ongoing analysis of the data.
The frequency and relevance with which each theme appeared in participant feedback was assessed in
order to determine which themes were major or minor and ought to be selected for the rest of the
analysis. Some themes were set aside because they did not occur sufficiently frequently in the size of
sample; their existence must be acknowledged nonetheless, as it is possible that some of the more
ancillary themes may become relevant in further larger scale studies.
Findings
The data analysis sought to highlight stressors and facilitators emerging in the feedback obtained from
instructors, as these might explain the variety and ambivalence of reactions generated amongst them
towards UDL. This interpretive lens is immediately helpful as deconstructing reactions in terms of
variables empowers researchers to suggest possible hands-on solutions, based on the accumulation of
facilitators and the elimination of stressors.
The categories identified through the data collection and the analysis are here classified as stressors or
facilitators, depending on the association that is made in the eyes of the participants interviewed; this
association is specific to the process of IT integration for purposes of UDL implementation. Such a
reward-cost analysis and a presentation of findings are immediately useful as they enable researchers to
move away from a view of instructor behavior as falling neatly between supporters or opponents.
Participants discussed a variety of variables and it can therefore be hypothesized that an eventual
decision to buy-in or push back, when faced with UDL material, operates through an individual ‘rewardcost’ assessment: if the individual in questions sees more stressors than facilitators, he or she might be
more likely to push back and vice-versa.
The categories which were identified with sufficient frequency to be retained appear below. They are
classified in two successive sections, as stressors or facilitators, depending on whether the participants
perceived them as either, within the context of UDL implementation, in their current personal
Page 198 of 487
circumstances. Familiarity with IT is a variable in itself, but it is argued that, in the case of each variable,
a separate and clear link with IT integration can be made.
Stressors
The variables appearing below are themes which were identified in instructor feedback, or at times in
the feedback of campus partners working closely with instructors; these were perceived by the
participants as having a negative weight in the individual decision of adopting or not UDL methods and
principles in course delivery and evaluation. On each occasion, the stressor is identified and a link with
IT integration is highlighted:
(i) Lack of time and budgetary concerns that UDL implementation might be overly onerous on
instructors: this concern was palpable when discussing the curriculum revision and planning that would
be involved in UDL implementation. Integration of IT appeared prominently in these remarks, and was
seen to be particularly time consuming and resource heavy. The instructors interviewed reported the
need for assistance and had the perception that the level of technical support available to them was low.
(ii) Lack of leadership support in UDL implementation: it was felt by instructors that UDL
implementation is not worthwhile if it is not explicitly valued by their department leadership. IT features
squarely in this assessment, and participants tended to think it was not worth investing in IT
implementation if this did not receive departmental recognition or support. Tenure portfolio was a
central concern and it was felt, by instructors, that unless UDL implementation and the IT integration
that went with it were explicitly rewarded in tenure portfolio, it was simply not worth the career
investment.
(iii) Myths and fears concerning the widening of access: participants were quick to equate widening of
access with lowering of academic standards. There were very noticeable misconceptions amongst
participants equating widened access with lowered academic expectations. These myths often bear a
direct relationship to IT integration: instructors often have the perception that a podcast for example
requires less work than a class presentation, or that exams done on computer somehow require less
skills; some instructors felt that class recording software lowered student attention by removing the need
to take notes.
(iv) A core skills analysis is often absent from curriculum design: it is often difficult for instructors to
make assessments as to how to widen access as the core skills being taught and evaluated are not clearly
identified from the start. They may be resistant to the integration of alternate means of presentation or
expression because they feel this narrows the impact of the skill being assessed. This is particularly
apparent when discussing the possibilities of a differentiated range of assessment methods. Many
instructors feel that e-portfolios, for example, are less academically challenging than written
assignments, even when this positioning seems to contradict the skills purporting to be evaluated. IT
therefore features in this personal assessment as instructors are fearful of taking emphasis away from
content by over-focusing on IT implementation.
(v) Misconceptions about UDL amongst instructors: instructors perceive UDL as a new concept, when
in fact it is not. They associate it in their feedback with the recent push for interactive, IT rich teaching.
UDL was created before the IT revolution in education and it is perfectly possible to be UD without
using technology. In its theoretical grounding, UDL synthesizes the literature on inclusion (),
differentiated instruction () and multiple intelligences (). It is not a contemporary ‘fad’ arising from the
push for IT use. Obviously, IT development has given UDL momentum but it is not a recent framework;
nor is it an isolated pedagogical model.
Page 199 of 487
(vi) Fears and insecurities with regards to IT competency and its use in teaching styles, previously
documented in literature (Rose, Meyer & Hitchcock, 2005). Teachers are often reluctant to use
innovative tools and to integrate them into their teaching practices for fear that their poor mastery of the
tool will make them appear unprofessional. UDL seems to exacerbate these existing insecurities
amongst instructors when they are first confronted with them.
(vii) The question of ‘ownership’: Instructors are also fearful to take charge of UDL implementation as
they feel that they have no ‘expert knowledge’ in the field of disability; they would rather shift the
responsibility back to a support unit, such as a Disability service provider within the campus. IT is
centrally features in this concern as it remains shrouded for many participants in relative mystery.
Instructors often mistake education IT and assistive technology, assuming they will need training on
specific remedial IT to widen access through UDL (Englert, Zhao, Dunsmore, Collings & Wolbers,
2007). This perpetuates the culture of referral (Collier, 2002), when in fact UDL implementation does
not rely on the use of assistive technology. IT, on the contrary, encourages the use of technology that is
non-specialized and usable by all students.
Facilitators
The variables appearing below are themes which were identified in instructor feedback, or in the
feedback of campus partners working closely with instructors, and were perceived by the participant as
having a positive impact on the individual decision regarding eventual UDL adoption in daily
pedagogical practices:
(i) Pre-existing core skills analysis within a faculty or department: the existence of such an analysis
greatly increases the likelihood of a constructive dialogue between the instructors and the various
partners concerned with access (Boud & Falchicov, 2006; Brennan & Osborne, 2008). It also eases the
integration of IT into the teaching model, as it reduces fears that the technological use may detract from
content or competency acquisition. Core competencies or skills can remain untouched if the core
competency is already in existence; the skills that are not being assessed or evaluated can then benefit
seamlessly from whatever means are available to widen access; this often means that technological
gadgets, software and support tools can then be applied without fear to the learning and teaching in order
to widen access for the greatest number of students;
(ii) A rich personalized dialogue with key students often leads to an increased awareness amongst
instructors and to a willingness to explore UDL; privileged relationships with students affected by
disability seems to sometimes radically modify these individual`s approach to the widening of access;
often these students will mention technological use as a tool to widen access and maintain their
engagement in the course (Hargreaves, 2004). Such personal exchanges create awareness amongst
instructors and are likely to speed up the process (Flanagin & Metzger, 2010). The connection with IT
integration is perhaps less apparent in this observation but it is there nonetheless. It is often clear in the
narrative of the instructor that it is a student`s use of and reliance on technology that usually makes the
instructor realize the exist of a barrier in the student`s access to learning; it is often anecdotally over a
discussion related to technological strategies that the instructors found out the students in question were
affected by an impairment.
(iii) Access to user friendly and time effective tools kit. The UDL literature is large to the point of being
daunting for all but the most committed of instructors. The availability of bite size tools significantly
increases the likelihood that the framework will be tentatively explored. Technological integration is
particularly daunting and seems insurmountable without induction tools that are user friendly and
simple. In this implementation effort, 2 minute videos were the format chosen for all instructor tools.
The ability of support staff to provide tips regarding IT integration, amongst other UDL strategies, in a
‘grab and go’ format was perceived, by participants, as essential in the decision to begin UDL
Page 200 of 487
implementation.
(iv) Ownership of the UDL principles: this appears, in the analysis of raw data from instructors, as
essential from the very start of the UDL implementation if there is to be any likelihood of success in
UDL classroom implementation. It therefore seems extremely important to be able to create, support
and promote a phenomenon of modelling by faculty for faculty; using instructors in the campus’ UDL
videos was perceived as crucial in terms of impact; succeeding in featuring instructors discussing their
own integration strategies with regards to IT, at the heart of their UDL implementation, was a key recipe
for success. The use of clickers can be modelled and promoted in this way, so can the use social media,
such as Twitter, in the classroom as a tool for student on-screen participation.
(iv) Validation and positive reinforcement: The acknowledgement and recognition of inclusive
pedagogical practices already in existence provides increased momentum amongst instructors and leads
to quick adoption from those still hesitating. It transpired from instructor feedback, that if training and
discussion sessions on UDL began by seeking out existing practices from participants and highlighting
that many of these are already aligned with UDL principles, buy-in was immediate and very likely to
create a positive on-ongoing momentum. Validating the practices that are already in accord with UDL
and that widen access for all students makes instructors less defensive; links are then quickly established
between the UDL model and other teaching theories which inform course design (differentiated
teaching, interactive learning, flipping the classroom, to name a few). This observation is particularly
true for IT integration already in place that facilitates a widening of access: it might be something as
simple and symbolic as an interactive use of laptops, the speedy dissemination of PowerPoint
presentations on web portals, or the creation of online chatrooms for questions. Similarly, what goes
for UDL workshops applies to wider in-department acknowledgement too. Once IT implementation is
valued explicitly – be it in tenure process, teaching portfolio, departmental policies, etc., the process is
speedy.
(v) Availability of UDL implementation tools that are subject-specific: this is immediately relevant in
the implementation discussions taking place with instructors. Even when the framework was globally
appealing, it failed to generate proactive momentum if subject specific resources were not available to
tackle issues such as: UD in labs, UD and graduate supervision, UD and real world learning such as
modern language acquisition, or evaluation of music performance, etc. Concerns relating to IT
integration in the UDL implementation process did not escape this rule: instructors did not just want
support and guidelines with IT tools, software or strategies; they expected IT solutions that were
specifically tailored to their field and content specific for their teaching domain (Gray, Thomas & Lewis,
2010).
All of the facilitators and stressors identified in the study have an immediate IT dimension. Although
UDL implementation is not conditional on IT use, both agendas are intimately linked in pedagogical
practice (Groff, Haas, Klopfer & Osterweil, 2009; Barajas & Higbee, 2003); both discourses – IT
integration and UDL implementation – give rise to a similar questioning with regards to the
sustainability of teaching practices and the future of pedagogy; it is not surprising therefore that the
researchers observed that attitudes to both processes were similar and created reactions of an identical
nature amongst instructors. The data collection, analysis lens and interpretive breakdown have jointly
been very helpful in setting the stage for the creation of successful UDL professional development
material that is able to focus on the facilitators identified. Equally this analysis becomes valuable in
highlighting the fact that instructors` decision to commit to an inclusive framework such as UDL is not
unambiguous or straightforward. It is in fact the result of an individual reward-cost assessment; the
facilitators in this reward-cost analysis, if they outweigh the stressors, are likely to lead a Higher
Education instructor to embrace IT integration in teaching as part of UDL implementation.
Outcomes
The analysis indicates with a good degree of precision what aspects of technological use act as a
Page 201 of 487
motivator or a stressor for post-secondary instructors. It distinguishes factors that are personal (such as
familiarity with technology, support with integration, time and resources available), as well as factors
that more systemic such as departmental leadership, focus on student centeredness and institutional
valorization of pedagogical growth). The factors which emerge from the analysis are detailed enough
to have the appeal of immediate transferability to other contexts and other campuses. They provide a
concise and user-friendly road map for the analysis of resistance encountered on any post-secondary
campus with regards to the use of technology to craft pedagogy that meets the needs of a diverse student
body.
These variables are perhaps too limited in scope to provide the full picture of the variables that come
into play in the reward-cost analysis occurring for each individual instructor. The study was limited in
time and resources and ancillary themes were eliminated during the coding. On a wider scale, some of
the more minor stressors and facilitators might become relevant and earn a place within the list the study
has drawn; this list may in time become much more extended as a result of further findings. The results
may also to some extent be specific in some ways to the institution in question. Further studies of this
nature in other universities, but also in different types of post-secondary institutions such as community
college for example, may identify further variables that come into play in the reward-cost analysis.
The interesting dimension of this study is that it not only examines resistance but suggests solutions in
tackling the resistance observed. In this respect it stands apart from past studies on IT integration in
Higher Education as these merely recorded the pitfalls, difficulties and eventual successes. The IT
implementation examined here comes into place because of a wider desire to see the three principles of
UDL rapidly implemented in teaching practices (Rose, Harbour, Johnston, Daley & Abarbanell, 2006).
That drive itself is fed by a legal imperative to see access to learning widened in Higher Education. It
is perhaps the first time IT integration has been examined from a Human Rights perspective and this
gives unprecedented momentum to the search for solutions. It is interesting to see for instance how the
existence of the Americans with Disability Act has sped up UDL implementation in the United States,
and similarly accelerated IT integration (Fuller, Bradley & Healey, 2004).
There are wider implications to be considered too when examining UDL implementation with regards
to social justice and, more widely, inclusion as it relates to student retention, diversity and social justice
(Gorard, Smith, May, Thomas, Adnett, & Slack, 2006; Howard, 2004). Widening access is not just about
eliminating barriers for students with Disabilities. UDL has other ambitions, such as removing barriers
for students from other cultures and from socially and economically deprived backgrounds (TegmarkChita, Gravel, Serpa, M. deL. B., Domings & Rose, 2012) Using the Universal Design for Learning
framework to support culturally diverse learners, Journal of Education, Vol. 192(1), pp. 17-22). These
dimensions of UDL implementation will also create resistance amongst instructors, but nevertheless –
just as was evidenced here – equally create opportunities for instructor buy-in. Further research is
urgently needed to explore the social and cultural dimensions of UDL implementation in Higher
Education.
The impact of the findings on the strategic planning of professional development for instructors also
needs to be examined in its systemic complexity (Garner, 2008; Hockings, Cooke & Bowl, 2008).
Identifying key variables is the first part of the process, but it is the successful integration of the key
facilitators into professional development that will achieve the sought out goals. The successful
integration of the facilitators into professional development packages presents its own challenges which
was beyond the scope of the study; this urgently requires further research (Hegarty, Bostock & Collins,
2000; Hall & Stahl, 2006).
Page 202 of 487
References
Allsopp, D., Miskoff, E., & Bolt, L. (2005) Individualized Course-Specific Strategy Instruction for
College Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD: Lessons Learned From a Model Demonstration
Project. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Vol. 20(2), pp. 103–118
Amato, P. (1990) Personality and social network involvement in predictors of helping behavior in
everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 31-43
Barajas, H. and Higbee, J. (2003) Where do we go from here? Universal Design as a model for
multicultural education. in Higbee, J. (Ed.) Curriculum Transformation and Disability: Implementing
Universal Design in Higher Education. Minnesota: Center for Research on Developmental Education
and Urban Literacy, University of Minnesota.
Barbour, R., Featherstone, V., and Members of WoReN. (2000) Acquiring qualitative skills for primary
care research. Review and reflections on a three-stage workshop. Part 1: Using interviews to generate
data. Family Practice, Vol. 17, pp. 76–82.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999) Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bennett, R. (2003) Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 8, pp. 12-29
Bogdewic, S. (1999) Participant observation. In: Crabtree B, Miller W, (Eds.) Doing Qualitative
Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; pp. 47–69.
Borman, W. (2004) The Concept of Organizational Citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, Vol. 13, pp. 238-241
Boud, D., & Falchicov, N. (2006) Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 31(4), pp.399-413.
Brennan, J., & Osborne, M. (2008) Higher education's many diversities: of students, institutions and
experiences; and outcomes? Research Papers in Education, Vol. 23(2), pp. 179 - 190.
Burgstahler, S., Anderson, A., & Litzkow, M. (2011) Accessible technology for online and face-to-face
teaching and learning. In: T. Cox & K. King (Eds.) The Professor’s Guide to Taming Technology (pp.
201–218). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Collier, C. (2002) Separating Difference from Disability: Assessing Diverse Learners, Second Ed.
CrossCultural Developmental Education Services: Ferndale, WA.
Collins P. (1998) Negotiating selves: reflections on ‘unstructured’ interviewing. (WWW) Sociology
Research Online, Vol. 3 (3) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/3/2.html (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Elzarka, S. (2012) Technology Use in Higher Education Instruction" .CGU Theses & Dissertations.
Paper 39. Claremont University. (WWW) http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/39 (accessed July
31st, 2014)
Englert, C.S., Zhao, K., Dunsmore, N., Collings, Y. & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of
students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve
Page 203 of 487
performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 30(1), pp. 9-29.
Finkelstein, M. (2006) Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Motives, motive
fulfillment, and role identity. Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 34, pp. 603-616
Flanagin, A. J. & Metzger, M. J. (2010) Kids and Credibility: An Empirical Investigation of Youth,
Digital Media. Use, and Information Credibility. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Fovet, F., Beck, T., Mole, H., & Noga, B. (2014) Applying Universal Design to disability service
provision: outcome analysis of a UD audit. Journal of Post-secondary Education and Disability, Vol.
27(2), pp. 209-222
Fovet, F., Mole, H., Syncox, D., & Jarrett, T. (2013) Like fire to water – building bridging collaborations
between Disability service providers and course instructors to create user friendly and resource efficient
UDL implementation material.
Collected Essays on Teaching and Learning, Vol. 7(1).
http://celt.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/CELT/article/view/3999/3263 (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Fuller, M., Bradley, A. and Healey, M. (2004) Incorporating disabled students within an inclusive higher
education environment. Disability and Society, Vol. 19 (5), pp.455–468.
Garner, P. W. (2008) The challenge of teaching for diversity in the college classroom when the professor
is the ‘other’. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 13(1), pp.117-120.
Given, L. (2008). The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles,
CA: Sage Publications.
Gorard, S., Smith, E., May, H., Thomas, L., Adnett, N. and Slack, K. (2006) Review of Widening
Participation Research: Addressing the Barriers to Participation in Higher Education: A Report to
HEFCE by the University of York, Higher Education Academy and Institute of Access Studies.
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda. Journal
of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 38(2), pp. 111-121.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public
Schools: 2009. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
Groff, J., Haas, J., Klopfer, E., & Osterweil, S. (2009). Using the Technology of Today in the Classroom
Today. The Education Arcade.
Hall, T. and Stahl, S. (2006) Using Universal Design for Learning to expand access to Higher Education.
in Adams, M. and Brown, S. (Eds.) Towards Inclusive Learning and Teaching in Higher Education:
Developing Curricula for Disabled Students. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 2nd Ed. London:
Routledge.
Hargreaves, D. (2004) Personalised Learning: Next Steps in Working Laterally. London: Specialist
Schools Trust.
Harrison, E. (2006) Working with Faculty Toward Universally Designed Instruction: The Process of
Dynamic Course Design, Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, Special Issue: Universal
Design in Higher Education, Vol. 19 (2), pp. 152 – 162
Hegarty, J., Bostock, S. and Collins, D. (2000) Staff development in information technology for special
needs: a new, distance-learning course at Keele University. British Journal of Educational Technology,
Page 204 of 487
Vol. 31(3), pp.199-212.
Hockings, C., Cooke, S. and Bowl, M. (2008) Learning and teaching for social diversity and difference
in higher education. Full Research Report ESRC End of Award Report.
Howard, K. L. (2004). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Learning and
Leading with Technology, Vol. 31, pp. 26-29.
Inan, F.A., & Lowther, D.L. (2010) Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path
model. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 58 (2), pp. 137–154
Kay, R.H. (2006) Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into pre-service education: a
review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (4), pp. 383–408
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007) Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design
seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, & technology. Computers and Education, Vol. 49 (3), pp. 740–
762
Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000) Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative
research. British Medical Journal, Vol.320(7226), pp. 50-52.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for
integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, Vol. 108 (6), pp. 1017–1054
Mole, H., & Fovet, F. (2013) UDL - From disabilities office to mainstream class: How the tools of a
minority are addressing the aspirations of the student body at large. (2013) Collected Essays on
Learning and Teaching, Vol. 6, pp. 121-126
Padgett, D., & Runlee-Conceicao, S. (2000). Designing a faculty development program on technology:
If you build it, will they come? Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 36(2), 325-334.
Patton, MQ. (2001). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Edition). Thousand oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Rao, K. (2013). Universal instructional design of online courses: Strategies to support non-traditional
learners in postsecondary environments. In: S. Burgstahler (Ed.). Universal design in higher
education: promising practices. Seattle: DO-IT, University of Washington. www.uw.edu/doit/UDHEpromising-practices/uid_online.html (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Rose, D.H. & Gravel, J.W. (2010). Universal design for learning. In E. Baker, P. Peterson, & B. McGaw
(Eds.). International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier.
Rose, D. H., Harbour, W. S., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S. G., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design
for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of
Postsecondary Education and Disability, Vol. 19(2), p. 17.
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., & Hitchcock, C. (2005) The Universally Designed Classroom: Accessible
Curriculum and Digital Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Southworth, J., Knezek, G., & Flanigan, J. (2003). Three Decades of Distance Learning: Enrichment at
the University of Hawaii. Educational Perspectives, pp. 3-8.
Spencer, A. M., & Romero, O. (2008). Engaging higher education faculty in universal design:
Addressing needs of students with invisible disabilities. In: Universal Design in Higher Education:
From Principles to Practice (pp. 145–156). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press
Page 205 of 487
Tabata, L. & Johnsrud, L. (2008). The Impact of Faculty Attitudes Toward Technology, Distance
Education, and Innovation. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 49, pp. 625-646
Taylor, P, Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Patten, E. (2011). The Digital Revolution and Higher
Education, Pew Research Center
Tegmark-Chita, M., Gravel, J.W., Serpa, M. deL. B., Domings, Y., & Rose, D.H. (2012) Using the
Universal Design for Learning framework to support culturally diverse learners. Journal of Education,
Vol. 192(1), pp. 17-22
The Center for Universal Design (1997) The Principles of Universal Design. (Version 2.0) Raleigh:
North Carolina State University.
Thompson, T. (2008). Universal design of computing labs. In: Universal Design in Higher Education:
From Principles to Practice (pp. 235–244). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Thompson, T., Burgstahler, S., & Moore, E. (2010) Web accessibility: A longitudinal study of college
and university home pages in the northwestern United States. Disability & Rehabilitation: Assistive
Technology, Vol. 5(2), pp. 108–114.
Wallace, L. (2007). Online Teaching and University Policy: Investigating the Disconnect. Journal of
Distance Education, Vol. 22(1), pp. 87-100
Yager, S. (2008). Small victories: Faculty development and universal design. (2008). In Universal
Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (pp. 127–133). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Page 206 of 487
USE OF THE ‘THIRD SPACE’ IN INTERVENTIONS WITH STUDENTS
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Frederic Fovet
McGill University, Montreal
Abstract
This paper analyses possible uses of virtual interactions towards the emotional wellbeing of
students with special needs. It uses ethnographic methodology to explore the reasons why
virtual environments are of such appeal to ‘at risk’ students; it explores in particular notions
of ‘third space’, such as social media site, massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs) and
other online synchronous and asynchronous virtual platforms. Drawing on the literature on
‘third space’, the study explores parallels between traditional understanding of this notion
and its recent incarnation as a virtual experience. Findings indicate that students with
special needs, particularly those with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
(SEBD), behave very differently when they enter third space. Many of the interactions they
engage in virtually are school-related and involve peers from their school cluster, even
though they occur after school hours. It is argued that, in many ways, the interactions in
third space may possess a remedial quality and assist in the inclusion process. The discussion
section examines how these findings may be relevant to educators in maintaining engagement
with this specific student population, when conventional practices fail.
Introduction
Interventions with students with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD) traditionally
tend to focus on classroom management. The literature on virtual engagement however indicates that
individual entering third space behave very differently than they do in real life; the need to explore this
virtual dimension – and perhaps this other student persona - when attempting to reach these at-risk
students therefore seems imperative. The potential for development of social capita, in particular, is
significant. In parallel, evidence shows that students with SEBD are formidably attracted to virtual
environments such as social media, massive multiplayer online games (MMOGs) and other online
synchronous and asynchronous virtual platforms. The hypothesis of this paper is that this appeal may
be particularly useful in establishing successful interventions and facilitating school engagement with
this otherwise difficult to reach population.
Literature Review
The literature touching on the topic of SEBDs, third space and technological use is wide and far reaching
and informs the hypothesis put forward in this study.
Students with SEBD
Traditionally studies exploring online engagement of students with special needs have limited their
samples to students with learning disability and have focused solely on assistive technology. This paper
choses to widen the scope of the investigation by considering the online needs and practices of students
with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD).
Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties is a working definition commonly used in British
literature (Travell,1999); children with SEBD are children “who, as a result of hitherto undefined factors,
Page 207 of 487
require additional resources (as defined in the 1996 Education Act) to meet their social, emotional and
behavioural needs”. It covers a spectrum ranging from unacceptable behaviour to mental illness, serious
mental illness being excluded from the definition (Department for Education and Skill, 2005).
The revised SEN Code of Practice (DfES 2001) Section 7:60 provides a protracted definition including
the terms withdrawn, isolated, disruptive, disturbing, hyperactive, lacking concentration and presenting
challenging behaviour arising from other complex special needs. It also creates new terminology by
naming Behavioural, Emotional and Social Development as one of the four areas of Special Educational
Needs. For the terminology EBD or SEBD to be used in their generally accepted definition, quite severe
recurring emotional or behavioural problems must occur in home, social or school situations. Perhaps
the best definition that is applicable to most children with EBD would be that, owing to an emotional
difficulty or disturbance, they refuse or cannot make full use of the educational opportunities offered to
them and are consequently difficult or challenging to manage. The usefulness of this concept is that it
removes the emphasis from diagnosis and focuses instead on behaviours and class dynamics that are a
common denominator amongst a variety of our students.
SEBD is not a concept which is limited to the UK educational legislative framework. A similar
definition is used in US educational legislation (Kauffman, 2010). In Australia, the concept is used as
well, but often within a much looser terminology which includes references to ‘at risk population’,
‘conduct disorders’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’ (Hourihan and Hoban, 2004). It is a term which
unfortunately, and rather unfairly, has rather specifically come to be associated with the sort of behaviour
difficulties observed in indigenous schools and communities (Blair, Zubrick and Cox, 2005). Gulchak
and Lopes (2007) stress that the concept of EBD is recognized and observed internationally, but they
also highlighted the paucity of quantitative research determining effectiveness of EBD interventions
currently used in schools worldwide.
There is obviously an element of subjectivity to such a definition (Mortimer, 2002). SEBD students
often have a perception that their behaviour is in fact normal (Jackson, Whitehead, & Wigford, 2010),
and often an appropriate response to bad teaching and uncongenial school conditions (Sacks & Kern,
2008). Teachers themselves in fact often disagree as to what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour
(Poulou, 2005) and this, even when DSM-IV checklists and diagnostic instruments are used (Mattison,
Gadow, Sprafkin & Nolan, 2001). There is also rarely agreement between characteristics reported by
teachers and children (Soles, Bloom, Heath & Karagiannakis, 2008).
The display of anti-social behaviour is, in summary, not rare in itself and will not be sufficient to define
a child as being affected by SEBD. A large number of children and teenagers, 60 to 85%, will take part
in difficult behaviour before the age of 20, while 40% of youth will display long lasting anti-social
behaviour (Moffitt, 2006). It is therefore not the behaviour itself that identifies SEBD students, but the
severity of the behaviour and the length of time during which it manifests itself (Jones, Dohrn & Dunn,
2004)
Technology and interventions
There is a large body of literature focusing on the creation of an online persona in chat rooms but this
has mostly focused to date on gender (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005) or ethnic differences (Korgan, Odell
& Schumacher, 2001). The more recent phenomena of Facebook (Boyd & Ellison, 2007) has also been
investigated with respect to persona development within the context of in-faculty use (Hewit & Forte,
2006; Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman & Witty, 2010), but not with respect to social contact between
peers – even though it advertises itself primarily as a social networking tool. Studies are beginning to
highlight the positive academic outcomes related to social media use, particularly in Higher Education
(Irwin, Ball & Desbrow, 2012), but they are yet to gauge in any detail the impact on emotional wellbeing.
Research has shown furthermore, interestingly, that Facebook use is closely clustered around school
affiliation for teenagers (Golder, Wilkinson & Huberman, 2007). Explorative studies into the use of
Page 208 of 487
other popular platforms, such as Twitter and WhatsApp, indicate similar patterns of use (CSM, 2012;
Yeboah & Ewur, 2014). The close parallels existing between school clusters and social media interaction
defy initial adult perception around the anonymity of internet exchanges. This observation in itself
increases curiosity as to the potential impact of virtual dimensions on the schooling of users. The impact
of social networks used at home on professional environment has been documented in this way
(DiMicco, Millen, Geyer & Dugan, 2008), but researchers have thus far been reluctant to see home use
of social media and in class interactions as related.
The creation and development of an online persona in virtual classrooms has also been the focus of a
body of literature. This has involved the online learner and usually, more specifically, the graduate
student (Annetta, Murray, Laird, Bohr & park, 2008; Fovet, 2008). The lesson drawn from this research
has been mostly that some face to face engagement remains indispensable within a hybrid format for
this online persona to appear (Boyle, 2008). Short of this, online chat rooms and bulletin boards offering
virtual meetings or interactive discussions seem to be the next best thing when it comes to encouraging
online presence (Gunawardena, Plass & Salisbury, 2001). This format has proved tangibly successful
in the field of acquisition of languages (deHaan, 2005).
There are research findings focusing on the broader relationship between the social and emotional
wellbeing of teenagers and their use of online networking tools (Cummings, Lee & Kraut, 2006; Haase
& Wellman, 2004), outside the field of education research. Some studies have looked more specifically
at self-representation within social networking sites. There seems to be evidence to support the idea that
the personality created online on these platform differs from their social image in the daily context
(Acquisti & Gross, 2006).
Research also seems to imply that the availability of this different platform for self-representation may
be therapeutic for some (Lo, Wang & Fang, 2005; Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007). Mazer, Murphy
and Simonds (2007) have explored in particular the potential benefits for at risk students, and studied
the impact teacher self-disclosure on Facebook has on student motivation, learning, and classroom
climate. They believe that the use of Facebook in the educational context can have a positive effect on
the student-teacher relationship, which can in turn lead to positive student outcomes. Teachers using
Facebook are indeed perceived by students as attempting to develop positive relationships. Use of
Facebook as part of the student-teacher relationship was seen as creating a higher level of motivation
and a more comfortable classroom climate. There appears to be evidence in such studies, of
relationships – particularly school relationships – improving through online interaction (Drussell, 2012).
Third space
Innovative learning spaces take on an increasingly subjective nature in the 21st century and tell us more
about their users than about any specific inherent characteristics they may possess (Dagkas & Stathi,
2007). This observation is extremely important as marginalized students may display marginalized and
unconventional use of these spaces (Lomas & Oblinger, 2005) and hence model them to their specific
needs and situations (Clark, 2005). The importance of exploring these students’ use of innovative
pedagogical space hence is not a quest focused on the nature of the ‘third space’, or innovative
pedagogical spaces generally; instead it represents an unchartered and innovative exploration of the
characteristics of students with SEBD that will lead to fresh approaches concerning their potential.
Understanding what these students seek in virtual interaction will, in turn, lead us to understand what
these adolescents understand by least restrictive environment (LRE) (Howard, 2004); it will
revolutionize best pedagogical practices in SEBD, and remove some of the misconceptions that surround
them as learners.
Much of the research on third space and innovative pedagogical spaces is anchored in overly narrow
participatory action research (Flutter, 2006), or very heavy critical theory (McGregor, 2004), examining
wealth and privilege (Leander & Phillips, et al., 2010) or yet again a Post-Modernist angle (Foucault &
Miskowiec, 1986; Jacklin, 2004). These are frameworks which offer very little subtlety in analysis when
it comes to adolescents with SEBD, repeating steadily fairly pre-established views on traditional ‘space’
Page 209 of 487
and the values and references they carry with regards to power, privilege, sanity, etc. In many ways
such frameworks see marginalization as an identity and a constant, whereas the difficulties experienced
by teens with SEBD now distinguish themselves very vividly from life-long dysfunctions in
contemporary research findings; spontaneous remission is indeed a topic widely discussed in SEBD
(Fovet, 2011) and for many of these adolescents, marginalization remains a transient state as they seek
alternative paths to functionality. The most visible of these trends has been the application of critical
theory to teaching space, and the creation of a critical pedagogy of space (Morgan, 2000). In opposition
to such over-focus on classroom space, this study will, in many ways, interpret space as a mere metaphor,
and focused on what it might represent for users rather than as an entity with inherent attributes
(Paechter, 2004).
‘Third space’, in its ethnographic use, has indeed little to do with the traditional conception of “space”.
Traditionally in literature it is characterized by a distancing of self from routine roles, than necessarily
by a physical movement or location (Oldenburg, 1999). It refers, when used by the population and age
group the study targets, to a dimension of interaction (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), sharing (Razavi & Iverson,
2006), an encounter (Attwell, 2008), or a new way of defining self and others (Paechter, Edwards,
Harrisson & Twining, 2001). Increasingly, ‘third place’ is actually described by users as a ‘non place’
(Augé, 1995), immediately evoking and suggesting a multitude of reasons this dimension might be so
attractive to these specific students (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
Methodology
Both the epistemological value of focusing on the discourse of the subject (O’Connor, Hodkinson,
Burton & Torstensson, 2011) and the impact of this method on empowerment for the subject (Bathmaker
& Harnett, 2010) lead us to exploring life narratives (Ungar, 2011) as a tool to examine the perceptions
of students with SEBD. Life narratives have been popular in Social Work for some time (Hartman,
Little & Ungar, 2008), but have only recently started being explored and applied in the field of education
(Theron, Cameron, Lau, Didkowsky, Ungar & Liebenberg, 2011). Narratives have been of particular
appeal from the ethnographic perspective, and the outcomes recorded in the anthropological field apply
equally well to the field of marginalized youth. The original process of ethnography is to query the
validity and usefulness of using rigid interview and data collection methods, even when these bear little
relevance to the subjects being studied (Smith, 2005). From a purely anthropological perspective, this
has progressively been applied to a growing body of social contexts, in situation where – by analogy –
individuals might be unwilling to share their experiences, feelings and perceptions (Roberts, 2004)
through traditional data collection methods (Atkinson & Pugsley 2005).
Youth at risk and marginalized youth, equally, can be assumed to be unreceptive to traditional
methodological approaches, particularly when the researcher is perceived to be part of an institutional
framework – formal education in this instance – with which interactions are tense, if not frail. Even the
marketing field has long accepted that in fact youth culture in general would not yield relevant
information with regards to trends, patterns of usage and perceptions, unless it were approached with an
ethnographic lens (McCracken, 2006). There is little surprise therefore that similar methods (Goodley,
Lawthorn, Clough, & Moore, 2004) should be appealing to the researcher interested in exploring
mechanisms as subtle as technological usage patterns; it is essentially subject centered. Life narratives
have tentatively been applied methodologically to students with SEBD (Bailey, 2009; Dunne & Moore,
2011).
An ethnographic process was therefore adopted in this study. The data collection consisted of nonstructured interviews with students aged 16-18 in secondary education. Ten interviews were carried
out, as well as two focus groups with 3 participants each. The interviews were recorded, transcribed,
manually coded and analyzed qualitatively (Bernard & Ryan, 2010; Glasel & Laudel, 2013).
Page 210 of 487
Findings
The most crucial observation with regards to the use of social media was that students who experienced
fairly major set-backs at school and were experiencing academic difficulties were never mentioning this
information during social net-working. According to the students’ self-perception, they never or rarely
published profile information that allowed difficulties at school to transpire. There existed therefore a
very systematic process of information selection when entering social networking. An intentional
decision was made by all participants to censor information reflecting their difficulties at school. As a
result and as a general rule, the ‘published’ state of mind seemed, for the great majority of participants,
to be in opposition to the climate at school or mood displayed in that context: their online activity might
suggest happiness and well-being when the reality within the school or the class was at times quite the
opposite.
Peer relations can be a source of great stress and unhappiness for SEBD students. It appears from the
data collected that social media is being used a platform to rectify these shaky peer relationships and
repair some of the damage which, it would appear, often occurs in social exchanges due to impulsivity,
a lack of verbal control or perceived social clumsiness.
Furthermore, relationships were seen to occur and develop during social networking which had no
reality within the classroom walls, according to the corroborating feedback of teachers. Sometimes
dialogue and conversations were seen to occur between students who would not actively speak to each
other during the day at school. The social networking tool was used to, not only repair damaged peer
relations, but to create entirely new ones. Though these seemed to not be entertained ‘live’ during school
hours, they still allowed the child in question to gain a degree of recognition within his peer group and
his virtual community. A level of expertise and recognition was gained by these participants through
these online relations, particularly if they involved gaming competency or knowledge (related to music,
apps, Youtube segments, etc.). It was quite clear that succeeding in obtaining certain key members of
the school community to appear on one’s ‘Friends list’, though not equivalent to entertaining an active
relationship at school with these individuals, represented a tangible and supportive connection. This in
turn was seen to lead to increase self-confidence.
During the interviews, the majority of participants was monosyllabic and volunteered little information.
The students value social media platforms as a networking tool, but were not conceptual or analytical
eloquent about its function in their life. They could rate its importance and relevance to their life and
ability to function, but did not as a rule understand how and why it complemented their social interaction
at school. Importantly, the subjects were seen to be making no differentiation about social media use at
home and its use at school (where tolerated). Both social networking contexts were perceived as mingled
and combined.
Findings related to massive multiplayer games online (MMGOs) varied slightly. The relationships
existing in online gaming, as described by the participants, were extensive, in depth and careful
developed through daily exchanges. Apart from students affected with ASD, who seemed to develop
gaming patterns that varied widely from other students with SEBD, all participants chat extensively with
their gaming partners. It is also important to note that there is nothing random about gaming cohorts.
Gaming partners indeed have to befriend or at the very least accept invitations from players. The ‘third’
space here is, in this sense, much more tightly regulated than one might initially assume. There are very
few occasions when the participants will leave these predetermined gaming groups and cohorts. The
findings of literature were confirmed and it became apparent that the great majority of the participants`
gaming partners belonged to their school community cluster. There was most usually little discrepancy
in the choice of partners: these had the same age as the participant and were usually a member of their
classroom, or at the very least their grade cohort.
It was also recorded that the relationships entertained with peers through gaming were fundamentally
different than those developed socially in the school community, even when these in vivo interactions
Page 211 of 487
were fairly well established relationships. This echoes the findings of Yee (2006) which focus on wider
groups than teens, but stress the fact that online gaming personas differ widely from real life contacts
and interactions, even when these links are as close as those of husband and wife. In the gaming ‘third
space’, an individual`s popularity, social status and rank are of little importance, just as the findings of
Oldenburg (1999) tell us about adult interaction in more traditional, and non-virtual, interpretations of
‘third space’.
The chat functions were used extensively and systemically by players; these discussions focus on the
game itself and gaming styles or specific maneuvers, but also often bear on other aspects of the players`
life. A wide array of topic is touched on – some relating to the school cluster but some going far beyond
and including personal difficulties, family situations and other interests. The tone of the interactions,
despite what is generally claimed in the media, is informal, jovial and constructive. A gaming etiquette
tightly rules exchanges and few deviations are tolerated. Let`s remember that despite the current
fascination for ‘trolling’ (Williams, 2012), very little of it occurs in MMGOs because the gaming
partners are almost never random.
In this sense, much of what was described by the participants seems to echo the findings of existing
literature on the Internet`s capacity to connect people across time and space and to foster the formation
of personal networks and communities (Wellman &Gulia, 1999; Carter, 2005; Sheldon, 2009) and bridge
class and racial gaps (Mehra, Merkel & Bishop, 2004; Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2011). In several
cases, the gaming involvement seemed to take on a therapeutic value for the participants discussing it,
as it was perceived as having a remedial potential with regards to relationships which were, often, not
always as constructive, or solid, in the real life school context. The idea of the ‘second chance’ was
reiterated by the participants, an observation that has been linked to virtual spaces in existing literature
(Livingstone, 2008; Sherman, Michikyan & Greenfield, 2013)
Outcomes
There are several issues relating to transferability and scope of outcomes that need to be considered
here. There may be widely differing variables involved in the observations made and these must be
examined to fully clarify the impact of the study. Virtual reality offers the possibility of quick and fluid
change (Mautone, 2005), in opposition to the physical constraints of time and space usually encountered
in the classroom setting (Nagelhout & Rutz, 2004) and this is one reason why it might be appealing to
students with SEBD. Many students with SEBD display impulsivity or hyperactivity, or more general
issues surrounding language and movement control (Azrin, Ehle & Beaumont, 2006) or self-awareness
(Bouzaouach, Bellaaj, Jamoussi-Dammak & Bouaziz, 2007). Presence in any form of ‘third space’
(Oldenburg, 1999) may therefore offer these adolescents an intuitive and congenial form of ‘least
restrictive environment’.
Similarly, using virtual platforms offers students with SEBD a great level of manoeuvre, autonomy and
initiative (Arthur, 2009); this became apparent in the study through the recurrence of discourse on
choice, ease and personal control. The format of virtual third space lends itself to fast transitions and
easy and quick change when boredom sets in (Whirley, Lorch, Lemberger & Milich, 2003). The relief
of students with SEBD when they are allowed on to a virtual platform was tangible through the
interviews, and it is possible to hypothesize as to the wider validity of this observation: it is possible that
the element of choice, and power, plays a decisive role in the appeal we are observing.
Students with SEBD are also highly sensitive and receptive to flexibility and to the capacity of
environments to adapt less rigidly to their needs (Bouzaouach, Bellaaj, Jamoussi-Dammak & Bouaziz,
2007). Research centered on the impact of schedule modification (Antrop, Roeyers & De Baecke, 2005)
and adaptation (Brachet & Testu, 2007) for example seems to suggest that students with SEBD will
thrive when offered the opportunity to modify conventional scheduling and to mould class requirements
to their idiosyncrasies and individual requirements (Gunter, Denny & Venn, 2000). Literature indicates
that flexibility has similar productive impact in other dimensions, and is not solely limited to the issue
Page 212 of 487
of scheduling: breaks from physical presence in class (Burnett, 2010), ability to move (Mulcahy &
Krezmien, 2009), technological interaction during the class time (Fovet, 2007), creative use of various
media (Mastropieri, Scruggs, Cuenca-Sanchez, Irby, Mills, Mason & Kubina, 2010) all seem to lead to
increased performance and interaction in students with SEBD; and all these initiatives include an
element of flexibility and choice (Jolivette, Stichter & McCormick, 2002).
The appeal of flexibility can be interpreted in terms of ‘control’ (Conroy, Alter & Scott, 2009) and
dynamics of power (Farmer, Farmer, Estell & Hutchins, 2007). However, it would be perhaps hasty to
interpret such demands simply in terms of opposition and assertiveness. It seems rather to be due, in
practical terms, to a genuine appreciation by these students of their own autonomy in scheduling,
initiating, ending and maintaining interaction with others (Sellman, 2009).
Entering third space represents a release from the physical space of the classroom, or from dysfunctional
‘live’ relationships. The school space is seen as constrictive, while cyber reality offers a form of release.
A parallel dimension appears in this release from ‘constrictive parameters’: virtual networking provides
the student with SEBD with an opportunity to renegotiate classroom relationships (Sawka, McCurdy &
Mannella, 2002). On the cyber platform, relations with the school cluster - and staff if they are tolerated
- are different and richer than they may be in the real world context (Murphy, Rodriguez-Manzares &
Barbour, 2010).
Another possibility might be that the student with SEBD finds in this space a sense of renewed
competency (VanDeventer & White, 2002): he or she is freed from the patterns of conventional
relationships that too often contribute to self-perceptions of low competency or poor ability in the school
setting (Thibaut & Riecken, 2006). A regained sense of competency in this arena may then empower
the student with SEBD to renegotiate interactions – with both staff and peers - on a new, more
productive, basis (Blascovich, Loomis, Beal, Swinth, Hoyt, Boulenson, 2002).
Interestingly the peer relationships entertained and developed by students with SEBD in social
networking platforms, such as social networking sites (Stutzman, 2006) or MMOGs (MMORPGs)
(Taylor, 2003) are usually more complex, more varied and developed than those observed in class
(O’Reilly & Newton, 2002). Classroom relationships are often metamorphosed and, to some extent,
nurtured and improved in this new context; these observations are valid with regards to relationships
with teachers as well.
This idea echoes theory and research on the ‘third space’ (Oldenburg, 1999) and the varying nature of
the relationships established within virtual third spaces (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). According to
Yee (2006), occurrences where online relationships are different from real life connections are frequent
and SEBD students are no different than the majority of online players: 25% of players engage in games
with a romantic partner and 19% with a family member without acknowledging within the game the real
life relationships that links then. Yee's interviews also reveal that individuals who game with romantic
partners or family find that such joint engagement in the "other world" of online games allows them to
redefine the nature and boundaries of their offline relationships, often in more equitable terms than what
may be possible in day-to-day offline life.
Another common characteristic of what some researchers call the ‘third place’ (Steinkuehler & Williams
2006) is that an individual's rank and status in the home, workplace, or society are of no importance
(Oldenburg, 1999). This is not to claim that no social stratifications exist within virtual worlds. Such
stratifications do exist, the most common observed being a disparity between expert "power gamers"
and those who play casually (Taylor, 2003). In general though, one can see how the ‘third place’ which
becomes available to students with SEBD through electronic media, enables them to redefine their
relationships and renegotiate social ranking with peers and adults (Delwiche, 2006).
Interestingly one notes that we have now moved away from a cognitive construct of SEBD and have
come to examine the challenge of teaching and including students with SEBD in terms of relationships,
interaction and quality of exchange, rather than response to pedagogical content or behaviour
Page 213 of 487
(Haythornthwaite, 2002; Thornburg, 2007; Soles, Bloom, Heath & Karagiannakis, 2008). The
interesting emerging feature here seems to be social capital and particularly the value that is placed on
social capital by students with SEBD themselves (Trainor, 2008). If increasing social capital, as well
as involvement in the school cluster, is now the key, it is clear that the virtual ‘third space’, in which
these students so love to immerse themselves, will have to be systematically explored and understood
by educators.
References
Annetta, L., Murray, M., Laird, S., Bohr, S., & Park., J. (2008). Investigating student attitudes toward a
synchronous, online graduate course in a multi-user virtual learning environment. Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, Vol. 16 (1), pp. 5-34.
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006). Imagined communities: awareness, information sharing and privacy
on the Facebook. In P. Golle & G. Danezis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Privacy
Enhancing Technologies (pp.36-58). Cambridge, UK: Robinson College.
Antrop, I., Roeyers, H., & De Baecke, L. (2005). Effects of time of day on classroom behaviour in
children with ADHD. School Psychology International, Vol. 26, pp. 29-43.
Arthur, E. (2009) Experience the digital education revolution. Education Technology Solutions, Vol. 29,
pp. 49-52.
Atkinson P, & Pugsley L. (2005) Making sense of ethnographic research in medical education. Medical
Education, Vol. 39, pp. 228-34.
Attwell, G. (2008) The Social Impact of Personal Learning Environments, in: S. Wheeler (Ed.)
Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning. Information Age Publishing,
Charlotte, NC
Augé M. (1995) Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, London/New York
Azrin, N.H., Ehle, C.T., & Beaumont, A.L. (2006) Physical exercise as a reinforcer to promote calmness
of an ADHD child. Behavior Modification, Vol. 30(5), pp. 564-570.
Bailey, S. (2009) Producing ADHD: An Ethnography Study of Behavioural Discourses of Early
Childhood. PhD thesis. University of Nottingham.
Bathmaker, A.M., & Harnett, P. (2010) Exploring learning, Identity and Power Through Life History
and Narrative Research. London: Routledge.
Bernard, R., & Ryan, G. (2010). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. London: Sage.
Blair, E., Zubrick, S., and Cox, A. (2005) The Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey:
findings to date on adolescents, Medical Journal of Australia, 183(8), pp. 433-435
Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beal, A., Swinth, K., Hoyt, C., Boulenson, J. (2002) Immersive virtual
environmental technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychological Enquiry, Vol.
13 (2), pp. 103-124.
Bouzaouach, I., Bellaaj, T., Jamoussi-Dammak, D., & Bouaziz, M. (2007). Études des variations
journalières des processus activateurs et inhibiteurs de l’attention chez l’adolescent, Actes de Colloque
- L’Élève en Difficultés Scolaires : Que Peut Apporter la Psychologie? Tunis : Institut Supérieur des
Sciences Humaines de Tunis.
Page 214 of 487
Boyd, D..M., & Ellison, N.B. (2007) Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), art.11.
Boyle, L. (2008) Are student teachers in hybrid online programs as prepared to implement
instructionally effective behaviours as peers trained in ‘face-to-face’ environments? Conference
Proceedings, Honolulu, HI: 6th International Conference on Education.
Brachet, M., & Testu, F. (2007). Évolution de l’attention et ses variations journalières chez des élèves
de 8 à 22 ans, Actes de Colloque - L’Élève en Difficultés Scolaires : Que Peut Apporter la Psychologie?
Tunis : Institut Supérieur des Sciences Humaines de Tunis
Burnett, S. (2010) School Achievement for Students with Behavioural Disorders. PhD Thesis, Faculty
of Education, Liberty University.
Carter, D. (2005). Living in virtual communities: an ethnography of human relationships in cyberspace.
Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 8(2), pp. 148-167
Clark, A. (2005). Talking and listening to children. In: M. Dudek, (Ed) Children's Spaces. Architectural
Press: Oxford, pp. 1-13
Common Sense Media Research (2012) Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives.
CSM.
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/social-media-social-life-how-teens-view-theirdigital-lives (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Conroy, M., Alter, P., & Scott, T. (2009), Functional behavioral assessment and students with
emotional/behavioral disorders: When research, policy, and practice collide. In: Thomas E. Scruggs &
Margo A. Mastropieri (Eds.) Policy and Practice (Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities,
Volume 22), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.133-167
Cummings, J., Lee, J., & Kraut, R. (2006). Communication technology and friendship during the
transition from high school to college. In R.E. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kieser (Eds.) Computers, Phones
and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology, pp. 265-278. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Dagkas, S. and A. Stathi (2007) Exploring social and environmental factors affecting adolescents'
participation in physical activity. European Physical Education Review, Vol. 13(3), pp. 369-384
ddeHaan, J. (2005) Acquisition of Japanese as a Foreign Language through a baseball video game.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 38, pp. 282-286.
Delwiche, A. (2006) Massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) in the new media classroom.
Education Technology & Society, Vol. 9, pp. 160-172.
Department for Education and Skills (2005) Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Study
Materials. DfES: London.
Department for Education and Skills (2001) Special Education Needs – Code of Practice. DfES:
London.
DiMicco, J.M., Millen, D.R., Geyer, W., & Dugan, C. (2008) Research on the use of social software in
the workplace, Conference Proceedings, CSCW 08 Social Networking in Organizations, Nov 8-12.
Drussell, J. (2012) Social Networking and Interpersonal Communication and Conflict Resolution Skills
among College Freshmen. Master of Social Work Clinical Research Papers, University of St Thomas.
Paper 21. http://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/21 (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Page 215 of 487
Dunne, L. & Moore, A. (2011) From boy to man: a personal story of ADHD. Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, Vol. 16 (4), pp. 351-364
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe. C. (2007) The benefits of Facebook ‘friends’: Exploring the
relationship between college students’ use of online social networks and social capita. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), art 1.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011) Connection strategies: Social capital implications of
Facebook–enabled communication practices, New Media & Society, Vol. 13(6), pp. 873–892
Farmer, T., Farmer, E., Estell, D., & Hutchins, B. (2007) The developmental dynamics of aggression
and the prevention of school violence. Journal of Emotional & Behavioural Disorders, Vol. 15 (4), pp.
197-208.
Foucault, M., & Miskowiec, J. (1986) Of other spaces. Diacritics, Vol. 16 (1), pp. 22-27
Flutter, J. (2006). ‘This place could help you learn’: student participation in creating better school
environments. Educational Review, 58 (2), pp. 183-193.
Fovet, F. (2007) Using Distance Learning Electronic Tools within the Class to Engage ADHD students:
a Key to inclusion? Conference Proceedings, 37th Frontiers in Education Conference - Milwaukee,
Session F3D, pp. 15-20
Fovet, F. (2008) Self-perception and self-representation in participants of an online Masters program
targeting educational practitioners. (2008) Conference Proceedings, 38th Frontiers in Education
Conference – Saratoga Springs, Section T4, pp. 1-6, http://fie-conference.org/fie2008/papers/1027.pdf
(accessed July 31st, 2014)
Fovet, F. (2011) Towards a new construct of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional
and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 16 (3), pp. 249-262
Glaser, J., & Laudel, G. (2013) Life With and Without Coding: Two Methods for Early-Stage Data
Analysis in Qualitative Research Aiming at Causal Explanations. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
Vol.14 (2). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1886/3529 (accessed July
31st, 2014)
Golder, S., Wilkinson, D., & Huberman, B. (2007) Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a
massive online network. Third International Conference on Communities and Technologies, (WWW)
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/facebook/facebook.pdf (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Goodley, D., Lawthorn, R., Clough, P., & Moore, M. (2004) Researching Life Stories: Method, Theory
and Analysis in a Biographical Age. London: RoutledgeFalmer
Gulchak, D., & Lopes, J. (2007) Interventions for Students with Behavioral Disorders: An International
Literature Review. Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 32(4), pp.267-281.
Gunawardena, C., Plass, J., & Salisbury, M. (2001) Do we really need an online discussion group. In:
D. Murphy, R. Walker, & G. Webb (Eds.) Online Learning and Teaching with Technology, London, UK:
Kogan Page Ltd
Gunter, P., Denny, R., & Venn, M. (2000) Modification of instructional materials and procedures for
curricular success of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, Vol.
44 (3), pp. 116 – 121
Page 216 of 487
Haase, Q., A., & Wellman, B. (2004) How does the Internet affect social capital? In. M. Huysman & V.
Wulf (Eds.) Social Capital and Information Technology, pp.113-135. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hartman, L., Little, A. & Ungar, M. (2008). Narrative inspired youth care work within a community
agency. Journal of Systemic Therapies, Vol. 27(1), pp. 44-58
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002) Building social networks via computer networks: creating and sustaining
distributed learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building Virtual
Communities: Learning and Change in Cyberspace (pp. 159-190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Hewit, A., & Forte, A. (2006) Crossing boundaries: identity management and student/faculty
relationships on the Facebook. Conference Proceedings. Banff, AB: CSWN 06, Nov 4-8.
Huffaker, D., & Calvert, S.L. (2005) Gender, identity and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), p.1.
Hourihan, F., and Hoban, D. (2004) Learning, Enjoying, Growing, Support model: An innovative
collaborative approach to the prevention of conduct disorder in preschoolers in hard to reach rural
families. Australian Journal of Rural Health. Vol. 12, pp. 269-276.
Howard, P. (2004) The least restrictive environment: how to tell? Journal of Law & Education, Vol. 33
(176), pp. 1–13.
Irwin, C., Ball, L., & Desbrow, B. (2012) Students' perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive
learning resource at university. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 28(7), pp.12211232.
Jacklin, H. (2004) Discourse, interaction and spatial rhythms: locating pedagogic practice in a material
world. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, Vol. 12 (3), pp. 373-398.
Jackson, E., Whitehead, J., & Wigford, A. (2010) In an EBD Population Do Looked after Children Have
Specific Needs Relating to Resilience, Self-Perception and Attainment? Educational Psychology in
Practice, Vol 26(1), pp. 69-77
Jolivette. K., Stichter, J., & McCormick, K. (2002) Making choices – Improving behaviour – Engaging
in learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 24-30.
Jones, V., Dohrn, E., & Dunn, C. (2004) Creating Effective Programs for Students with Emotional and
Behavior Disorders. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kauffman, J (2010) Commentary: Current Status of the Field and Future Directions. Behavioral
Disorders, Vol. 35(2) p180-184
Kolb, A. & Kolb, D. (2005) Learning Styles and Learning Spaces: Enhancing experiencial learning in
higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 4 (2), pp. 193-212
Korgan, K., Odell, P. & Schumacher, P. (2001) Internet use among college students: Are there differences
by race/ ethnicity? Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5(3).
Leander, K., Phillips, N., et al. (2010) The Changing Social Spaces of Learning: Mapping New
Mobilities. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 34, pp. 329-394.
Page 217 of 487
Livingstone, S. (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social
networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self–expression. New Media & Society, Vol.10(3), pp. 393–
411
Lo, S., Wang, C., & Fang, W. (2005) Physical interpersonal relationships and social anxiety among
online game players. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, Vol. 8, pp. 15-20.
Lomas, C. and Oblinger, D. (2005). Student practices and their impact on learning spaces. In: D.
Oblinger and J.Oblinger. (Eds) Learning Spaces. Boulder, Educause.
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Cuenca-Sanchez, Y., Irby, N., Mills, S., Mason, L., & Kubina, R. (2010),
Persuading students with emotional disabilities to write: a design study. In: Thomas E. Scruggs & Margo
A. Mastropieri (Eds.) Literacy and Learning (Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume
23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.237-268
Mattison, R., Gadow, K., Sprafkin, J., & Nolan, E. (2001) Discriminant Validity of a DSM-IV-Based
Teacher Checklist: Comparison of Regular and Special Education Students. Behavioral Disorders, Vol.
27 (4), p304-16
Mautone, J.A. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the Mathematics performance and
classroom behaviour of children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, Vol. 9(1), pp. 301-312.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R.E., & Simonds, C.J. (2007) I’ll see you on Facebook: The effects of computermediated teacher disclosure on student motivation, affective learning and classroom climate.
Communication Education, Vol. 56(1), pp. 1-17.
McCracken, G. (2006), Keynote Address: Ethnography and the “Extra Data” Opportunity. Ethnographic
Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2006 (1), pp. 1-3.
McGregor, J. (2004) Space, power and the classroom. Forum, Vol. 46 (1), pp. 13-18.
Mehra, B., Merkel, C., & Bishop, A. P. (2004). The Internet for empowerment of minority and
marginalized users. New Media & Society, Vol. 6 (6), pp. 781-802.
Moffitt, T. (2006) Life-course persistent versus adolescence limited anti-social behaviour. In: P.
Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology, pp. 571-594, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Morgan, J. (2000) Critical pedagogy: the spaces that make the difference. Pedagogy, Culture & Society,
Vol. 8 (3), pp. 273-289.
Mortimer, H. (2002) Behavioural and Emotional Difficulties, Alden Group Ltd, Oxford
Mulcahy, C., & Krezmien, M. (2009) The effects of conceptualized instructional package on the
Mathematics performance of secondary students with SEBD. Behvioral Disorders, Vol. 34 (3), pp. 136150.
Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M., & Barbour, M. (2010) Asynchronous and synchronous online
teaching: perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers. British Journal of
Educational Technology, Vol. 42 (4), pp. 583-591.
Nagelhout, E., & Rutz, C. (2004) Introduction: The Spaces of the Classroom, in E. Nagehout & C. Rutz
(Eds.) Classroom Spaces and Writing Instruction, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 7-8.
Page 218 of 487
O’Connor, M., Hodkinson, A., Burton, D., & Torstensson, G. (2011) Pupil voice: listening to and hearing
the educational experiences of young people with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD).
Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties. Vol. 16 (3), pp. 289-302.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty
Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through The Day. New York: Marlowe
& Company.
O’Reilly, M., & Newton, D. (2002) Interaction online: above and beyond requirements of assessment.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 18(1), p.57-70.
Paechter, C. (2004) Metaphors of space in educational theory and practice. Pedagogy, Culture &
Society, Vol. 12 (3), pp. 449-466.
Paechter, C. Edwards, R., Harrisson, R., & Twining, P. (2001) Learning, Space, and Identity. London:
Paul Chapman Publishing, in Association with the Open University
Poulou, M. (2005) Perceptions of students with emotional and behavioural difficulties - A study of
prospective teachers in Greece. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 10 (2), pages 137 – 160
Razavi, M. N., & Iverson, L. (2006). A grounded theory of information sharing behavior in a personal
learning space. Conference Proceedings. 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Roberts, B. (2004) Health narratives, time perspectives and self-images. Social Theory & Health, Vol.
2, pp. 170-183.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J. & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in
higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking
sites. The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13(3), pp. 134-140.
Sacks, G., & Kern, L. (2008) A Comparison of Quality of Life Variables for Students with Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders and Students without Disabilities, Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol.
17(1), p111-127
Sawka, K.D., McCurdy, B., & Mannella, M.C. (2002) Strengthening emotional support services: an
empirically based model for training teachers of students with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional
& Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 10 (4), pp. 223-232.
Sellman, E. (2009) Lessons learned: student voice at a school for pupils experiencing social, emotional
and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Vol. 14 (1), pp. 33 – 48
Sheldon, P. (2009). "I'll poke you. You'll poke me!" Self-disclosure, social attraction, predictability and
trust as important predictors of Facebook relationships . Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research
on
Cyberspace,
Vol.
3(2),
article
1.
http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2009111101 (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Sherman, L. E., Michikyan, M., & Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The effects of text, audio, video, and inperson communication on bonding between friends. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
Research
on
Cyberspace,
Vol.
7(2),
article
1.
http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2013071101 (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Soles, T., Bloom, E., Heath, N., & Karagiannakis, A. (2008) An exploration of teachers' current
perceptions of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, Vol. 13 (4) , pp. 275 - 290
Page 219 of 487
Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In N. K. Denzin
& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 85-107). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Soles, T., Bloom, E., Heath, N., & Karagiannakis, A. (2008) An exploration of teachers' current
perceptions of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural
Difficulties, Vol. 13 (4), pp. 275 - 290
Steinkuehler, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Where everybody knows your (screen) name: Online games as
"third places." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 1.
Stutzman, F. (2006) An evaluation of identity sharing behaviour in social network communities. Journal
of International Digital Media and Arts Association, Vol. 3(1), pp. 10-18.
Taylor, T. L. (2003). Power gamers just want to have fun?: Instrumental play in a MMOG. In M. Copier
& J. Raessens (Eds.), Level Up Games Conference Proceedings. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
Theron, L., Cameron, A., Lau, C., Didkowsky, N., Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011) A ‘day in the
lives’ of four resilient youths: Cultural roots of resilience. Youth and Society.
Thibaut, J.W., & Riecken, H.W. (2006) Some determinants and consequences of the perception of social
casualty. Journal of Personality, Vol. 24 (2), pp. 113-133.
Thornburg, D. (2007) Campfires in Cyberspace: Primordial Metaphors for Learning in the 21st Century.
Education at a Distance, Vol. 15(6) http://192.231.233.6/IDlab/Campfires.pdf (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Travell, C. (1999) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: Perspectives on Perspectives. In: J. Visser
& S Rayener (Eds) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties: A Reader. Lichfield: QEd Publications.
Trainor, A. (2008) Using cultural and social capital to improve post-secondary outcomes and expand
transition models for youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, Vol. 42 (3), pp. 148-162.
Ungar, M. (2011). The Social Worker: A Novel: The Advantages of Fictional Re-presentations of Life
Narratives. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, Vol. 11(3), pp. 290–302.
Vandeventer, S., & White, J. (2002). Expert behavior in children`s video game play. Simulation &
Gaming, Vol. 33 (1), pp. 28-48.
Wellman &Gulia, (1999) Net-Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In:
Barry Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the Global Village: Life in Contemporary Communities. Westview.
Williams
(2012)
What
is
an
Internet
troll?
(WWW)
The
Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/12/what-is-an-internet-troll (accessed July 31st, 2014)
Whirley, K.S., Lorch, E.P., Lemberger, C.C., & Milich, R. (2003) Online cognitive engagement of boys
with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, Vol. 7(2), pp. 71-81.
Williams (2012)
Yee (2006) The labour of fun: How video games blur the boundaries of work and play, Games and
Culture, Vol. 1, pp. 68-71.
Yeboah, J., & Ewur, D. (2014) The Impact of Whatsapp Messenger Usage on Students
Performance in Tertiary Institutions in Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, Vol.5 (6), pp. 157164
Page 220 of 487
CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS OF NOVICE PROGRAMMERS
Roland Gesthuizen
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victoria
Paul D. Chandler
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne
Abstract
The need for computer users to have a conceptual, compared with surface-level,
understanding of computers has been argued by various authors over many years.
Conceptual difficulties are not, of course, specific to the computer programming domain, and
indeed are often the focus of Science education practices. This investigation concerns the
understanding of secondary school students who are novice users of the Python programming
language. A series of different tasks were developed to probe their understandings of relevant
programming concepts. As Science education in recent times has often favoured probes of
understanding and student-centred representational approaches, we argue for creative
teaching and learning strategies which make visible and explicit their understandings,
making them open to clarification and elaboration. In short, we contend that there is
opportunity for creative pedagogy by bringing some Science education practices into
‘Computer Science’, thus helping students resolve misconceptions and identifying
pedagogical approaches which may have unwittingly reinforced such views.
Introduction
Conversations online
An interest in constructivism since the early 1980s has galvanised an interest in learner’s understandings
in a range of subject areas. This has led to a paradigm change in the teaching and learning of various
various school subjects, and the change in Science education practices is particularly notable (So, 2002;
Tobin, 1993, p. ix). In terms of a theory of mental and conceptual models (Cardinale, 1991), there is a
‘target system’, and the ‘mental model’ is what the user presently has in his/her head about the target
system, and a ‘conceptual model’ is one which is invented to provide a teachable representation of a
target system. The interest, therefore, has been with shifts in mental models and leveraging such shifts
through student-constructed conceptual models.
In contrast, the interest of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) educators with learner
understandings of the technology has been different. Yan and Fischer (2004) have observed that
insufficient attention has been given to how people learn to use computers from the perspective of
cognitive development. Hammond and Rogers (2007) have also observed the relative lack of research
into children’s understanding of computers and computing concepts – particularly when compared with
the very large literature on teaching and learning with ICT. Ben-Ari (1999, 2001, 2002) has been critical
of the widespread application of minimalism, a methodology for designing manuals for software
documentation and for using these manuals in training users of the software. Trained in the more
behaviorist style of minimalism, he argues, when faced with an unfamiliar situation, the user will not
attempt to employ or expand conceptual knowledge, but rather will attempt to find and recycle a task
that was ‘actively learned’. In short, Ben-Ari expresses concern with an insufficient attention to
conceptual understanding.
Nevertheless, practitioners have been steadily implementing more learner-centred or constructivistcompatible teaching and learning approaches. For instance, Chesñevar, Maguitman, Gonzáles and Cobo
(2004) have used such ideas to develop innovative approaches to the teaching of highly abstract ideas
of theoretical computing and Chen (2003) has done similar with the teaching of computer networking.
Whereas the emphasis has tended to be on the conceptions that students construct whilst in the
computing classroom, not the conceptions that they bring to the classroom door (Powers and Powers,
Page 221 of 487
2000, p. 1), there are a small number of insightful studies and it is work which take a ‘student first’
approach. Ben-Ari (1999) considered the mental models of word processing of academic staff in a
university. Hammond and Rogers (2007) considered children’s perspectives on issues such as ‘What is
logging on?’ and ‘How does a mouse work?’. Young student's perspectives in explaining the ‘behaviour’
of a mechanical, autonomous robot were studied by van Duuren and Scaife (1996) and Levy and
Mioduser (2008). Kafai (2008) explored students’ conceptions of a computer virus. Papastergiou (2005)
and Diethelm and colleagues (Diethelm & Zumbrägel, 2012; Mesaroş & Diethelm, 2012) investigated
high-school students’ conceptions of the internet. The ImpaCT2 and related studies (ImpaCT2, 2002;
Mavers, Somekh and Restorick, 2002; Pearson and Somekh, 2003) considered several thousand
students’ understanding of ‘What is a computer?’. Across all of these studies, there is little consistency
of findings. ImpaCT2 researchers concluded that students had detailed and complex cognitive
representations of technologies, whereas Papastergiou (2005) found widespread simplistic and
utilitarian mental models.
The authors of this paper are both Science teachers as well as ICT teachers, invested in the conceptual
change model of teaching, and to some extent side with Ben-Ari (1999), troubled by the more minimalist
approach which seems to often permeate ICT education, and seeking for a more conceptual basis for our
work, and give greater respect to the thinking that students bring to the computer classroom. Our earlier
forays into this territory (Chandler, 2010; Chandler and Gesthuizen, 2010) considered ‘common place’
computing activities. In this paper, our focus is on the more specialised work of teaching programming.
Focus for investigation
Roy Pea’s (1986) work Language-independent conceptual “bugs" in novice programming is
unquestionably the early and seminal work in the field. Google Scholar indicates that it has been widely
quoted, but readily-located similar studies are not easy to find (e.g. Fleury, 2000; Pane, Ratanamahatana,
& Myers, 2001; Spohrer & Soloway, 1986). Amongst them, the focus has not been at the upper
secondary level nor in relation to more recent programming languages such as Python. Pea’s
investigation identified the following three misconceptions in the work of novice programmers:
 Parallelism - the assumption that different lines in a program can be active at the same time
 Intentionality - the attribution of forsightedness to the program
 Egocentrism - the assumption that there is more of the programmer's meaning for what he or
she wants to accomplish than is actually present in the code
The focus of the investigation is, in the context of programming in Python, exploring the ideas about
computing that students present to a teacher about what is happening inside a computing device.
Therefore, to contribute to an extension or confirmation of Pea’s work with respect to the specific
contact of teaching of programming through Python to Australian upper secondary students.
Methodology
Participants
The participants were students from the second author’s information technology classes in a secondary
school in the city of Melbourne, Australia. Whilst there were three classes in total involved, they were
small classes and the total number of participants was 29. Both genders were represented and participant
ages spanned from 15 to 17. Students had a broadly different exposure to computing varying from no
contact, some limited programming with Scratch to some more intensive programming experience with
the Python 4 programming language through the GROK 5 Programming Challenge. All had some
experience using computer applications such as word processing and spreadsheets. Each had their own
4
5
http://python.org
https://groklearning.com/challenge/
Page 222 of 487
personal netbook computer.
Probes for understanding
Following the value of Science educators to use visual representations to help students represent
abstractions (Tytler, Haslam, Prain and Hubber, 2009), and similar work in ICT education (Kafai, 2008),
our earlier investigations (Chandler, 2010; Chandler & Gesthuizen, 2010) took a similar approach. We
designed some simple questions to prompt students to draw representations of how variables ‘work’.
Only results for one question is considered in this paper:
Figure 1: Sample Question
Here are two variables in a Python program:
X = 16
Y = “Cat”
If you could "draw" what this looks like when this information is
stored ‘inside’ a computer, what would your drawing look like? You
can annotate your drawing to add some notes that describe the
different parts of your drawing. Use your imagination and ideas
about what could be happening inside a computer and how these
variables might be stored.
Data collection
Students were presented with this questionnaire to answer independently on paper. Their teacher (the
first author) provided considerable encouragement to record and submit an answer but not provide any
clues or hints about what should be answered. No information technology or programming instruction
was given to support or scaffold their answers. Submissions were codified to remove any identifying
information then digitally scanned for further analysis.
Data analysis
Whilst Pea’s (1986) research was available as an interpretive framework, we took an approach more
aligned with grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Both researchers independently read over the
responses. Initial classifications that we made were then discussed, and then we worked together to sort
the responses into broad groupings. Our interpretations were then compared with Pea’s work.
Results and Discussion
The responses were group into four broad classifications, which are explained below, which is organised
as an approximate taxonomy ranging from least abstract to most abstract.
No representation
Two students responded with no answer. They indicated that that had absolutely no idea, even when
pressed to use their imagination and despite considerable encouragement to submit an idea what may be
happening.
Exterior view of the computer
Some responses indicated a recognition of the computer as a “system”. The diagrams sometimes labelled
the parts and indicated that information is entered and stored and perhaps manipulated inside the
computer.
Page 223 of 487
Figures 2 and 3: Student Responses indicating 'exterior view'
Naive symbolic understanding
Some responses suggest a notion of the “inside” of the computer as symbolic. One student describe a
Turtle device connected to a computer full of chips that contains binary numbers. There is some sense
of Pea’s notion of egocentrism (more meaning attributed than is actually specified) as it is otherwise
unclear how the idea of the turtle arose.
Figure 4: Student Responses indicating 'symbolic understanding'
More detailed presentations of the “inside”
When examining the responses that explored what was probably happening at a ‘deeper’ level, there
were four broadly different ways of visualising how information could be represented inside a computer.
They varied from the fantastical notion of abstract animals, information dynamically flowing from boxes
through different paths, static binary code and physical reality of dots of data or magnetic field lines.
We will here consider each in turn.
Data ‘flow’
Some students submitted a model that illustrated the flow of information along pipes to different boxes
or spaces.
Figures 5 and 6: Student Responses indicating 'data flow'
This is reminiscent of the “plumbing diagrams” used by Brian Harvey (1997) to develop understandings
Page 224 of 487
of variables such as:
Figure 7: Sample 'plumbing diagram'
Notions of “flow” also connect with high-level mathematical thinking such as cellular automata
(extensions, really, of Conways ‘game of life’), which have been modelled to represent low-level digital
structures such as logic gates (Schiff, 2005, pp. 97-100). It is important to note, though, that students
had not been exposed to “plumbing diagrams” in their classes, so their use of this abstract representation
is entirely of their own making. It is possible that these responses embody some degree of Pea’s
misconception of parallelism (elements of the program being active at the same time), but even so, it
can be argued that this ‘data flow idea’ is the principle objective of the programming teacher: that values
must be stored in a ‘container’ somewhere that they must be combined with other values in order for
computation to take place.
The response is therefore very important as it suggests that those students who constructed diagrams
which successfully reinterpret information derived from their teacher and other sources and developed
a representation which is highly productive, close to the canonical representation of the field and allied
with high-level mathematical thinking. If this was the mental model (or interim mental model) of most
students in a programming class, a teacher would have reason to be very happy.
Mathematical
What can be seen from the response below is that students draw upon their prior experience strongly
when they interpret the question. For instance, one student produced a response with cartesian
coordinates has taken note of the symbols “X” and “Y” in the question and connects that with certain
types of mathematical work. Likewise, other students who have produced something which looks like
a mathematical equation; one of those students has possibly seen the same symbols and connected that
with other elements of mathematical experience.
Some degree of Pea’s notions of parallelism and intentionality is probably present in these responses.
Figures 8 and 9: Student Responses indicating 'mathematical understanding'
Page 225 of 487
Fantasy
Imagination and fantasy elements are well represented amongst some contributions. The student who
has seen Y=’Cat’ and has envisaged miniature felines certainly has some ‘fantasy representation’ but
moreover has not seen the letters between the quotation marks as simply a sequence of characters but as
a real-life object which needs to be modeled in some way.
The fantasy models represented ranged from a smiling young cat with a bow tie and another drawn using
ASSCI characters. Another drew a small army of marching cats and two tried to physically draw a small
cat, hard-wired into the computer circuitry. This support the conceptual understanding that the cat is
both inside the computer and an integral part of the circuitry or perhaps the code.
Figures 10, 11, 12 and 13: Student Responses indicating 'fantasy understanding'
This anthropomorphic representation may draw on a wider culture such as the Internet, books or
television shows such as “Nian cat” or “Cyberchase”. “Nian cat” is a YouTube animation and internet
meme including a mildly irritating music and flying computer cat. Videos and images of this computer
cat are popular and shared between students. The Cyberchase animated cartoon series presents what is
occurring within a computer as a kind of miniaturized version of the real world.
It would be drawing a long bow to suggest that that students would believe that a computer would
contain an actual miniature model of a cat from the real world, but what is clear is that is that they have
interpreted Y=’Cat’ to be actually indicative of a feline rather than a string of characters. Therefore, their
parsing of the line of code is more based on ‘common reading’ of the sentence than a computer-science
based one and, whilst ‘cats in the computer’ is probably not actually sensible to them, they do not really
have any idea of a representation which makes any more sense than that. This reading of the program
probably embeds some elements of Pea’s notions of intentionality and egocentrism.
Unstructured code
Several students tried to represent the data as binary numbers in different ways. One tried to connect the
data to each variable, another represented the huge iteration of zeros and ones. A third tried to illustrate
that the stored data could be ‘visualised’ this way if you examined the could hold a magnifying glass to
a computer chip. It is interesting to note that there was some confusion about how this information is
grouped as discrete variables or a wall of data with no discrete boundaries.
Page 226 of 487
Figure 14: Student Responses indicating 'unstructured code'
This representation is clearly influenced by prior learning that information in a computer is not stored
as native words, decimal numbers or physical objects, rather it is directly converted, codified and stored
as a binary number. There was perhaps some doubt with how the computer can tell different ‘boundaries’
to delineate between the different tokens represented in this binary sequence or where this code would
be physically located.
A physical reality
Two students provided an interesting and conceptualisation of how data is stored inside a computer.
After a considerable period of time struggling with a suitable answer, one settled on a series of deliberate
dots on a surface to represent the information inside, perhaps on a chip. Another tried to represent this
not as a series of dots but as a set of magnetic field lines along a surface.
Figures 15, 16: Student Responses indicating 'physical understanding'
These representations may have been influenced by some prior reading or learning about how
information is stored on a DVD, compact disk or magnetic tape. The students may have attempted to
map this visualisation into their model of how a computer works or looks inside. Whilst this is perhaps
the most technically interesting answer at a physical level for information storage, it is worth noting that
these students did not ground their representation in the more symbolic and abstract ideas.
In summary, there are not many visual representations which seem to be very viable in terms of
explaining the lines of code presented. Whilst not wanting to stray into Pea’s misconception of
intentionality (the attribution of forsightedness to a program) the majority of representations which are
‘static’ rather than part of a ‘process’. In contrast, to the computer scientist, a computer is a ‘busy place’,
shunting data from one place to another at a fantastical speed. As represented in the order of the
discussion above, the classification which we are on a surer footing, though, is abstraction compared
with physicality, and it is from this basis that conclusions and recommendations proceed.
Conclusion
In the small amount of data collected, we have seen examples which fit in a range of positions that can
be located upon a spectrum which extend from a 'macroscopic, physical' understanding on one extreme
though to a 'microscopic, physical' understanding on the other, and with various forms of abstract
thinking somewhere between. This is presented in Table 1.
Page 227 of 487
Table 1: Spectrum of computer understandings
Macroscopic, physical
Abstract
External
hardware For instance
model with physical - naïve symbolic
devices
- mathematical
- data flow
- binary number
- fantasy
Microscopic, physical
Internal physical model
with
data
storage
elements
The computer programmer typically works in an abstract space, dealing with data, data structures and
algorithms. At one end of the above spectrum is the physical infrastructure which makes all of this
possible, such as the motherboard circuitry and the design of storage devices is broadly the domain of
electronics engineering, but is rarely open to view because it is either hidden in a case or microscopic in
size. At the other end of the spectrum is the physical reality of a computer which the user ‘sees’ and
interacts with directly, the province of user-interface design. Data structures occupy the ‘middle ground’
between these two extremes, but unlike them is entirely an abstract conception. Where students are able
to think abstractly, some elements of Pea’s misconceptions can be inferred. Consistent with our earlier
work (Chandler & Gesthuizen, 2010), the challenge seems to be in fostering student thinking at an
abstract level at all. An extremely small number of students could be said to be thinking at an adequately
abstract level where a deeper understanding of misconceptions could provide direction for productive
future teaching and learning.
Given the small extent of this study, there is considerable scope to repeat this activity and compare the
results with a larger cohort of students, different ages or amongst adults such as teachers or parents. A
larger sample would allow a more careful exploration of the extent to which abstract (compared with
physical) conceptions are indeed prevalent and to provide a more careful of the account of the range of
mental
models.
We came to this investigation as educators immersed in Science education, and that discipline has taught
us that it is valuable for teachers to understand the conceptual understandings that students bring to the
classroom, viewing these as mental models that are neither right nor wrong. Rather they should probably
be viewed as alternative conceptual understandings that students have constructed from prior
experiences. As Pea (1984) encouraged us to ask the question “How do inadequate mental models get
transformed to better ones?”, it is this perspective that we do not find widely represented in current ICT
education, which seems to be more informed by minimalism.
What this brief study has suggested is that the first step towards that is to find ways to encourage thinking
at an adequately abstract level. What confronts us is that there is, in a sense, a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to naïve
understandings because an explanation based on physical realities (at either end of the spectrum) will
always be inadequate. It is one thing to suggest that teachers should be aware of the various perceptions
so that they can be better placed to diagnose and design activities that challenge this understanding and
stimulate learning. But in order for that dictum to be meaningful, we must not only seek a more
conceptual basis for our work but to firstly reveal the abstract ‘space’ that either implements, or is
implemented by, the physical reality.
References
Ben-Ari, M. (1999). Bricolage forever! In proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop of the Psychology of
Computer Programming Interest Group, Leeds, UK, pp. 53-57. http://www.ppig.org/papers/11thbenari.pdf
Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in
Page 228 of 487
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1), 45-73.
Ben-Ari, M. (2002). From Theory to Experiment to Practice in CS Education. Paper presented at the
2nd Annual Finnish/Baltic Sea Conference on Computer Science Education, Koli, Finland.
Ben-Ari, M., & Yeshno, T. (2006). Conceptual models of software artifacts. Interacting with Computers,
18(6), 1336-1350.
Cardinale, L.A. (1991) Conceptual models and user interaction with computers. Computers in Human
Behavior, 7(3), 163-169.
Chandler, P. D. & Gesthuizen, R. J. (2010, April). Learner’s conceptions of ‘common place’ computing
activities: a case in word processing. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education
Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Chandler, P. D. (2010, Nov). Rethinking computer science from a representational approach. Paper
presented Symposium on Contemporary Approaches to Research in Mathematics, Science, Health and
Environmental Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. http://www.deakin.edu.au/artsed/efi/conferences/car-2010/papers/Author 1.pdf
Chen, C. (2003). A constructivist approach to teaching: implications in teaching computer networking.
Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 21(2), 17-27.
Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Gonzáles, M., and Cobo, M. (2004). Teaching fundamentals of
computing theory: a constructivist approach. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 4(2), 91-97.
Diethelm, I., & Zumbrägel, S. (2012). An investigation of secondary school students’ conceptions on
how the internet works. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing
Education Research - Koli Calling ’12 (pp. 67–73). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Fleury, A. E. (2000). Programming in Java. In Proceedings of the thirty-first SIGCSE technical
symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE ’00 (pp. 197–201). New York, New York, USA:
ACM Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss A. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Sociology Press.
Hammond, M., & Rogers, P. (2007). An investigation of children's conceptualisation of computers and
how they work. Education and Information Technologies, 12(1), 3-15.
Harvey, B. (1997). Computer Science Logo Style Volume 1: Symbolic Computing. MIT Press. Available
from http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/v1-toc2.html
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational
focus: pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5-28.
ImpaCT2 (2002). Pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of ICT in the home, school and community. BECTA,
Coventry, UK. Available from http://www.bnecta.org.uk/research/impact2
Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Understanding virtual epidemics: children’s folk conceptions of a computer virus.
Journal of Science and Educational Technology, 17(6), 523-529.
Levy, S. T., & Mioduser, D. (2008). Does it “want” or “was it programmed to …”? Kindergarten
children's explanations of an autonomous robot's adaptive functioning. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 18(7), 337-359.
Page 229 of 487
Mavers, D., Somekh, B., & Restorick, J. (2002). Interpreting the externalised images of pupils’
conceptions of ICT: methods for the analysis of concept maps. Computers and Education, 38(1-3), 187207.
Mesaroş, A.-M., & Diethelm, I. (2012). Ways of planning lessons on the topic of networks and the
internet. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education on WiPSCE ’12 (p. 70). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Pane, J. F., Ratanamahatana, C., & Myers, B. A. (2001). Studying the language and structure in nonprogrammers’ solutions to programming problems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
54(2), 237–264.
Papastergiou, M. (2005). Students' mental models of the internet and their didactical exploitation in
informatics education. Education and Information Technologies, 10(4), 341-360.
Pea, R. D. (1984). Language-Independent Conceptual “Bugs” in Novice Programming. (Tech Report
No. 31). New York: Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY: Center for Children and
Technology. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED319373
Pearson, M., & Somekh, B. (2003). Concept-mapping as a research tool: a study of primary children’s
representations of information and communications technology (ICT). Education and Information
Technologies, 8(1), 5-22.
Powers, K. D., & Powers, D. T. (2000, Nov). Constructivist Implications of Preconceptions in
Computing, Proceedings of ISECON '00 (Annual Conference for Information Systems Educators).
Available from http://isedj.org/isecon/2000/408/ISECON.2000.Powers.txt
Schiff, J.L. (2005).
An introduction to
http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/pub/Schiff_CAbook.pdf
Cellular
Automata.
Available
from
So, W. W-M. (2002, June). Constructivist Teaching in Primary Science, Asia-Pacific Forum on Science
Learning and Teaching, 3(1). Available from http://www.ied.edu.hk/apfslt/v3_issue1/sowm/index.htm
Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1986). Novice mistakes: are the folk wisdoms correct? Communications
of the ACM, 29(7), 624–632.
Tobin, K. (1993). Referents for making sense of science teaching. International Journal of Science
Education, 15(3), 241-254.
Tytler, R., Haslam, F., Prain, V., & Hubber, P. (2009). An explicit representational focus for teaching and
learning about animals in the environment. Teaching Science, 55(4), 21-27.
van Duuren, M., & Scaife, M. (1996). “Because a robot’s brain hasn’t got a brain, it just controls itself”
– children’s attributions of brain related behaviour to intelligent artefacts. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 11(4), 365-376.
Yan, Z., & Fischer, K. W. (2004). How children and adults learn to use computers: a developmental
approach. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 105, 41-61.
Page 230 of 487
TWEECHING: LEARNING THAT IS PERSONAL AND SOCIAL
Roland Gesthuizen
Victorian Department of Education Employment and Training
Amanda Rablin
St Peters Lutheran College, Queensland
Abstract
The use of social media at conferences has changed significantly over the last 6 years
becoming a central component to professional conversation and participant engagement.
The volume and diversity of micro-blogging participants has increased and the positioning
of the ‘backchannel’ is an increasingly endorsed and expected part of the participatory
culture.
This paper tracks the use of Twitter at the 2008, 2010 and 2012 Australian Computers in
Education Conferences (ACEC) and analyses how the backchannel conversation has evolved
over that time. Our research provides a longitudinal analysis of trends and changes in use at
these conferences over time. It expands on previous work of a detailed analysis of Twitter
posts from the ACEC 2010 conference (Gesthuizen, 2012).
The nature of the Twitter conversation has moved from a rebellious conversation by a few to
an expected component of the conference experience. This professional and social dialogue
has gathered momentum, becoming more communal, inclusive, resource rich and extending
well beyond the physical boundaries of the event location and its timing.
A small scale survey of conference participants was used to gather reflections on changes in
the use of Twitter as a Personal Learning Network (PLN) with a focus on contributions to
ACEC conferences. This paper provides recommendations and considerations for engaging
conference participants in the meaningful use of backchannel conversations and their value
by participants and observers to the conference experience.
Background
Conversations online
Educators use Twitter for a variety of purposes such as: collaborating with colleagues; staying up-todate with news or trends; participating in a conference backchannel or Twitter chat with a particular
purpose; exposure to a more diverse range of perspectives; to test out ideas; to access resources, links
and inspiration; self-expression; social connection and peer support (Warlick, 2009; Lalonde, 2011;
Stevens, 2008; Gerstein, 2011). In an academic setting, Twitter can be used to foster interaction and
conversation about a given topic (Educause, 2007). Twitter is a collaborative tool with a growing interest
from educators for developing a Personal Learning Network or PLN (Warlick, 2009; Skiba, 2008;
Stevens, 2008; Educause, 2007; Lalonde, 2011; Gesthuizen, 2012).
Most conferences, especially those relating to elearning, are now marked by one or more online
conversations in which conference attendees share insights, beliefs, ideas, and emotions in response to
each other. With online authoring tools, users can compose, publish and share online a large piece of
writing. It is not uncommon to find amongst these social media communications and discussions,
educators who are not attending a conference or event but who vicariously experience the activity
through these conversations and who actively participate in the discussion (Educause, 2007).
Nature of Twitter
Users of Twitter are restricted to posting brief, online text updates or ‘tweets’ of just 140 characters using
a range of different clients including a desktop computer, laptop, tablet or smartphone device.
Information in a Twitter post can be codified and compressed using special initialism of key words such
Page 231 of 487
as RT or retweet, MT or modified tweet, DM or direct message and HT or hat tip (Howard, 2009).
Hashtags can be used to bring an audience together at an event, creating a conference “backchannel”
discussion (Sopan et al., 2012). It cannot be regulated by the mainstream event but it is increasingly
becoming an integral part of any conference.
The nature of communicating with Twitter is not a single distributed conversation. As a backchannel it
becomes a series of multiple monologues with a few intermittent, discontinuous, loosely jointed
dialogues between users (Ross et al., 2011). These conversations can sometimes appear prosaic and at
other times highly personal and challenging. Participants in a backchannel often expand their network
of followers within a short time during a live event. Clusters of conversation often form around
consistent tweeters throughout the event or for speakers at the time of their presentations (Sopan et al.,
2012).
Building a Backchannel
Engaging in a backchannel can help participants make new connections and stimulate peer conversation
(Sopan et al., 2012) and can foster deep feelings of connectedness between participants (Lalonde, 2011).
Whilst it can appear overwhelming for new users, a backchannel is a complex space where user can
share, collaborate, question and stamp out an individual online presence (Ross et al., 2011).
When we consider our real-life and online interactions, the increased use of social media has blurred the
lines between our personal and professional relationship. Questions have been raised from studies about
the ethical challenges that social media presents when new behaviours or practices are adopted (Taylor,
2012).
The Study
This paper examines a backchannel that evolved and grew at a series of three biannual national ACEC
conferences 6 spanning 2008 to 2012. It starts by examining how Twitter was used by conference
participants and then explores some issues and further uses. By tracking conversations using a specific
and popular hashtag used at each event we can follow the associated social media interactions. The goal
of the study was to identify patterns and trends in the data as well the evolving positioning and value of
Twitter as a backchannel tool.
The Events and Participants
General details of the 3 conferences are outlined in Table 1. The participants are considered as the
contributors to the Twitter stream at each event, some of participated remotely and were not at the
physical event. A majority of ACEC conference delegates work in a teaching or administration or
support role in an Australian school or Tertiary institution. Whilst many participants taught a computer
science/information-technology based subject, other educators attended because they had an interest in
the leadership, integration, teaching or pre-service teacher education.
Method
This research is a non-intrusive analysis of the social and psychological characteristics of how educators
work together online. Rather than aggregate or tally all the social media interactions, this study will
focus on the posts around the time period when the first and last keynote speakers presented their address
in the auditorium, and overall statistics of Twitter use on the final day of the conference. Social media
data was assembled from Twitter archives collected by the researchers from a range of different tools
using the most common hashtag used by conference delegates at each event. For each year the data
imported into a spreadsheet for analysis.
6
ACEC (Australian Computer Education Conference) is a biannual conference hosted by state members of
the ACEC (Australian Council for Computers in Education) http://acce.org.au
Page 232 of 487
Table 1
ACEC conference events profile
Conference
ACEC 2008
ACEC 2010
ACEC 2012
Most popular hashtag used
#acec08
#acec2010
#acec2012
Host association and city
CEGACT, Canberra
ICTEV, Melbourne ECAWA, Perth
Dates of conference
29 September - 2 October 2008
6-9 April 2010
2-5 October 2012
Approximate number of delegates
250
800
400
The text of the tweets from the final day of each conference was analysed using Textalyser7, in order to
determine keywords and any overall linguistic trends. Extracting and clustering popular words using a
text analysis tool is an unobtrusive window to peoples’ concerns. Differential language analysis has
successfully used this to analyse Facebook social media posts (Schwartz et al., 2012). A word cloud
from each event, where each word is scaled by frequency, was also used for analysis because
visualisation is an important way of working with key themes in textual data (Tausczik & Pennebaker,
2010).
Analysis of first day of keynote posts was problematic because of different program schedules for each
event. ACEC2012 scheduled their first keynote in the evening after pre-conference activities and
analysis of the first #ACEC08 was problematic as it had not been well established as a Twitter hashtag.
Fortunately, as the last day of each conference event included a final keynote speaker, it was decided
that we would compare the social media stream during this last session and conduct a detailed text
analysis rather than a wider analysis of each event.
To gauge early concerns about social media at conference events, an examination was conducted of OZteachers8, a mailing list used by conference participants. This helped to identify a heated 2008 discussion
debating the use of a backchannel and other technologies at conference events. A small scale online
survey was distributed in 2014 to this mailing list and other social media channels to determine how
these perspectives have evolved and the prevalence of these issues within a more recent setting.
The use of Twitter (and other technologies) at ACEC in 2008 raised some concerns with attendees and
others within the education community regarding appropriate protocols for behaviour at conference.
Discussion on the OZ-Teachers email list and through blogs, was also used in this study to identify
possible issues and perspective on the use of Twitter at that point in time. These issues were further
explored by a small scale survey of educators who actively use social media including some who were
present at all 3 conferences.
Results and Discussion
This section presents data and analysis based on the tweets from the three conferences and from the
survey and briefly examines their implications. A focus on the tweets at the time of the first and last
keynote is shown in Table 2.
The average message posting frequency per user is very roughly comparable between events. There is a
significant increase in the number of tweets posted during the first keynote and last keynote for each
event. There is a considerable increase in the activity of each Twitter stream from an occasional post in
2008 to a many posts per minute in 2012.
7
8
http://textalyser.net
http://www.oz-teachernet.edu.au/
Page 233 of 487
Table 2
First and Final Keynote Twitter data comparing keynotes
Keynote Data
ACEC 2008 ACEC 2010 ACEC 2012
First Keynote
Tweets during first keynote
25
465
99
Tweets per minute during first keynote
0.379
7.750
1.737
93
40
Number of contributors to first keynote tweets 3
Final Keynote
Tweets during final keynote
11
214
272
Tweets per minute during final keynote
0.177
3.344
5.440
80
56
Number of contributors to final keynote tweets 3
The average message posting frequency per user is very roughly comparable between events. There is a
significant increase in the number of tweets posted during the first keynote and last keynote for each
event. There is a considerable increase in the activity of each Twitter stream from an occasional post in
2008 to a many posts per minute in 2012.
Table 3
Content Analysis of the Final Day Tweets
Final Day Tweet Data
ACEC 2008 ACEC 2010 ACEC 2012
Number of tweets on last day
52
1454
1179
Number of contributors to tweets on last day 10
222
175
Estimate % of conference delegates
4%
27.75%
43.75%
Tweets per user on last day
5.200
6.550
6.737
Last day average tweet size
91.566
100.465
110.280
Last day # other than ACEC one
2
210
302
Average other # per tweet
0.038
0.144
0.256
Max other # in a single tweet
1
7
8
Last day total http:// shared
5
304
342
Average http:// per tweet
0.096
0.209
0.290
Max http:// in a single tweet
5
4
4
Last day total @
7
923
1302
Average @ per tweet
0.132
0.634
1.103
Max @ in a single tweet
7
5
7
Last day total RT
0
644
701
Average RT per tweet
0.000
0.443
0.594
Max RT in a single tweet
0
6
3
Max tweet size (last day)
140
161
161
Min tweet size (last day)
28
21
25
From table 3, the tweets per user on the last day increased only slightly, despite the significant increase
in the total tweet volume. It is interesting to note that the nature of how users engage with the social
media has changed. The latter events have Twitter posts that include more hashtags to other topics and
Page 234 of 487
share links to other websites. In particular, there is a significant increase in tweets that cite multiple users
and the use of a codified language such as RT for retweet.
The significant increase in the “@ per tweet” measure from 0.132 to 1.103 would be expected as
increasingly users cross reference each other’s Twitter username when submitting a post. It also probably
reflects a change in the discourse to a more conversational nature.
The increase in popularity to “RT @username” is reflected by the increase in the RT per tweet from zero
in 2008 to 0.594 (59%) in 2012. Perhaps this is a measure of the effort of users in this Twitter stream to
acknowledge tweets and contributions by another user. It is a crude citation system that is increasingly
being adopted by users. This is an interesting illustration of how an online group can identify a
community need and create its own social code of conduct.
An overall textual analysis of last day tweets, as shown in Table 4, indicates there is a significant increase
in how much participants are saying with Twitter with an increase of total words used. Whilst the
sentence length has decreased and the complexity of the language used has decreased, the syllables per
word and readability scores have remained relatively constant. This could imply that whilst users are
sharing complex ideas with this medium, they are probably better skilled at summarising their ideas or
questions.
Table 4
Text Analysis of tweets posted on the last day
Conference
Total word count
ACEC 2008 ACEC 2010 ACEC 2012
526
9768
13893
Number of different words
335
2549
2931
Complexity factor (Lexical Density)
63.70%
26.10%
21.10%
Readability (Gunning-Fog Index) (6-easy 20-hard) 8.6
6.2
5.6
Total number of characters
4959
90198
132497
Number of characters without spaces
3316
60892
89406
Average Syllables per Word
1.74
1.7
1.72
Sentence count
53
1582
2876
Average sentence length (words)
15.08
9.08
7.23
Max sentence length (words)
76
72
58
Min sentence length (words)
1
1
1
The use of the term HTTP increased from 1.0% in 2008 to 2.4% in 2012. This growth is consistent with
the notion that users are increasingly likely to share a link to a photograph or resource when using social
media. Also there is an increased use of initialisations such as RT or Retweet to communicate when an
idea is being shared.
An examination of the words used from the frequency table (Table 5) and word clouds (Figure 1) reveals
some interesting trends. “Learning “ is part of each event but whilst 2008 had a clear emphasis on
“standards” and “pedagogy”, in 2012 there is an increased recognition of other users and conversation
around the ideas being shared.
Page 235 of 487
Figure 1: World Clouds Generated From Final Day Tweets From Each Event
Wordle of #ACEC08 tweets (with acec08 removed)
Wordle of #ACEC2010 tweets (acec2010 and rt removed)
Wordle of #ACEC2012 tweets (acec2012 and rt removed)
Page 236 of 487
Table 5
Comparison of Word Frequencies and Popular words from final day tweets9
Conference
ACEC 2008
%
ACEC 2010
%
ACEC 2012
%
Top 10 words
ACEC
standards
garystager10
ICT
lf
teachers
learning
HTTP
based
pedagogy
1.03
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.8
ACEC
RT
HTTP
garystager
bit.ly
you
what
learning
keynote
school
9.2
2.1
1.6
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
ACEC
RT
HTTP
you
great
animations
ackygirl
learning
thanks
your
9.5
5.0
2.4
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
Popular
initialisations
ICT (1.3%)
HTTP (1.0%)
1.3
1.0
RT
HTTP (1.6%)
2.1
1.6
RT
HTTP
5.0
2.4
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
@ackygirl (90)
@garystager (77)
@Steve_Collis (59)
@betchboy (42)
@jennyluca (34)
@mountainmoss (32)
@mentormadness (29)
@bronst (29)
@kerryank (24)
@heyjudeonline (19)
@murcha (17)
0.92
0.79
0.60
0.43
0.35
0.33
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.17
@ackygirl (88)
@acec2012 (69)
@rgesthuizen (52)
@paulfuller75 (36)
@sarahstopher (35)
@henriettaMi (35)
@paulhuebl (32)
@karistubbs (31)
@anthsperanza (30)
@mgraffin (29)
@1nbm (28)
0.63
0.50
0.37
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.20
10 most frequently @jomcleay (1)
mentioned Twitter @djuler (1)
users (mentions)
@Laurenogrady (1)
@Steve_Collis (1)
@StevenCaldwell (1)
@lucybarrow (1)
@jarruzza (1)
*only 7 users each
mentioned
once
within final day
tweets
Shifting hard and soft technologies
Some of the behavioural changes observed between events may be a result of social media users that are
more familiar with Twitter and have a better understanding of how it could be used. It would be
interesting to consider if this change in user behaviour has happened gradually over time between events
with increased social media use or if it was directly learned during the event by the high density
conference Twitter stream and posts made by other skilled users.
Another change to consider is the different devices used by participants at each event and the impact on
access to social conversation. An anecdotal observation at the 2008 conference is that the majority of
participants used laptops, some suggesting that these needed wheels or a backpack to carry about the
venue. Photographs of the conference audience showed that in 2010, many participants started to use
smart phones, and at the 2012 conference many were holding iPad tablet devices. It would be interesting
to consider how educators may have engaged differently with each type of technology.
OZ-Teachers Ethical Dilemma
The suggestion of an ethical problem with using social media is not entirely new. Some research has
been conducted examining the increasingly blurred line between personal and professional relationships,
hinting at a perilous ethics landscape for social networkers (Taylor, 2012).
During October 2008, there was considerable concern raised by teachers on the OZ-Teacher mailing
9
Data analysis generated by http://textalyser.net. Initialisations have been capitalised for clarity.
Combining different variations of the keynote name and capitalisations.
10
Page 237 of 487
list11 about the impact of mobile devices and social media. Concerns were raised about the appropriate
ethical behaviour or netiquette that should be adopted by participants. After examining the posts, the
following two different views emerged that highlight the spectrum of perceptions in 2008 about how
social media should be used at a conference event.


It is rude for participants to blog, tweet or tag websites during presentation. The glow of
laptop screens was distracting. Rather than multi-tasking ineffectively, participants could
better engage by turning off all their electronic and mobile devices. Conference organisers
should consider a policy or code of ethics to guide device use.
Using mobile technology could help participants work paperless, make better notes and
reflect upon the proceedings. Social media could help contribute to a backchannel that
engages participants beyond the event, improving collaboration, communication and
learning. In addition, it can help to improve real world feedback and interpersonal
relationships and the conference experience.
The evolution of uses and perspectives
To determine the relevance of the value and perspectives of a survey was conducted in 2014. 35
responses were received with 4 indicating they were present at ACEC 2008, 17 at ACEC 2010, 14 at
ACEC 2012 and 13 did not attend any of these events. Responses were from people who actively use
Twitter at conferences (average of 4.1 out of 5), and find its use valuable at these events (average 4.3
out of 5). Respondents noted that the use of Twitter was:



frowned upon during ACEC 2008 but valued by those not physically present.
intense, valued and enabled deeper connections at ACEC2010; providing intellectual and
social discussion. A few respondents indicated that this was the start of their PLN.
widely accepted, active, used for organisation and discussion at ACEC2012 and provided
an enhanced experience for those unable to attend.
Those survey participants indicated that they use Twitter in the following ways from most frequent to
least.
Figure 2: Extent of Types of Twitter Use
The survey also asked respondents to rate a series of statements that drew upon some of the concerns
identified from the 2008 OZ-Teachers mailing list conversations. From these responses it can be deduced
Synthesised from 32 emails retrieved from the public OZ-Teachers mailing list in discussion threads titled
“Conference Session Professional Respect” and “ACEC2008”. http://lists.rite.ed.qut.edu.au/pipermail/OZTeachers/2008-October/subject.html
11
Page 238 of 487
that current perspectives on the use of Twitter at conferences are that:










Sharing content from a presenter during a presentation is a generally acceptable practice.
It is not rude to tweet at while listening or participating in a conference.
The backchannel enriches the experience.
Mobile devices are a valued tool and can be left on.
Twitter strengthens participants’ networks and connections.
Twitter provides resources that can be reviewed after the event.
Opportunities to meet other backchannel contributors are and would be valued.
Active engagement in the backchannel by presenters and keynotes would mostly be seen as
valuable
External participants in the backchannel can enhance the learning experiences
The use of Twitter for housekeeping communications and by officially designated people
Figure 3: Responses to statements regarding use of Twitter at conferences
I find it distracting when tweeting and reading Twitter
during a conference session or keynote.
Some people tweet too many social and off task things
to the conference hashtag.
Conferences should display tweets in a visible place during
keynote sessions.
It is annoying when people who aren't at the conference
tweet to the hash tag.
I would rather spend time talking to people in my Twitter
PLN face to face than attend sessions that don't interest me.
The use of Twitter forms a divide between those who
tweet and those who do not.
As shown in Figure 3, some statements met with a divided response, indicating that:
Page 239 of 487





Some participants find it distracting when they or others are using and reading tweets during
a session or keynote.
While generally a social use of Twitter is accepted it was felt that some people tweet too
many social and off task things to the conference hashtag.
There is some value in displaying tweets at the live event, although this should be
considered with caution.
There is some concern about the use of the hashtag from those not physically at the
conference.
Some participants value time with those in their network over attending specific sessions.
The statement with the most diversity of responses was “The use of Twitter forms a divide between
those who tweet and those who do not”. A majority of responses were neutral and only a few indicated
a strongly agree or disagree stance, so it could be argued that the statement itself was problematic or that
opinions are yet to be determined in this area.
Limitations of the study
The use of Twitter as a data set and the ability to make generalisations from this study is problematic
for several reasons as identified below:




Only public posts that used the conference Twitter hashtag were analysed. Private
conversations, replies and posts to other social media sites could not be included. We do not
claim that the data examined was a complete representation of all the social media activity
that took place.
Whilst each event was held on a different year and location, this sequence of events was
organised by the same national body and promoted to a similar group of educators.
The researchers were event participants and significantly engaged. Whilst this provides a
unique insight to any online engagement and behaviour, it must be acknowledged that this
perspective could bias the reflections and data interpretation.
Some users may not have been at the event or even in the same time zone. For the purposes
of this research it will be supposed that every Twitter user who re-shared or posted a tweet
was in some way engaged and contributing to the associated learning.
Conclusion
Although the use of Twitter as a data set presents limitations, it can be used to determine the place
and prominence of messages exchanged. In addition, text analysis can be used to measure and help
identify the volume and diversity of participants who tweeted during selected keynotes, nature of
the ‘conversation’ and types of tweets shared. By adding personal reflections from the authors and
other key tweachers, patterns and trends in the contributions over time can be further examined.
When people gather in one place to attend a conference keynote session, something important
happens when they can influence each other. During the 2010 keynote, speaker Gary Stager
presented some controversial and challenging ideas that were popularly retweeted (Gesthuizen,
2012). Online social media seems to augment the collaboration and sharing occurring during a
keynote by amplifying the voice of distant participants across a room and beyond the event.
Social media and digital aspects of a conference can no longer be ignored and consideration must
now be given towards how best to analyse, manage and integrate the technology into the event
itself. Our results indicate that the use of a Twitter backchannel has evolved from a controversial
activity between a few delegates to a conversational tone and expected part of a conference
experience for many delegates. We observed a significant increase in the interaction between
participants including the number of mentions and retweets. This is similar to Sopan et al. (2012),
Page 240 of 487
who noted that an overall trend was to communicate with others including in-person and remote
conference participants.
Our analysis provides a valuable insight into the online behaviour of educators at a major conference
and that the trends observed can be broadly generalised to other similar events. It is only a snapshot
of part of the picture. The data set used can be further interrogated beyond the scope of this
paper. Future studies could use a more complete set of data and determine the social interaction
before and after the conference as well. Greater insight would be provided though the use a more
detailed analysis tool during the event and track how the nature of the interaction and conversation
evolves over the lifespan of an event.
References
Educause, (2007). 7 Things You Should
www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELi7027.pdf
Know
About
Twitter.
Retrieved
from
Gerstein, J. (2011). The Use of Twitter for Professional Growth and Development. International Journal
on E-Learning, 10(3), 273-276. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved April 1, 2014 from
http://www.editlib.org/p/33110.
Gesthuizen, R. J. (2012). ACEC2012 - Why build your own PLN? Presented at the ACEC2012, Perth,
Western Australia. Retrieved from http://acec2012.acce.edu.au/why-build-your-own-professionallearning-network
Howard, A. (2009, June 11). Top 50 Twitter Acronyms, Abbreviations and Initialisms. Retrieved from
Digiphile:
http://digiphile.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/top-50-Twitter-acronyms-abbreviations-andinitialisms/
Lalonde, C. (2011). The Twitter experience: the role of Twitter in the formation and maintenance of
personal learning networks (Masters Thesis). Royal Roads University, Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://dspace.royalroads.ca/docs/handle/10170/451
Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2011). Enabled backchannel: conference Twitter use by
digital humanists. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 214–237.
Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S. M., Agrawal, M., … Ungar,
L. H. (2013). Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary
Approach. (T. Preis, Ed.)PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73791. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073791
Skiba, D. J. (2008). Emerging Technologies Center: Nursing Education 2.0: Twitter & Tweets. Can You
Post a Nugget of Knowledge in 140 Characters or Less? Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(2), 110–
112.
Sopan, A., Rey, P. J., Butler, B., & Shneiderman, B. (2012). Monitoring Academic Conferences: Realtime Visualization and Retrospective Analysis of Backchannel Conversations (Tech Report No. HCIL2012-17) (p. 10). Maryland, USA: HCIL University of Maryland. Retrieved from
http://hcil2.cs.umd.edu/trs/2012-17/2012-17.pdf
Stevens, V. (2008). Trial by Twitter: The rise and slide of the year’s most viral microblogging platform.
TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 12(1).
Taylor, C. (2012). Social Networkers Have More Ethics Problems at Work. Blog. Gigaom. January 6.
Retrieved from http://gigaom.com/2012/01/06/social-networking-employee-ethics
Page 241 of 487
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and
Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54.
Warlick, D. (2009). Grow Your Personal Learning Network. Learning & Leading with Technology, 12–
16.
Page 242 of 487
ACEC2014 - TEACHERS CONNECTING WITH STUDENTS
THROUGH GAMES
Dr. Robyn Gibbes
Department of Education and Child Development, SA
Abstract
Most Primary students play digital games. For many children these digital games are an
important part of their lives. How can we as teachers connect with our students about the
games they play? How can we incorporate their gaming experiences into our teaching? How
can we teach literacy in such a way that it includes critical gaming literacy?
In this paper I outline sections of a case study on what children aged 8-13 years know and
want to talk about with adults in relation to digital gaming. I consider the importance of
using discussions about gaming to connect with students and enhance their engagement with
school learning.
An action research is then explored, explaining how I, as a classroom teacher, used lessons
involving students in creating their own digital games. This section focuses on using lessons
to build critical multiliteracy skills amongst the students as well as assisting them to develop
cultural competencies and social skills. There is a specific focus on the skills of play and
collective intelligence as they present in the classroom.
Today many of us play digital games. Almost all of our school students play digital games of some kind
– on a computer, a gaming console, a tablet or a mobile phone. For many students these digital games
are an important and time-consuming part of their lives. In doing the research (Gibbes 2012) for my
doctoral thesis (and as a teacher and mother of three teenage boys) I wanted to find ways of connecting
with students’ gaming to enhance their learning. Throughout this paper I consider the overarching
question: How can primary school teachers acknowledge and connect with students’ personal gaming
culture to build learning relationships and teach critical multiliteracy skills?
Digital gaming is an important part of the ‘lifeworlds’ (Kalantzis and Cope, 2004) of our students,
having a large impact on many of their lives, yet gaming is rarely discussed or used in schools as a
method of connecting with students or for teaching and learning. In addition, the teaching and use of
critical gaming literacy skills seem to be non-existent in the educational lives of students. My purpose
in doing my doctoral research was to be able to, as part of my dual leadership and teaching role, better
support teachers in:



building relationships with students around their gaming
enhancing student learning through connecting with their gaming, and
teaching students critical gaming literacy skills.
Children talking about digital gaming
I start by examining what primary school children were prepared to discuss in terms of digital gaming
with a staff member in the school environment. In a Case Study undertaken in the school where I worked
(Gibbes, 2012) I listened to twenty children from years 3-7 in small single gender focus groups as they
answered my questions about the games they played and discussed the links between digital gaming and
learning. Thirty two focus group interviews were held over the year of 2010.
All Year 3-7 students (110 students) in the school completed an initial questionnaire giving basic
information about their ownership of computers and game consoles, their game playing preferences and
their assessment of the time they spent gaming. These data were then used alongside interview and
group discussion data to clarify similarities and differences of students in the case study to the whole
Page 243 of 487
cohort of students, as well as providing me with further information about lines of questioning and issues
for focus.
The analysis of the data demonstrated that all of the children had played digital games at some time and
that over 90% of the children had gaming consoles in their homes. All of the 20 students in the focus
groups demonstrated that they knew a lot about digital gaming and were eager to discuss and share this
knowledge with adults, although two of the girls were slower to share their knowledge. The focus groups
included children who were friends, children who did not know each other well and children who clearly
did not like each other much. This resulted in some excellent discussions as the children questioned each
other quite harshly at times, especially in considering the effect of violent games on their own behaviour.
There was also power play in two of the five groups, with children taking on a range of roles including
speaker, listener, questioner and summariser. The children all revealed a willingness to consider all
questions asked and to reflect more deeply on their gaming experiences in response to these questions.
The discussions clearly demonstrated how the topic of digital games provides opportunities to explore
aspects of social relations, identity formation and power play in a safe setting.
Talking with the children in small groups provided the occasion for me to listen and respond to their
interpretations, as well as opportunities for me to further shape their discussions and reflections by
asking probing questions and encouraging them to consider their gaming through different lenses.
Children reported many ways in which their gaming allowed them to play with identity representation,
especially as they discussed avatars, gender and the ideological messages in games. These group
discussions provided openings for children to reflect on, and talk about, issues such as physical fitness,
learning, violence and family values.
Identity
A strong link between gaming and identity was clear throughout all of the interviews with the children.
Gee (2003) outlined three identities in gaming – virtual, real and projective identities. The virtual
identity is one’s identity as a virtual character in the virtual world of the game. The real identity is the
player’s own identity as a person playing a computer game. The projective identity stresses the interface
between the real world person and the virtual character as the player makes decisions about the kind of
person they want the virtual character to be.
The children reported many ways in which their gaming allowed them opportunities to play with identity
representation, particularly in their creation and use of avatars and their discussions relating to gender
and the messages and values in games. Children often defined themselves and their position relative to
others throughout their talk on games. Emily discussed her Mathletics avatar and how her decisions
around the creation of this avatar were impacted upon by how she felt others would perceive her,
displaying strong connections between her personal identity and the avatar.
Emily:
I have like tried to make mine so it looks pretty because [my brother]
has friends over for Mathletics and um he, they all go on my names and I don't like
mine looking ugly when other people can see it. (from Transcript 12, Year 3/4 girls,
6/5/2010)
In the excerpt below Spartan117 outlines how he bases a soccer avatar on himself (small and from
Adelaide), but gives the avatar excellent soccer skills. Spartan117 commented elsewhere that he has few
sporting skills in real life and is working to develop these.
Spartan133: With Pro Evolution Soccer you can’t make your own team but what I
did I went into the Australian team settings because you can actually change what
the players stats are and stuff and what they look like and what their names are and
stuff…So I pretty much change Vadooka, the one who kicks my goals into a person
called Spartan133. He’s as small as you can get him and he’s like, compared to all
the other players he’s tiny and …I have him the lowest. He’s the youngest age which
Page 244 of 487
is about 15 or something and he’s as small as you can get him which is about 2 foot
something... So now he outruns everyone, now he never misses a goal as long as I
press, do the right thing to kick the goal, um he never misses a pass. He always
headers it, he has full stats, he can do everything. (from Transcript 8, Year 6/7 boys,
22/4/2010)
Students and teachers need to understand the ways in which identity formation is increasingly happening
in virtual spaces (James et al. 2008). Virtual identity play can aid or undermine the identity formation
process as it provides new tools and varied spaces for self-expression, self–reflection and feedback from
others. It is important that teachers open discussions with students which enable exploration of how their
digital participation “facilitates and detracts from the development of healthy, autonomous, and socially
responsible identities” (James et al. 2008, p.19).
Values / Messages in games
Games and other media are not neutral or value free. They are shaped in certain ways and for certain
purposes by the people who produce them, often being economically driven (Buckingham 2007a).
“Consequently, the students’ sense of self, or personal identity, is open to influences from, and
interactions with, many different groups that hold a range of beliefs, value systems and attitudes”
(Anstey & Bull 2006, p.14). Games are a part of most children’s culture and their experience of this
technology is often extremely different from that of their teachers, and sometimes of their parents.
Koo and Seider (2009, p.1) suggest that digital games are different from other media forms as they have
various ‘levers’ through which they influence worldview, values and behaviours of players, including
scaffolding “players’ experiences not only via narrative and audio-visual content but by the rules,
principles, and objectives governing what participants do”. In digital games, values are intrinsically
embodied via the rules that control play. Games can act as ‘message transmitters’, as interactive systems
controlled by rules and as ‘social practices’ in which players interact with each other (Croft 2011, p.9).
Mel: The Bratz games are giving you, like say if you want to go around and do makeup by yourself and learn how to put make-up on and learn how to do your hair. Also
what they teach would probably be in one of the Bratz game, you try to not be sneaky
and not being mean to anybody.
Emily: I reckon in this sort of like Bratz game you have to try and find a boyfriend.
(joint oooh)
Emily: And I don't actually really know if there are actually messages in the game
'cos I think they're just for fun. That's what like I think with all the stories - why does
it have to be a message, they're just for fun.
R: Very true, though sometimes things that are fun still give you a message, like to
me, the Bratz games are giving you a bit of a message about what they think a girl
should be like.
Emily: So I should really look like that.
R: But do you agree with that message?
Emily: No way
(from Transcript 18, Year 3/4 girls, 20/5/2010)
Here Mel was able to identify how the Bratz games present the requirements of a female character – the
need to maintain a femininity which displays beauty and ‘niceness’ or good behaviour, and Emily adds
to this the requirement for girls to find a boyfriend. With support and questioning the girls were able to
challenge the dominant view of femininity and Emily clearly stated that she would not want to be like
that. The girls demonstrated their willingness and ability to engage in critical discussion with support
and direction from the researcher.
As the groups of boys discussed the Grand Theft Auto games they demonstrated different attitudes and
levels of involvement in the game. DT13’s commented about it being fun to partake of the game, but
not for him in real life, which points to the comments Gee (2007) makes about games giving the
Page 245 of 487
opportunity to experiment with identities and behaviours that you may never do in real life. However,
some boys showed either an unwillingness to evaluate the game or an inability to consider the
inappropriateness of these behaviours in real life. It was clear from the conversations with the children
that stable beliefs and values were important to their ability to reflect ethically on games.
As James et al (2008, p.19) concluded, “Virtual identity play may provide youth with unique
opportunities to develop healthy identities, but this outcome is by no means guaranteed”. Children need
to participate in ethical reflection about the games they play and a supportive environment with
constructive feedback from others is necessary to develop this. “Such abstract thinking requires certain
cognitive and moral skills, including the ability to take different perspectives, think critically about
possibilities, hypothesize about the future, and make connections between actions and consequences”
(James et al. 2008, p.45).
Students did not expect me to understand their games, but were keen to engage in discussions about
their home gaming experiences. They demonstrated eagerness to be perceived as experts, and an
amazing willingness to consider complex questions about gaming and learning as well as considering
ethical questions about gaming. This required me as a teacher to maintain a non-judgemental stance and
to consider ways of asking questions that would expand students’ ability to reflect on their gaming in
new ways.
Students creating digital games and learning multiliteracy skills
Following the discussions with children about their personal digital gaming experiences I moved on to
consider “How can I as a teacher use lessons involving students in creating their own digital games in
the classroom to teach critical multi-literacy skills?” I decided to plan and teach a series of lessons
involving students in creating their own digital games to teach students critical multi-literacy skills.
These lessons were undertaken with 4 Primary classes over 10 weeks, in 3 separate cycles (Gibbes
2012).
Page 246 of 487
The Multiliteracies Map
The figure below shows the multiliteracies map (Mapping multiliteracies: children of the new
millennium 2002-2004, p.146) which was designed to enable educators to plan, observe, analyse and
assess children’s development in each of the four quadrants.
Functional user
Meaning maker
•Locating, code breaking, using signs and icons
•Selecting and operating equipment
•Moving between mediums: Cameras, videos,
computers
• Understanding multimodal meanings
•Purpose of text and text form
•Connecting to prior knowledge
Multiliteracies Map
Critical analyser
•Discourse analysis
•Equity
•Power and position
•Appropriate mode
Transformer
•Using skills and knowledge in new ways
•Designing texts
•Producing new texts
Within the action research I planned to connect children’s learning to their interests and lifeworlds
(Kalantzis & Cope 2004), accessing their expertise and knowledge as related to digital gaming in order
to build on their literacy skills within the areas of the Multiliteracies map. I used a blend of explicit
instruction, exploration and problem solving as the students designed their own games. The students
had to integrate the knowledge they already had from playing games into creating their own games.
The possibilities for game creation were initially limited by the need for students to focus on gaining
functional skills both as computer programmers and as game creators before they could focus on more
complex messages and visual literacy in games. This initial need to focus on functional technical skills
was frustrating for students who wanted to be able to instantly produce work of the quality of the games
industry. Part of my role was to provide ways their ideas for making meaning could work together with
their functional skills. As students gained more skills and a more realistic view of what they could do,
they were able to produce higher quality games.
Students developed many new skills as functional users, meaning makers, transformers and critical
analysers in the process of creating their own games. Students were highly engaged and motivated by
the game creation task and involved in constant consideration of their audience (the game player) as
well as ongoing problem solving. About a third of the students in the first cycle of the research struggled
to perceive themselves as game creators or programmers, blaming problems in their game on the
computer itself or on the game. As students became more proficient game creators they began to develop
a powerful understanding of “what programming is, how programmers make decisions, and how those
decisions influence the ways the software and its users function” (Rushkoff 2010, p.134). Many of their
games were able to be installed on the school server to be played by other students, providing students
with an even better understanding of games as interactive, played by others and designed with purpose.
As they worked to incorporate explicit and implicit messages into the games they created, students began
to examine other games more critically. Initially students showed little awareness of matters related to
visual images and stereotypes. They needed explicit direction, support and focused questioning to
Page 247 of 487
identify social and cultural impacts inherent in the games they played and created. As students improved
their functional skills, and as I became more adept at having other students assist with the teaching role,
I was able to focus more on this important role of the teacher as questioner; for example providing
opportunities for students to examine, reflect upon and discuss visual stereotypes when working with
the whole class or asking probing questions of individual students. I also established regular
opportunities for students to provide feedback to each other within a structured environment, and over
time this became an excellent opening for students to question the messages in, and visual impact of,
each other’s games. Some students were also able to identify representative details of the games created
in class, more critically analysing some of the imagery used and some of the sounds selected. As one
student stated in a class discussion, “Not all bullies look the same. Sometimes bullies can look nice.”
All students began to learn and utilise metalanguage as they created their own games and analysed each
other’s games, providing opportunities for more critical discussions incorporating concepts such as
genre, view, stereotypes and imagery. The development of language, combined with probing questions
and time for reflection, provided students with the framework for analysing games in ways they had not
considered previously. As we progressed through the cycles of the research, students definitely became
able to use more critical gaming literacy skills both in their analysis of their own and other students’
games, and in their discussions about digital games they played at home. Students continued to
positively surprise me with their willingness to engage in critical gaming literacy tasks and discussions.
Violence in gaming was an ongoing theme raised by the children. Some students wanted to incorporate
shooting into their games. It was important to me that students were not ostracised from the school task
of game creation because they wanted to include guns, and I discussed with them our school values and
the inappropriateness of violent or gory images in the school environment. Almost all students were able
to negotiate acceptable ways of including guns (for example, using water pistols) in their games. These
discussions with the individual students were extremely valuable in allowing me to better understand
their out-of-school experiences and in opening opportunities for deeper discussion with students about
values and issues related to gaming and violence while attempting not to make judgements that would
exclude them from the task. These discussions provided students with deeper awareness of cultural and
societal issues and increasing critical multiliteracy skills as they reflected on the games they played and
created.
Cultural competencies and Social Skills
Jenkins et al. (2009, p.4) outlined how most new literacies entail social skills developed through
collaboration and networking and that these skills “build on the foundation of traditional literacy,
research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom”. They argued that
this set of cultural competencies and social skills should be fostered in schools:
 Play — the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving
 Performance — the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and
discovery
 Simulation — the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes
 Appropriation — the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content
 Multitasking — the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.
 Distributed Cognition — the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental
capacities
 Collective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward
a common goal
 Judgement — the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information
sources
 Transmedia Navigation — the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across
multiple modalities
 Networking — the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information
 Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting
multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms
Page 248 of 487
Many students are already gathering these skills through their affiliations with participatory culture and
their informal learning with new literacies. However, we need to engage students in critical dialogues
that assist them to express more deeply their instinctive understandings of these experiences. As students
created their own games they gained deeper understanding of how games work and opportunities to
more formally develop and use the above skills. Here I focus on two of the skills most important for us
as a group working on learning to create our own games and develop critical literacy skills – play and
collective intelligence.
Play
Play is always personal and was evident throughout the action research. Through play the students
learned many skills that they could apply to tasks later, including skills in using computer programs as
well as literacy and numeracy skills. When children play games they are highly motivated to achieve
the outcomes within the game, even if that involves doing repetitive, even boring, activities in the
process. As a teacher I tapped this motivation about playing games as the children created their own
games.
The unit was structured around the opportunity for students to play games created by other students as
well as to create their own games and play them while searching for issues and problem-solving.
Part of what makes play valuable as a mode of problem-solving and learning is that it lowers the
emotional stakes of failing: players are encouraged to suspend some of the real world consequences of
the represented actions, to take risks and learn through trial and error (Jenkins et al. 2009, p.23).
Collective intelligence
Throughout this Action Research it became obvious that the game creation tasks included opportunities
for every student to know something that they could share with the group. No one student was able to
know everything, and neither was I as the teacher. I had to constantly reflect on my role as the teacher,
becoming more of a curriculum director and supporter for learning and less of the expert or upfront
lecturer. I had to consciously focus on inviting students to explain solutions or ideas to the class and to
each other. It became important for me to restrict my time at the front of the class and focus on moving
amongst the students, working with small groups or providing access to written information or internet
tutorials for learning extension. Inviting students to demonstrate their games regularly helped with this,
especially as they then selected students to give them feedback. These sharing times gave the
demonstrator ideas for improving their game and often resulted in students asking the demonstrator for
specific assistance.
As a collective community we learned an incredible amount about game creation. As individuals or
groups acquired new skills or discovered new options they shared these around the class and with me,
sometimes individually and sometimes to the whole group. Ideas and questions raised learning
opportunities for all of us to develop our skills well beyond where they were at the beginning of the
research.
Conclusion
Changing our teaching to incorporate digital literacy in deep and meaningful ways involves “new kinds
of communicative relationships between students, and between students and their teachers, and in this
sense digital literacy can have a destabilising effect on traditional classroom routines” (Merchant 2009,
p.38). This could be threatening for teachers who may be restricted by their level of technological skill,
their willingness to take risks in learning new skills, or the change in teacher student relationships. While
I began these lessons as a beginner in terms of my own programming skills, I have developed my skills
and have been taught many new techniques by the students. I have been prepared to take risks in my
own learning and been willing to tell students that I don’t know the answer, sitting with them to trial and
learn alternative ways to solve the problem. As many of the students in the school have learned alongside
of me, we now have a ‘pool of experts’ and this can cause other teachers some angst as they attempt to
Page 249 of 487
help students with the task while realising that they know less than many students in the class. I know
that for me the change process took time, and is still progressing.
References
Anstey, M. and Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and Learning Multiliteracies: Changing times, changing
literacies. International Reading Association.
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond Technology: Children's learning in the age of digital culture. Polity,
Cambridge.
Croft, J. (2011). "It's just a game" - ethical reasoning within virtual worlds. viewed 1/10/11,
<http://www.goodworkproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/73-Its-Just-a-Game.pdf>.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman, London and New York.
Gee, JP. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan,
United States of America.
Gee, JP. (2007). Good video games + good learning. Peter Lang Publishing, New York.
Gibbes, R. (2012). High ropes across the digital chasm. Thesis, University of South Australia
James, C., Davis, K., Flores, A., Francis, J., Pettingill, L., Rundle, M. & Gardner, H. (2008). Young
people, ethics, and the new digital media: a synthesis from the Good Play Project.
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A. & Weigel, M. (2009). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. MacArthur Foundation,
Cambridge.
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2004). 'Designs for learning'. E-Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 38-93.
Koo, G. & Seider, S. (2009). Video games for prosocial learning. viewed 1/10/11,
<http://people.bu.edu/seider/Consolidated%20papers/Prosocial%20Learning%in%2020Video%Games
%20Final%20Version_Ko.pdf>.
Mapping multiliteracies: children of the new millennium (2002-2004). Department of Education and
Children's Services and University of South Australia.
Merchant, G. (2009). 'Literacy in virtual worlds', Journal of Research in Reading. Vol. 32, no. 1, pp.
38-56.
Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: ten commands for a digital age. OR Books, New
York.
Page 250 of 487
APPRAISING MOBILE MATHS APPS: THE TPACK MODEL
Boris Handal
The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney
Chris Campbell
The University of Queensland, Brisbane
Michael Cavanagh
Macquarie University, Sydney
Kashmira Dave
University of Western Sydney, Sydney
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument for appraising educational apps in
mathematics education. The instrument allows mathematics related apps to be analysed
based on the three aspects of the TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge)
model, namely, content, technology and pedagogy. Four sub-scales were created with the
first one examining the app role according to the type of task promoted: explorative,
productivity and/or instructive. The second sub-scale appraises the degree of cognitive
involvement when a learner interacts with the app. The third and fourth sub-scale deals with
general pedagogical and operational affordance. The instrument framework was piloted and
subsequently trialled with ten school teachers and mathematics educators to ensure content
validity. It was further endorsed with examples of educational apps currently available in the
context of the secondary curriculum.
Introduction
This article describes the conceptual framework underpinning the design of an instrument aimed at
assisting teachers in appraising mobile apps related to the teaching and learning of school mathematics.
In the past 30 years, technology has changed. Apart from the change in technology, learners’ profile has
changed a lot. Today’s learners are mobile. They demand access to the learning material and information
anytime and anywhere. Use of mobile devices such as tablets and smart phones to access information is
wide spread. This makes it critical for teachers at all levels to re-examine how learning materials are
designed and delivered for the new generation of mobile learners (Ally, 2007).
Various instruments which mostly appear on the WWW have been developed to appraise the quality of
educational apps but they do not provide evidence of being grounded in educational theory and do not
discuss their conceptual constructs (Watlington, 2011). Besides their ad-hoc design, most of them
present a uni-dimensional structure foundation and are not discipline specific (Kearney, Schuck, Burden
& Aubusson, 2012). This paper describes the rationale for an instrument based on the TPACK
(technological pedagogical content knowledge) model initially elaborated by Mishra and Koehler
(2006).
It is only in the past decade or so that researchers in the area of mobile learning (henceforth referred to
as m-learning) seriously considered the need for some theoretical framework for m-learning. As
discussed in the literature review section, there are several frameworks around learning through mobile
technologies. Different frameworks provide different contexts for m-learning. The literature around mlearning identifies the correlation between the role of mobile technology in learning, that is, how mobile
devices can help learners and enhance and enrich their learning experience.
The literature review in this paper examines a number of theoretical considerations on m-learning. It
reviews some quality design principles introducing the TPACK model as the theoretical framework to
embed those attributes. The resulting maths app appraisal instrument (please see Appendix) reflects such
criteria for assessing mobile applications in primary and secondary mathematics education within a
pedagogical and operational context.
Page 251 of 487
Literature review
Use of mobile learning applications
In general, mobile handheld devices differ from other tools such as laptops because the latter, although
portable, are typically not small and light enough to carry around. The term mobile devices is commonly
applied to smartphones and tablet PCs although other portable hardware can fit into that category devices
such as CD-ROMs and DVDs, flash storage devices/drives, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), laptops
or notebooks, mobile computers, MP3 players, Personal Data Assistants (PDAs), portable media players
and portable video game devices.
Mobile applications, commonly know as apps, can provide more or less structure to facilitate or scaffold
the collection and presentation of data by students or groups of students. An app is an application
capable of running in mobile devices. These self-contained programs are endowed with various
technical and pedagogical affordances. For example, they are multimedia based with audio, image
and/or animation functionalities.
In addition, some apps automatically aggregate and visualize data about students’ learning (e.g. their
responses to questions) for teachers to examine (Vahey, Roschelle & Tatar, 2007). Their capacity of
representing complex mathematical concepts, process and procedures has been highlighted for an
increasing body of research in the past ten years (Handal, El-Khoury, Cavanagh & Campbell, 2013). At
low cost or sometimes free of charge, these applications are linked to the internet allowing multiple
learning and teaching experiences such as simulations, collaboration, document-sharing, online testing,
audio/video-recording, m-blogging, surveying, presentations, note-taking, digital-story telling, social
networking, email and geo blogging.
Mobile applications differ on how rich (complex) or lean (less complex) their contents are conveyed.
Leaner applications only present a limited set of content, typically well-structured to facilitate certain
kinds of behaviour and communication. Also, mobile applications, or more precisely, the activity built
around mobile technologies, could differ on the degree of interactivity required between students and
the tools (Parsons, Ryu & Cranshaw, 2007). Some activities require students to interact more intensively
with the tools. Again, some activities require students to interact more with their peers rather than with
the tools (Geddes, 2004).
M-learning frameworks
Mobile learning is an instructional mode that results from the interface between individuals and
handheld technologies creating a specific educational environment. Various authors have suggested the
advantages brought by mobile devices into school education which, in a way, make m-learning different
from other instructional delivery modes (Traxler, 2009). Their ubiquity and mobility make m-learning
more situated and unique. Other particular m-learning features include connectivity scope and structure,
data collection by students, student data aggregation, content richness, interactivity and collaboration
(Peters, 2005; Geddes, 2004; Parsons, Ryu & Cranshaw, 2007).
With connectivity scope, mobile devices and applications can be set to allow local communication
within the classroom, or narrower still, within groups, through Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. Alternatively, they
can be set to allow communication with others beyond the classroom and access information on the
internet as collaboration is considered an important aspect of the m-learning. Similarly, students can be
connected directly only to the teacher (i.e. to a central device that the teacher has access to), and
indirectly to other students via the teacher. Alternatively, students can be interconnected directly to one
another (Roschelle, Vahey, Tatar, Kaput & Hegedus, 2003).
A number of theoretical models have been developed to explain m-learning as an instructional approach.
Their attributes are useful to characterise quality m-learning design principles. These design principles
can be applied to the learning situation itself as well as in the construction of effective educational apps.
Page 252 of 487
Most authors agree that an m-learning framework, should be able to describe pedagogy along with
mobile technologies (Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Roschelle, Rafanan, Estrella, Nussbaum & Claro, 2010;
Roschelle, Shechtman, Tatar, Hegedus, Hopkins, Empson, Knudsen & Gallagher, 2010).
A commonality across these frameworks is their multi-dimensionality allowing for complex realities
within the m-learning construct (see Table 1).
Table 1: Main m-Learning frameworks dimensions
Authors
Dimensions
Danaher, Gururajan and HafeezBaig (2009)
Koole (2009)
Engagement, presence and flexibility
Kearney, Shuck, Burden and
Aubusson (2012)
Peng, Su, Chou and Tsai (2009)
Personalisation, authenticity, and collaboration
Pachler, Cook and Bachmair
(2010)
Koehler and Mishra (2008)
Device aspects, learner aspects and social aspects.
Learners and tools, pedagogical methods (constructivism and lifelong
learning theories), a vision
Structures, agency and cultural practices
Knowledge, pedagogy and technology
A review of the above frameworks reveals that the pedagogy and theories of teaching and learning may
need to change in the perspective as a result of the emergence of m-learning particularly on mobile
literacy. Some of the themes coming from those frameworks and related literature include a new literacy
where participation is considered as a part of cultural practice (Pachler, Cook & Bachmair, 2010). Also,
teaching and learning is becoming more informal (Seipold & Pachler, 2011) with elements of
situatedness, collaboration and problem-solving along with strong focus on knowledge building
(Geddes, 2004) and meaning-making (Roschelle et al., 2010a). The authors see the notion of mobility
not just as moving (Traxler, 2009). Mobility is seen in context with space, time, activity, relationships,
curriculum and engagement (Kearney, Shuck, Burden & Aubusson, 2012; Pachler, Cook & Bachmair,
2010). Users are encouraged to generate their own content and context for example aided by the mobile
devices that allow ubiquity, choice and knowledge appropriation (Pachler, Cook & Bachmair, 2010).
The TPACK model
The TPACK model developed by Koehler and Mishra (2008) is described below with its three
dimensions: technology, pedagogy and content. While recognising the advantages of the aforementioned
models in terms of their various dimensions, this study chose the TPACK framework as the main
theoretical framework to underpin the design of an app appraisal instrument. In arriving to at such a
decision the authors considered TPACK capacity as a theoretical tool to include the subject area and
specific mathematical concepts and processes.
Several instruments have been developed using the TPACK framework in order to examine a wide range
of variables in the context of mathematics education. These include assessment (Schmidt, Baran,
Thompson, Mishra, Koehler & Shin, 2009), students’ achievement (Lyublinskaya & Tournaki, 2011),
teacher education (Lee & Hollebrands, 2008), teachers’ eLearning skills, professional development
(Niess, van Zee & Gillow-Wiles, 2011), teachers’ attitudes towards technological and pedagogical skills
(Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh & Petocz, 2012), curriculum development (Niess, Ronau, Shafer,
Driskell, Harper, Johnston, Browning, Özgün-Koca & Kersaint, 2009), among others.
Considering TPACK’s use in previous research and through the development of these instruments it
was considered that TPACK be the best instrument to use in this situation. For example, the FRAME
Model by Koole suggests that “mobile learning experiences are viewed as existing within a context of
information” (Koole, 2009, p.26) thus, the learner is consuming and creating information. The limitation
Page 253 of 487
of this model is that there is no pedagogical inclusion as its three parts include device, learner and social
aspects, but there is no aspect for the teacher or teaching. Similarly, the framework of ubiquitous
knowledge construction proposed by Peng et al. (2009) considers learners, tools, and learning theories
such as constructivism but does not directly address pedagogy. However, the authors do advocate that,
“Educators should take a proactive stance towards emerging technology and become integrally involved
in the development, as well as the evaluation, of pedagogically sound educational tools.” (p.178). The
instrument developed in the present study is designed to facilitate such a process.
Kearney et al. (2012) and Pachler, Cook and Bachmair (2010) both provide a pedagogical perspective
on mobile learning to assess lesson activities and pedagogical approaches from a socio-cultural
perspective. Kearney et al. (2012) identify three characteristics of m-learning pedagogy in their model:
personalisation (learner agency and control), authenticity (situated learning experiences), and
collaboration (connections to people and resources). Pachler, Cook and Bachmair’s (2010) model is
based on agency (students’ ability to engage with technology), cultural practices (norms and practices
of students’ everyday lives) and socio-cultural and technological structures. However, both studies are
not primarily concerned with the evaluation of tools and devices so while they offer important insights
into pedagogical practices the models they propose are not of direct relevance to the present study.
Danaher, Gururajan and Hafeez-Baig (2009) is a framework based on mobile learning and teaching
environments at university level and it uses three items which are engagement, presence and flexibility.
This is limited in that the context and technology are not taken into account. The authors of the model
acknowledge that there are future research directions for their model and although their research
suggests there are strategies that work in fostering student engagement and flexibility in using mobile
learning in teaching they realise their model has some limitations.
TPACK constitutes a conceptual framework that is valuable because it integrates three dimensions in
using ICTs in teaching and learning, namely, pedagogical knowledge, technological knowledge and
disciplinary content. Pedagogical knowledge (PK) represents teachers’ understanding of evidence-based
quality teaching as well as expertise aiming at enhancing students’ experiences and therefore learning.
In turn, technological knowledge (TK) represents those operational capabilities that teachers need to
deploy technology. Content knowledge (CK) stands for teachers’ acquaintance with the subject matter,
more specifically, expertise in a particular branch of learning that qualifies them as professional in the
field.
The interaction among PK, CK and TK renders three singular constructs: technological pedagogical
knowledge (TPK), technological content knowledge (TCK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK).
TPK is knowledge about the link between technologies and pedagogy, that is, the selection and
application of technology in the context of a particular instructional approach. For example the ability
to use technology to develop students’ research skills, or using it to provide students with alternative
forms of assessment. TCK deals with understandings about using a specific technology in a
mathematical context such as making calculations on a spreadsheet or using computer algebra software.
Furthermore, PCK represents the integration of pedagogy and content such as the ability to teach
mathematics effectively to schools students.
Page 254 of 487
Figure 1 shows the various elements of the TPACK model.
Figure 1: the TPACK model
Source: http://tpack.org
The intersection of these three fields yields the area known as technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK). It represents the full and seamless blending of knowledge about technology along
with the appropriate deployment of suitable pedagogies related to a specific learning objective within
the school mathematics curriculum. Such space provides a reflective place to explore how the three
dimensions interact with each other to ensure that learning and teaching with technology and within
knowledge content takes place at its highest level (Handal, Campbell, Cavanagh, Petocz & Kelly, 2013).
M-learning applications, commonly used as apps, can be comprehensively analysed through the TPACK
model. Looking through the TPACK lenses, apps can become powerful tools in the hands of teachers
and students. Teachers can use them for enacting effective curriculum experiences with great creativity
and depth while students can actively engage in meaningful learning becoming producers rather than
consumers of knowledge. Hence, the need to promote awareness of these tools within the school setting
so that teachers and students can be cognizant of their benefits in teaching and learning. TPACK, due to
its three dimensions, can become the vehicle through which apps can be appraised based on their own
pedagogical affordances, technical capabilities and content delivery. This paper elaborates on these three
themes.
On developing a TPACK model to appraise educational maths, this paper argues that pedagogical
knowledge (PK) can be represented by the level of cognitive engagement facilitated as well as by the
general instructional facilities offered by the app. In turn, the quality of technological knowledge (TK)
embedded in an app as a piece of school software can be corresponded to their ability to evidence
efficient interface design, navigation and control. Finally, the app ability to render the subject matter for
specific mathematical purposes can be equated to the content knowledge (CK) component. The
intersection itself from these three TPACK components leads to establishment of a summa samarium
zone; where mathematical knowledge is creatively taught by the teacher and efficiently cognated by the
student through the technology.
The Maths app appraisal instrument
The development of the maths appraisal instrument (see Appendix) was informed by the literature as
outlined throughout the paper with emphasis on the TPACK model. The instrument is divided into four
parts. The introduction requires teachers to identify the primary role of the app. There are four subscales.
The first sub-scale dealing with the structure of each task through three item sets (e.g., explorative,
Page 255 of 487
productivity and informative apps). The other three sub-scales relate to cognitive engagement,
pedagogical and operational issues. Table 2 shows the link between sub-scales and components from
the TPACK.
Table 2: Relationship between TPACK components and sub-scales
Sub-scale
TPACK component
Task structure
Cognitive engagement
General Pedagogical issues
Operational issues
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)
Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)
Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)
Responses to semantic items give the users the opportunity to select four options: Always, To some
extent, Never and Not applicable. Instructions emphasise that there are no right or wrong answers. Icons
of representative apps by task structure are shown to provide an element of visual imagery to
respondents.
The maths appraisal instrument was validated with ten academics and secondary mathematics teachers
from the Sydney area are to ensure clarity and meaning of the semantic items as well to guarantee content
validity.
The task structure sub-scale
This sub-scale section refers to three main types of apps task structures, namely, exploration, production
and practice and information. The TPACK notion was represented by the task structure sub-scale of the
instrument because the semantic items describe a construct combining technology, pedagogy and
content. Task structure elements relate to the teacher’s deep knowledge about how best to use m-learning
apps in developing students’ understanding of the subject matter of mathematics. Identifying the task
structure of the app raises the teacher’s awareness of how the app’s instructional roles can support and
enhance different aspects of student learning. The task structure subscale therefore identifies the
complexity of the inter-relationships between m-learning apps as technological tools, the mathematics
content they include, specific teaching practices aligned to exploration, production, or practice and
information, and student learning. Task structure brings into play an amalgam of the teacher’s
mathematical and technological content knowledge along with the choice of appropriate pedagogical
approaches which the teacher selects based on the particular instructional role of the app.
In appraising m-learning apps it is vital to understand the instructional role that the each plays in
mathematics education. Handal, El-Khoury, Campbell and Cavanagh (2013), based on Goodwin’s work
(2012), developed a framework to categorise apps for the type of task promoted as the learner interacts
with the interface. The framework permitted a no “one-size-fits-all” approach to look at how apps can
be delivered in the curriculum. Apps were assumed to have a particular instructional design structure
depending on any of three instructional roles addressed (explorative, productivity and instructive roles).
The task structure sub-scale explores these three roles (Goodwin, 2012). The three groups were initially
identified as common role characteristics. Explorative apps are useful for exploring and demonstrating
mathematical models or concepts through manipulating objects that mimic or simulate complex physical
situations (Botzer & Yerushalmy, 2007). These apps are designed to mirror a real-life situation and
students can enter their own data as well as visualise changes in the model (Baya’a & Daher, 2009).
Explorative apps embed a degree of ambiguity and uncertainty embedded in the task to encourage
problem solving. The exploration is guided within a predetermined learning discovery framework which
promotes personal investigation. Depending on the openness of the task, problem solving is actively
promoted as well as students’ research skills and their ability to conjecture, hypothesise and predict.
Exploratory apps are very student-centred as students can pose their own problems and investigate
possible solutions leading to deep learning.
Page 256 of 487
Productivity apps are more centred on the tool itself and embed an authoring aspect. These are apps
useful for measuring and graphically representing objects or concepts in 2D/3D, collecting data, making
calculations, or creating multimedia materials which make students producer of mathematical content
(Franklin & Peng, 2008). Through these apps students can creatively come up with their own design
and/or concept. These apps allow users to represent mathematical content by linking symbolic,
numerical and graphical data. Usually, the app guides student in creating their own
content/understandings. A great advantage of these apps is that they can represent or present
mathematical content using a variety of digital tools (e.g., audio/video recording, measuring devices,
etc). Frequently, app tools are intuitive and easy to use. Ideally, these tools would present an interpretive
space for the learner to reflect on the activity done. At the highest level of instructional design, a
productivity tool should encourage students assist to come up with new conceptual or procedural
knowledge through hands-on experiences.
In turn, instructive apps are useful for practicing content through drill exercises, acquiring new skills
through questions and answers (tutorials) or retrieving factual information which is a role traditionally
supported by mathematical software (Handal, Handal & Herrington, 2006). Generally, these apps
contain a variety of different activities/exercises and provide students with feedback with various
degrees of meaning. It is expected that not only summative but formative feedback during the questions
and answers process is provided to promote deep learning and help students in developing their maths
problem solving skills. Ideally, instructive apps should engage students in critically analysing online
content texts or images within real-life situations (Kearney & Maher, 2013). Similarly, a good
instructive app would also require students to be able to demonstrate their mathematical understanding
rather than engage in rote-learning text-like formats (Kurz, Middleton & Yanik, 2005). It should also let
students acquire mathematical content in a variety of different ways with a non-linear navigation.
Preferably, the content should be meaningful, fostering engagement and rich problem solving. Similarly,
activities/exercises should cater for a range of student ability levels and should be graded and summary
data provided (Handal & Herrington, 2003).
All of the above task structure concepts were embedded in the sub-scale items portraying the ideal
combination of content, technology and pedagogy in specific mathematical educational contexts.
The cognitive engagement sub-scale
The Cognitive Engagement sub-scale section of the appraisal instrument was guided by the pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) because it leans more on general pedagogies of teaching rather than on subject
specific matters. PCK is important as it teachers need to have both content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge when teaching. For the purpose of this sub-scale PCK is the teacher’s ability to appraise a
maths education app based on its pedagogical and content capacity and for their capacity to foster
student’s cognitive engagement. PCK is rendered in the sub-scale by the cognitive elements of the
reviewed Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
The measure of a student’s cognitive engagement turns out to be a critical m-learning aspect as in many
cases apps are of small educational value being the equivalent to a rote learning activity, with little
problem-solving, or paralleling a bell-and-whistle multimedia spectacle barren from meaningful
learning (Shuler, 2012). When learners are in m-learning situations, they would ideally interact with
their mobile devices in a way that is pedagogically productive. M-learning should be student-centred
and put the individual first because what is mobile is actually the learner not the device (Traxler, 2009).
Educational technology, in general, should be used when no other teaching strategy can provide a better
educational experience.
Hence it is crucial for the application/software to have high levels of cognitive interactivity to engage
learners. Such levels of cognitive interactivity could be seen in the context of Bloom’s taxonomy where
in learners are engaged at various levels of achievements. Due to its bearing in rendering differential
Page 257 of 487
assessment items as well as for its capacity to conceptualise curricular learning outcomes the Bloom’s
taxonomy has been extensively used in mathematics education (Webb, 2013)
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised the Bloom’s taxonomy (Figure 2) narrowing down to six
domains, namely, remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. The
framework provides a context for measures of cognitive engagement which could be articulated
smoothly to m-learning.
Create
Evaluate
Analyze
Apply
Understand
Remember
Figure 2: Revised Bloom’s taxonomy
Such a scheme can be represented in terms of levels and definitions as follows reflecting the extent to
which the app, in a math education context, encourages students to move from lower levels such as
remembering facts to higher levels like creating knowledge. Table 3 represents this continuum of
cognitive engagement related to the use of technology in mathematics education. Those definitions
were incorporated in the cognitive engagement sub-scale.
Table 3: Levels of cognitive engagement
Level
Definition
Remembering
retrieve and review mathematical concepts/skills/procedures
Understanding
demonstrate understanding of mathematical concepts/skills/procedures
Applying
apply their knowledge of mathematical concepts/skills/procedures in practical
contexts
Analysing
critically analyse mathematical content in text, graphs and/or animations
Evaluating
appraise and justify mathematical ideas or products
Creating
construct new and meaningful mathematical ideas or products
The general pedagogical issues sub-scale
The General Pedagogical sub-scale was represented by the technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPK) component of the TPACK model (see Appendix). The ten sub-scale semantic items
represent teachers’ understanding of general pedagogical competences that technology should promote.
It centres on instructional capabilities that the app would enhance to enrich the student experience and
promote learning. In a way, these capabilities require linking technology and pedagogy at a more general
Page 258 of 487
level such as processes, practices and methods of teaching and learning. In an app context, TPK reminds
the teacher to select those that facilitate the general outcomes of instruction.
For example, the sub-scale semantic items portray the idea that when students are encouraged to design
their own problems they learn to think mathematically about the world around them. Such a competence
moves them from being passive recipients of information to creators or co-sharers of a body of
knowledge (Reys, Lindquist, Lambdin & Smith, 2008). There are documented instances when, for
example, students are requested to create examination items or create an investigational project plan
(Luxton-Reilly & Denny, 2010). This also leads to the issue of giving students control over their learning
rather than placing such exercise in the hands of rigidly designed curricula and content usually portrayed
by textbooks (Zoric, Cindric & Destovic, 2012).
The sub-scale items provide credit to cross-curricular knowledge. This is an important TPK element that
adds to quality teaching because it gives the possibility to apply mathematical knowledge from a
confined subject-matter niche into other branches of learning. There is certainly great pedagogical
reward in extending students’ mathematical knowledge across the school syllabus such as geography,
history, science and the like (ACARA, 2012). Other aspects of good practice, acknowledged by the subscale, include the provision of differential activities for various levels of achievement through increasing
levels of difficulty (Tucker, Singleton & Weaver, 2006). All the above attributes are applicable in mlearning when it is considered an instructional resource within the curriculum.
Some apps allow for collaboration such as in classroom learning response systems where students see
what others share as well as their understanding and/or misunderstandings. This principle can also
apply to group-based scenarios is similar to classroom response systems, in that the teacher presents
short problems or multiple-choice questions using mobile devices. But instead of asking students to
individually input their responses, the teacher gets students to work in groups to solve the problems. In
addition, through collaborative data gathering, as acknowledged in this sub-scale, students can use
mobile devices to collect, aggregate and present data. The analysis and presentation or visualization of
the data is typically performed automatically by the device/application. This allows students to focus
on discussing the meaning of the data/findings in the context of inquiry-based learning (Vahey,
Roschelle & Tatar, 2007; Spikol & Eliasson, 2010). Finally, the general pedagogical issues sub-scale
also allows examining the app capacity to show a reading level appropriate to the student’s level as
well as its ability for saving and keeping students’ work in order to resume incomplete tasks or just
simply to monitor performance.
The operational sub-scale
The Operational sub-scale of the appraisal instrument was informed by the TPACK Technological
Content Knowledge (TCK) component (see Appendix). The TCK ensures teachers to have balance
between students’ capabilities around the use of technology (such as understanding navigation, what is
expected in what fields and so on) and what s/he wants to achieve (for instance what kind of data he
wants to gather). This leads to many more operational aspects that a teachers needs to be aware of
while selecting the app. These aspects could include what is there in the app that encourages students
to redo the task if it is not done correctly at first? Does the app allow any reinforcement? Does it allow
for repeating the task? What is there in the app that allows students to self assess? More generally we
could call it interface design combined with knowing the nature of the content and understanding of
the learning goals. Even though we can separately correlate component of TPACK with various
subscales, at broader level the components merge to paint a holistic picture.
The ten sub-scale semantic items deal with the app technical and operational technical affordances.
Very little research has been conducted in this area with most of the perspectives coming from the
literature on evaluating general educational software (Watlington, 2011).
Page 259 of 487
There are also calls for letting students alter its settings to customise the app to their needs and be
provided with helpful technical instructions to the user (Rosenthal-Tolisano, 2012). These additional
features might include a Help function and a supporting web page providing additional useful
information. Instructional designers also suggest checking for the app capacity to easily importing a
range of media (audio, video, image, text, animations) and presenting an uncluttered display which is
visually stimulating. New mobile functionalities now allow an interface with the broader online
environment (e.g., Facebook, wiki, blog, Twitter) and allows file sharing, streaming of content and/or
online communications (Schrock, 2012; Shuler, 2012).
Conclusions
The rapid inroads of mobile apps into the school maths curriculum during the past ten years made more
compelling the need to evaluate systematically the deployment of those applications in teaching and
learning. Mobile devices like smartphones and tablets began making a strong presence in school settings
as personal tools for communicating and accessing information instantaneously. Later, due to its
ubiquitousness and multimedia capabilities, these devices, once born for more general purposes, have
become an essential element of school life.
Their integration with the curriculum is gaining momentum as their pedagogical affordances are being
explored, discovered and utilized more systematically. Such is their popularity that within a short period
of time these devices are aggressively competing for curricular space with long-standing tools such as
laptops, desktops let alone the traditional computer lab.
The coming of mobile devices have brought, however, an astonishing number of apps into the market.
It is claimed now that, as we write, over a million applications have been developed only on the Apple
platform (148AppsBiz, 2012). In such a short period of time academics have also advanced our
understanding as how these devices and their applications can be productively utilized to enhance the
student experience. This has resulted in the formulation of various frameworks emphasizing diverse mlearning conceptual models whose empirical implications and validation remains a challenge for future
researchers.
This study is the first known attempt to develop an instrument for appraising educational maths apps.
The four sub-scales semantic items were drawn from the literature and validated with maths educators
from schools and universities (see Appendix). A distinctive feature of the instrument was the appraisal
of educational apps according to their instructional role in maths education. The instrument also
characterised various levels of cognitive engagement, pedagogical issues as well as surface features,
interface design, navigation and control.
The TPACK model was chosen as the conceptual framework because of its potential to integrate
technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK). Due to its various dimensions the model lends itself well to understand the
instructional design of an app from multiple technical pedagogical dimensions. As a result, the
instrument embeds an evidence-based methodology acknowledging an app capacity to render
differential degrees of task structure, cognitive engagement, pedagogical and operational affordances.
The next stage of this research will consist of a qualitative study to determine teachers’ inter-rater
reliability of the instrument using a larger sample. It would also look at other understandings that
teachers bring to the process of selecting an appropriate app through observations and interview studies.
As such, the prospective study will bring more closely the environment and context variables within the
research equation.
Page 260 of 487
References
148AppsBiz. (2012). App Store Metrics. Retrieved on April 2, 2013 from http://148apps.biz/app-storemetrics/
Ally, M. (2007). Guest editorial - M-learning. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance
Learning,
8(2).
Retrieved
April
1,
2013
from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/451/918
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2012). General capabilities in
the
Australian
curriculum.
ACARA.
Retrieved
April
1,
2013
from: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/General%20capabilities.pdf
Baya'a, N., & Daher, W. (2009, April). Students' perceptions of mathematics learning using mobile
phones. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Computer Aided Learning (Vol.
4, pp. 1-9).
Botzer, G., & Yerushalmy, M. (2007, December). Mobile application for m-learning. In Proceedings of
the International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp. 7-9).
Danaher, P., Gururajan, R., & Hafeez-Baig, A. (2009). Transforming the practice of m-learning:
promoting pedagogical innovation through educational principles and strategies that work. In H. Ryu &
D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative M-learning: Techniques and Technologies. Hershey IGI Global.
Franklin, T., & Peng, L. W. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in m-learning.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69-80.
Geddes. (2004). M-learning in the 21st century: Benefit for learners. The Knowledge Tree, 6. Retrieved
April
1,
2013
from:
http://pre2005.flexiblelearning.net.au/knowledgetree/edition06/download/geddes.pdf
Goodwin, K. (2012). Use of tablet technology in the classroom. NSW Department of Education and
Communities.
Handal, B., Handal, P., & Herrington, T. (2006). Evaluating maths education websites: Teachers tools.
Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 11(2), 8-14.
Handal, B., & Herrington (2003). Re-Examining categories of computer-based learning in mathematics
education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(1). Retrieved April 1, 2013
from:
http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss3/mathematics/article1.cfm
Handal, B., Campbell, C., Cavanagh, M., Petocz, P., & Kelly, N. (2013). Technological pedagogical
content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher
Education,
13(1).
Retrieved
April
1,
2013
from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol13/iss1/mathematics/article1.cfm
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Re-examining categories of computer-based learning in
mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 3(3), 275-287.
Page 261 of 487
Handal, B., Handal, P., & Herrington, A. (2003). Training teachers in evaluating educational tutorial
software. Electronic Journal for Technology in Education, 2(1). Retrieved April 1, 2013 from:
http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/handal.htm
Handal, B., El-Khoury, J., Cavanagh, M., & Campbell, C. (2013). A framework for categorising mobile
learning applications in mathematics education. Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Science
and Mathematics Education (pp. 142-147). Canberra: IISME.
Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013). M-learning in maths teacher education: Using iPads to support preservice teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 76.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2010). Locating m-learning in the third space. In Proceedings
of mlearn2010: 10th world conference on mobile and contextual learning, (Eds. M. Montebello, V.
Camilleri & A. Dingli), University of Malta, Valetta (pp. 108-115).
Kearney, M., Shuck, S., Burden, K. & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a
pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 1-17.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In The AACTE Committee on Innovation and
Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 129). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A Model for Framing M-learning. In A. Mohamed (Ed.), M-learning:
Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (pp. 9-24). AU Press, Athabasca University.
Kurz, T. L., Middleton, J. A., & Yanik, H. B. (2005). A taxonomy of software for mathematics
instruction. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5(2). Retrieved
April 1, 2013 from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss2/mathematics/article1.cfm
Lee, H., & Hollebrands, K. (2008). Preparing to teach mathematics with technology: An integrated
approach to developing technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 326-341.
Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2010). Constructive evaluation: a pedagogy of student-contributed
assessment. Computer Science Education, 20(2), 145-167.
Lyublinskaya, I., & Tournaki, N. (2011). The effects of teacher content authoring on TPACK and on
student achievement in algebra: Research on instruction with the TI-Nspire™ Handheld. Educational
Technology, Teacher Knowledge, and Classroom Impact: A Research Handbook on Frameworks and
Approaches, 295.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Niess, M. L., Ronau, R. N., Shafer, K. G., Driskell, S. O., Harper S. R., Johnston, C., Browning, C.,.
Özgün-Koca, S. A., & Kersaint, G (2009). Mathematics teacher TPACK standards and development
model. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 4-24.
Niess, M. L., van Zee, E. H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge growth in teaching
mathematics/science with Spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK through online professional
development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(2), 42-52.
Pachler, N., Cook, J., & Bachmair, B. (2010). Appropriation of mobile cultural resources for learning.
International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1-21. .
Page 262 of 487
Parsons, D., Ryu, H., & Cranshaw, M. (2007). A design requirements framework for m-learning
environments. Journal of Computers, 2(4), 1-8.
Peng, H., Su, Y., Chou, C., & Tsai, C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: m-learning redefined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 171183.
Peters, K. (2005). Learning on the move: Mobile technologies in business and education. Australian
Flexible
Learning
Framework.
Retrieved
1
April
2013:
http://www.flexiblelearning.net.au/projects/resources/2005/Research.htm
Reys, R. E., Lindquist, M. M., Lambdin, D. V., Smith, N. L. (2008). Helping Children Learn
Mathematics (9th Ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rosenthal-Tolisano, S. (2012.) iPad app evaluation for the classroom. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94980508/iPad-App-Evaluation-for-the-Classroom
Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010a). From handheld
collaborative tool to effective classroom module: Embedding CSCL in a broader design framework.
Computers & Education, 55(3), 1018-1026. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.012
Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J. & Gallagher,
L. P. (2010b). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing
middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
47(4), 833-878.
Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2003, July). Five key considerations for
networking in a handheld-based mathematics classroom. In Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Meeting of
PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, pp. 71-78).
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an
assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 42(2),
123.
Schrock, K. (2012). Critical evaluation of a content-based iPad/iPod app. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from:
http://kathyschrock.net/pdf/evalipad.pdf
Seipold, J., & Pachler, N. (2011). Evaluating m-learning practice towards a framework for analysis of
user-generated contexts with reference to the socio-cultural ecology of m-learning. MedienPädagogik,
19, 1-13.
Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II; An analysis of the education category of the iTunes App Store. New York:
The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from:
http://joanganzcooneycenter.org/upload_kits/ilearnii.pdf
Spikol, D., & Eliasson, J. (2010, April). Lessons from designing geometry learning activities that
combine mobile and 3D tools. In Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education
(WMUTE), 2010 6th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 137-141). IEEE.
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and blended Learning,
1(1), 1-12.
Page 263 of 487
Tucker, B.F., Singleton, A.H., & Weaver, T.L. (2006) Creating lessons that meet the needs of a diverse
classroom. In Tucker, B.F., Singleton, A.H., Weaver, T.L Teaching mathematics to all children (2nd Ed.)
(pp. 29-44) New Jersey, USA: Pearson.
Vahey, P., Roschelle, J., & Tatar, D. (2007). Using handhelds to link private cognition and public
interaction. Educational Technology, 47(3), 13-16.
Watlington, D. (2011, March). Using iPod Touch and iPad educational apps in the classroom. In Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp.
3112-3114).
Webb, D.C. (2013). Bloom's taxonomy in mathematics education. In Steve Lerman (Editor-in-Chief),
Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education. SpringerReference. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from:
http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/313196.html
Zoric, I., Cindric, M., & Destovic, F. (2012). Traditional and contemporary approach to teaching
mathematics. TTEM- Technics Technologies Education Management, 7(3), 882-888.
Acknowledgement
All images were sourced from the Apple Store at www.apple.com/itunes
Page 264 of 487
Appendix
Appraising Maths Apps
Maths apps are created to serve specific roles in teaching and learning across the school curriculum. Depending on their role maths apps can be classified either as
explorative, productive or instructive, or as a combination of one or more of these.
Explorative apps: for exploring and demonstrating mathematical models or concepts through manipulating objects that mimic or simulate complex physical
situations, e.g.:
Sketchpad Explorer
Move the Turtle
Weighing
Productivity apps: for measuring and graphically representing objects or concepts in 2D/3D, collecting data, making calculations, or creating multimedia
materials, e.g.:
Protractor
Stopwatch
GeoBoard
Instructive apps: for practicing content through drill exercises, acquiring new skills through questions and answers (tutorials), or retrieving factual
information, e.g.:
Math Dictionary
Mathemagics
Math Paradise
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 265 of 487
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Instructions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Investigate the app thinking about its role in teaching and learning mathematics – there are no right or wrong answers.
Choose any of the three roles described above– You can choose a combination where roles overlap.
Go to the relevant section(s) next page 6 and 7 where specific issues are presented for your appraisal
Complete items on following page.
Step 1
Choose the app role(s)
Explorative app → Go to next page: Section 3
Productivity app → Go to next page: Section 4
Step 2
Instructive app → Go to next page: Section 5
Step 3
Complete items on following pages 4 and 5
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 266 of 487
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Task Structure
Circle any of the three roles outlined below – You can choose a combination where roles overlap.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 1: EXPLORATIVE APPS
(please check one of the options for each row)
Always To some extent Never Not applicable
App closely mirrors a model or real-life situation
□
□
□
□
Students can enter their own data and observe changes in the model
□
□
□
□
Exploration is guided within a predetermined learning discovery framework
□
□
□
□
Tasks are goal oriented driving student interest and curiosity
□
□
□
□
There are elements of ambiguity and uncertainty fostering personal investigation
□
□
□
□
If you are not doing any other section please continue to next page
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 2: PRODUCTIVITY Apps
(please check one of the options for each row)
Always To some extent Never Not applicable
App lets students to creatively come up with their own design and/or concept
□
□
□
□
App allows representing maths content by linking symbolic, numerical and graphical data
□
□
□
□
Students are guided in creating their own content/understandings
□
□
□
□
Students can represent or present maths content using a variety of different tools
(e.g., audio/video recording, measuring devices, etc)
□
□
□
□
App tools are intuitive and easy to use
□
□
□
□
If you are not doing any other section please continue to next page
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 3: INSTRUCTIVE Apps
(please check one of the options for each row)
Always To some extent Never Not applicable
App contains a variety of different activities/exercises
□
□
□
□
Appropriate feedback is provided to students
□
□
□
□
Activities/exercises cater for a range of student ability levels
□
□
□
□
Content is meaningful, fostering engagement and rich problem solving
□
□
□
□
App contains activities/exercises that are graded and summary data is provided
□
□
□
□
If you are not doing any other section please continue to next page
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 267 of 487
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Cognitive Involvement
The app encourages students to …
(please check one of the options for each row)
retrieve and review maths concepts/skills/procedures (Remembering)
demonstrate understanding of maths concepts/skills/procedures (Understanding)
apply their knowledge of maths concepts/skills/procedures in practical contexts (Applying)
critically analyse maths content in text, graphs and/or animations (Analysing)
appraise and justify maths ideas or products (Evaluating)
construct new and meaningful maths ideas or products (Creating)
Always To some extent Never Not applicable
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
General Pedagogical Issues
The app …
(please check one of the options for each row)
Always To some extent Never Not applicable
permits students to pose their own problems
□
□
□
□
allows for differentiation through sequentially designed degrees of difficulty
□
□
□
□
gives students control over their learning
□
□
□
□
delivers content in an appealing and motivating way according to the age group
□
□
□
□
provides meaningful teaching and learning guidelines
□
□
□
□
integrates maths with content from other Key Learning Areas
□
□
□
□
allows students to collect and record their own data
□
□
□
□
shows a reading level appropriate to the student’s level
□
□
□
□
saves and keeps students’ work
□
□
□
□
provides opportunities for collaboration
□
□
□
□
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Continue to next page …
Page 268 of 487
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Operational Issues
The app …
(please check one of the options for each row)
has an intuitive and user friendly navigation
contains helpful technical instructions to the user and/or a Help function
lets students alter its settings to customise the app to their needs
allows file sharing, streaming of content and/or online communications
is flexible permitting students to move in different directions
has a supporting Web page providing additional useful information
easily works with a range of media (audio, video, image, text, animations)
can interface with social media tools (e.g., Facebook, wikis, blogs, Twitter, YouTube)
presents an uncluttered display which is visually stimulating
permits a student leave at any time and begin where he or she left
Always To some extent Never Not applicable
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Write here any other comments you might have about the quality of your maths app.
-END OF THE APPRAISAL-
Page 269 of 487
RPL EPORTFOLIOS: RECOGNISING QUALITY EC TEACHING
Carolyn Harkness
Australian Catholic University, Canberra
Abstract
This conference presentation will examine the progress of an innovative project, commenced
in July 2014, aimed at supporting diploma qualified, experienced early childhood educators
to work towards the completion of a four-year Bachelor degree that has been designed
specifically for the sector. Based upon a literature review of how social media informs and
shapes personal identity through social referencing and the existing, early childhood
pedagogical tool of the narrative observation, this project uses existing teaching and
learning materials to create a Recognition of Professional Learning (RPL) ePortfolio that
potentially could cut a four-year course down by two thirds. Inspired by the Massive Online
Open Course model, this project aims to support enrolled students, to use existing teaching
and learning materials in a manner that facilitates the creation of a structured RPL ePortfolio
to annotate professional artefacts, which directly match the learning outcomes of some of the
academic units of study. This presentation will examine how the Australian Catholic
University, in collaboration with industry and government stakeholders is currently using
ingenuity, commitment, and technology to shape the future of children in the Australian
Capital Territory.
An issue of being a four-year trained early childhood teacher
Evidence of a divide between what an early childhood teacher knows about what they are ‘doing’, and
what they are when they are ‘being’ a teacher, was revealed through a stakeholder consultation phase of
an Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Education and Care Workforce study that ACIL Allen Consulting
was commissioned to undertake on behalf of the Children's Policy and Regulation Unit (CPRU) in the
ACT Education and Training Directorate. A round-table discussion held between members of the ACT
Government Directorates, members of the ACT Early Childhood Industry sector and ACT Training
Providers indicated a similar problem of a sense of a professional ‘disconnect’. It was articulated that
this was a common experience for those early childhood educators, who whilst having decades of
valuable experience, struggle to articulate that professional competence when seeking to convert it into
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) for a university bachelor qualification. The complexity of working
toward RPL means that it often gets placed into the ‘too hard basket’ and there is avoidance of the task
of navigating the unfamiliar halls of university policy and government regulation. It is easier to keep
doing professional development programs that appear to nibble around the edges, yet never actually
satisfy the appetite for worthwhile professional recognition. Thus, there is no ‘re-connect’ mechanism,
one that meets the tertiary and Australian Qualification Framework requirements and converts a highly
resilient professional competence into the highly prized credit towards a tertiary program that would
ultimately make the leap into a new era of meaningful, professional recognition.
It is becoming clearer, that this professional disconnect, is perpetuated by a raft of issues and certainly
not just by those pressured individuals who cannot see a way out from ‘under’ it all. There certainly
appears to be a social, regulatory and governmental underlying perception that those who currently teach
in the early childhood sector are not ‘teachers’. This missing element of professional recognition
appeared as a thread that surfaced a numerous points throughout the stakeholder consultation undertaken
through ACIL Allen Consulting.
For many diploma-qualified early childhood educators, the visible pathway, to that professional
recognition, is through the completion of a primary teaching qualification and is often perceived as a
“pathway out of childcare” (Watson, 2006, in Gibson, 2013, p. 128). With very little formal recognition
of what their early childhood pedagogy and experience bring to the role of ‘teacher’, the completion of
a four-year, university teaching degree takes a considerable commitment. For a caring, early childhood
worker, there are many barriers to their participation in a university degree, such as a lack of confidence,
a limited financial capacity, and due to a rotating, shift-work roster, a scarcity of available time. The
Page 270 of 487
provision of a clearer, formal pathway will purposefully navigate these issues of professional identity
referencing, recognition, and acknowledgement and may result in a higher level of teacher retention. A
pathway, whereby those who undertake it, stay within the sector and actively contribute to an enriching
and strengthening of the professional perception within the sector for others.
Conflicted professional referencing
It appears that qualified individuals engage in professional referencing in a similar manner for which
they engage in social referencing (Lopes & Pereira, 2012), through various Web 2.0 tools, such as
Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and Linkedin. Each of these tools, like a social community, contributes to
strengthening and shaping an individual’s personal image. Where a social and professional connection
with members of a similar professional community can be used to strengthen and invigorate professional
understandings and a professional image (Lanigan, 2011). A recent newsletter issued through the
National Quality Standard Professional Learning Program narrated an experience that deliberately
sought to avoid the ‘tick and flick’ approach to recognising existing skills (Dwyer, 2013, p. 3). The
difference was the degree of support afforded through the TAFE institution, which steadily built up an
immensely valuable ‘community of practice’ in a very social manner; shaping and moulding
professional identity through conversations and dialogue in both digital and other spheres. This is
evidence of how a community of practice, over a period of time and grounded within a socioculturalhistorical theoretical framework, can use a shared personal narrative of inquiry and learning to positively
influence, shape and strengthen the early childhood educator’s own professional identity (Meier &
Stremmel, 2010). This is a process that has been documented as being the same experience for preservice primary teachers (Flores & Day, 2006; Sutherland, Howard & Markauskaite, 2010; Meir &
Stremmel, 2010). It can be interpreted that the early childhood educator’s image of themselves as
‘teacher’ is both being shaped by their own experiences and their knowledge of the experiences of others
within their immediate ecology (Coles in Larson & Marsh, 2005). The early childhood educator’s
personal critically reflective practice provides a constant “cyclical process” of generating,
deconstructing, reflecting and re-generating a professional image of themselves as teacher, steadily
refining an image of themselves as a teacher (Sutherland, Howard & Markauskaite, 2010, p. 462). The
power of the early childhood educator’s critically reflective practice is brought into sharp focus as
highlighted by Meir and Stremmel (2010), where an individual and collaborative narrative is able to
provide teachers with a valid methodology to utilise “key moments and critical incidents into visual and
written stories of identity, knowledge, reflection, and change” (p. 256) and build a positive professional
referencing mechanism. Yet, where the early childhood teacher’s professional identity is embedded
within primary teacher training and registration, there is a constant stream of conflicting messages that
are reinforced through the student’s immediate academic and social ecology.
Through a deliberate use of the ability of social-media to shape an individual’s self-concept a deliberate
reflective use of a professional, digital portfolio (ePortfolio) to support the development of a registered
primary teacher’s professional identity. University students, use Students within all of the ACU Bachelor
of Education courses work towards building an ePortfolio prior to graduation, one that will transfer with
them on into future employment, and one that supports their maintenance of full teacher registration.
Within ACT primary teacher registration, there is a requirement for each registered teacher to produce
and maintain a professional portfolio that is a “direct representation of their work”. Each registered
teacher is tasked with using artefacts as evidence and to include annotations, or narratives, of how those
artefacts address the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (TQI, 2013).
For the pre-service teacher, the creation and management of the ePortfolio within the university
education course provides significant opportunities to build and develop synergies between the student’s
learning experience and their profession identity. This relationship between learning and the openness
of a common ePortfolio framework requires the inclusion of the more open-ended, social elements that
motivate and support the pre-service teacher to improve their work, through a greater degree of
‘ownership (Garrett, 2011). Garrett’s research, emphasised the importance of the student’s perception
of ”control”, “ownership”, “ease of use” and “social learning” in order to facilitate a demonstration of
their completion specific academic requirements. Garratt also reported that “Student’s enjoyed learning
from peer work, and did it even when not required”. This sociocultural approach to learning is also
visible within the university student’s digital social networking as it occurs on a daily basis (Williams,
Page 271 of 487
Karousou, & Mackness, 2011). In all cases, these open-ended, critically reflective practices are managed
within the context of a community of practice. In each, there is the development of an authentic
professional narrative (Meir & Stremmel, 2010), these deliberate elements of peer collaboration
supports the pre-service teacher to identify with a “lived pedagogy’ (Niemi, Heikkinen & Kannas, 2010,
p. 138). For the early childhood educator, participating in this same digital portfolio process with peer
pre-service primary teachers, a conflicted professional referencing process is perpetuated.
Conflicted professional recognition
This is perpetuated by the fact that the early childhood sector is mostly staffed through a range of either
unqualified or Vocational Education and Training (VET) qualified individuals, with many not holding
the necessary qualification of a four-year trained early childhood teacher. Since 2007, the Rudd Labor
Government’s Early Childhood Agenda commenced a drive towards a complete and national overhaul
of the early childhood sector. A significant milestone appeared as a 1st of January 2014 deadline for the
employment of university, four-year trained early childhood teachers to head up the delivery of a quality
of the early childhood education program for all preschool-aged children. At the time of preparing this
writing in early February 2014, there were no early childhood teacher registration mechanisms. An
individual, seeking the early childhood teacher registration, did so through having trained outside of
their professional sector in order to gain primary teacher registration. The Australian Children’s
Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) published the following in September 2013, stating
that, for those who did not have an accredited, university provided, four-year early childhood teacher
degree, the equivalence was:
“a person who holds ALL of the following will be recognised as equivalent to an early
childhood teacher:

a primary teaching qualification that includes at least a focus on children aged 5 to
8 years old (e.g. a qualification with a focus on children aged 3 to 8 or 5 to 12) AND

teacher registration in Australia (or accreditation in New South Wales) AND

an approved education and care diploma or higher qualification (e.g. approved
graduate diploma) published on ACECQA's qualification lists” (ACECQA, 2013,
p. 1)
As the professional recognition of an early childhood teacher is granted through teacher registration in
Australia, the pathway for an early childhood worker to gain teacher registration requires the individual
to study a four-year university Bachelor of Education course that contains enough content to satisfy a
primary teacher qualification; a four-year academic pathway largely outside of their preferred
professional sector.
As the coordinator for a Bachelor of Education (Early Childhood and Primary) in a national university,
the capacity to meet the focus on children aged 5 to 8 is simple, when professional experience
requirements for the program accreditation mandates a spread of professional experience placements
across all the years of primary schooling. However, the capacity for a primary teacher education program
to deliver the focus required to meet the early childhood qualification necessitates a dual qualification
in the span of a four-year degree. Much of the time is spent delivering the main focus for the individual’s
professional recognition – primary teacher registration. Thus, it is certainly not surprising that Gibson
(2013) speaks of the discursive practices that have sculpted the professional referencing of an early
childhood educator as they work to overcome the challenges of achieving teacher registration.
Conflicted professional acknowledgement
Whilst the conflicting discourses of teacher qualification and the academic provocation of the schoolaged child remain dominant, there will continue to be issues surrounding professional recognition of
existing skills and achievement through any RPL mechanism that is not suited towards supporting the
transfer of existing knowledge into new frameworks. For the university sector, the issues arising from
RPL are numerous; they lie within sectors of academic philosophy (Pitman & Vidovich, 2013) and
consistency of meaning (Pokorny, 2013). For the Australian Catholic University (ACU), the policy that
supports the granting of RPL simply indicates that the individual’s prior “non-formal and informal
Page 272 of 487
learning” has been “recognised for purposes of entry to a course or obtaining credit towards an
undergraduate or postgraduate qualification” (ACU, 2014, p. 1). The ACU policy caters for formal, nonformal and informal learning through making quite broad and generalised statements, particularly as
they are applicable to all courses that the University offers. The policy outlines that any assessment for
RPL must be outcomes-based, equitable, culturally inclusive, transparent, and accountable, that the
process of assessment must be comparable in standard and integrity to those used to assess the relevant
unit/course/qualification, and be subject to quality assurance practices as is any other assessment
practice within the University. In reality, it is the author’s experience, that very few RPL determinations
are made using the individual’s non-formal and informal learning. Without a clear sense of how to
approach the process of preparing and presenting relevant documentation, or what professional language
is to be used, it is very difficult for an individual to be able to aptly apply their non-formal and informal
learning towards achieving credit (Harris & Wihak, 2011 cited in Hamer, 2013). It takes a considerably
self-motivated individual, with a strong sense of their professional identity, to take hold of what they
already know and apply it to stated learning outcomes within a university academic environment.
As the immediate ecology of the early childhood sector is infused with persistent professional turmoil
(Ley, 2014), early childhood, diploma-qualified individuals do not commence their academic study,
towards primary teacher registration, from a sound and confident professional platform. Anecdotally,
the prospect of having to complete a four-year university degree to gain primary teacher registration is
itself a considerable deterrent. When an early childhood educator does participate within a primary
teaching degree, there is a struggle to match their inerrant “mindset” with the content knowledge that is
required, which in itself is not an indicator of a lack of professionalism (Horsely & Bauer, 2010, p. 434).
They assume a deficit view of their own profession, of themselves within that profession, and believe
they need to leave it behind in order to be a teacher in their own right and to receive acknowledgement
for formally achieving a recognised degree of competence (Hamer, 2013). It is within the power of the
institution to reject this deficit view of the candidate and to enact the rights of the individual through a
mutually empowering dialogue when constructing RPL assessment processes.
Conflicted professional opportunity.
For the early childhood teacher, embarking upon the long journey towards gaining a bachelor teaching
qualification, the landscape of higher education in Australia is one that is not as welcoming of their
considerable experience. The university sector is experiencing its own considerable economic turmoil.
There are not many opportunities for the early childhood teacher to commence and continue their
university study in a way that can manage their shift-work employment and acknowledge and recognise
their teaching experience. There have been many suggestions for opening up tertiary education, ranging
from the free and radical tertiary education ecology promoted and envisaged by the developers of
Massive Online Open Courses (MOOC) (Billsberry, 2013), to the creation of smaller regional campuses
focused upon developing a teaching-focus with greater synergies within the local context, and a
heightened sense of industry competitiveness as envisaged as a series of outcomes from the Bradley
Review (Benedict, 2010). Whilst these options potentially offer a greater degree of flexibility for the
early childhood shift-worker, none of these options are financially attractive to the university sector. For
the universities exploring these delivery options, all are burdened with increasing duality of market
competitiveness to meet exacting research targets, whilst increasing student participation and managing
the increased infrastructural complexity. However, with the change to a demand-driven system in tertiary
education, the attractive potential lies within the manner in which these options can use a university’s
current infrastructure to reach a wider, largely untapped student base, with minimal outlay. Technology
is still viewed as the key, even if the exact shape and nature of that key is still to be determined.
Despite the immense interest and some investment into MOOCs, research on MOOCs is only just
appearing in journals, indicating that whilst gaining a reputation for not achieving their ‘dream’, there
appears to be the potential to “overturn centuries of tradition in education” (Billsberry, 2013). However,
there is a great deal of reluctance in universities to offer credit (recognition of prior learning) for a
MOOC course (Billsberry, 2013), as there is very little to ensure that the person claiming to have
completed the work actually did the work. Making the responsibility of the academic and quality
assessment of the non-formal and in-formal RPL claim a critical factor that a university is not likely to,
or readily willing, accept. So for the early childhood teacher, there is virtually no opportunity to
Page 273 of 487
undertake a bachelor degree that will grant teacher registration in a manner that accommodates the
complexity of their daily work-life.
The proposed strategy
This paper proposed a strategy to support an increase in the number of early childhood educators
entering and completing a university teaching degree and then returning to the early childhood sector.
The proposed strategy is contextually relevant for all stakeholders, the early childhood pre-service
teacher, the current early childhood sector, and the university providing the teacher education program.
It is proposed that a professional collaboration be established between these stakeholders, one that would
deliberately set about building a digitally based forum for the establishment of a professional early
childhood teaching community of practice. Within this professional community of practice, diplomaqualified, early childhood professionals, enrolled in a contextually relevant four-year teaching degree,
can set out on a journey to establish recognition for their existing knowledge through the implementation
of a purposeful, reflective and realistic professional narrative (Larson & Marsh, 2005; Meier &
Stremmel, 2010; Sutherland, Howard & Markauskaite, 2010). For the diploma-qualified early childhood
educator, being a member of such a digitally based forum has the potential to remove many of the
provocations that contribute toward the development of a chaotic professional identity (Gibson, 2013).
The nature of the digitally based forum draws it outside of the usual university context and situates it
within the early childhood teacher’s own professional context.
As an enrolled university student, the barrier to accessing university support and technology can be
removed. The university internal technology can also be used to build an open and collaborative digital
learning community, a bit like a MOOC does for a university outside its more traditional boundaries.
Where access to teaching and learning materials, through the support of a tutor, can be used to support
the development of an authentic, professional narrative (Meier & Stremmel, 2010), where the elements
of the collaboration tutor, lecturer, student becomes a “lived pedagogy” (Niemi, Heikkinen & Kannas,
2010, p. 138).
The opportunity to use the structure and process of a MOOC would remove the barrier for an enrolled
undergraduate participant to produce a professional RPL ePortfolio that is course-aligned (Niemi,
Heikkinen & Kannas, 2010). Potentially, a professional RPL ePortfolio created through this community
of practice would satisfy the existing university academic and RPL requirements, whilst offering a way
in which to smooth the way into a university degree for an experienced individual whose professional
identity is fragile, and to facilitate the transition into a professional development portfolio for future
teacher registration. The potential of deliberately applying a process of open and professional dialogue
between those seeking RPL and those within the university could, potentially, afford the opportunity to
overcome some very significant barriers to the overall participation of this marginalised group within a
university education degree (Benedict, 2010). There is a very real opportunity for those participating in
such a forum would naturally cause a ripple effect through changing professional conversations within
the workplace (Sutherland, Howard & Markauskaite, 2010).
Significant for this venture, is the current regulatory environment for the early childhood sector that will
from 1 January 2014, require the employment of a qualified, four-year trained early childhood teacher
within each setting (ACECQA, 2013). There is a caveat of ‘working towards’, which would be satisfied,
as the individual be enrolled in a four-year Bachelor of Education course that has been accredited by
ACECQA as offering the necessary Early Childhood Teacher qualification. For the diploma-qualified
early childhood educator, a year of study is removed from the contextually relevant course comes
through articulation of formal learning RPL. The development of a Professional RPL ePortfolio built
using the evidence of non-formal and informal learning, would potentially further reduce the workload
of such a course, and could easily be used after the degree is completed, to continue to chart the
professional development of an early childhood teacher.
The set up of this concept is not without cost; it would require initial establishment, management and
coordination. The costs of initial project, to seed the concept, could be alleviated through a scholarship
offered to course participants to pay the labour and infrastructure to set up the program and ensure that
it achieves its objective. However, the future potential of this concept could be that, once set up, it can
become self-sustaining through a sectorial teacher registration process. Continued funding would, as in
Page 274 of 487
any teacher registration, would reside within the fees and levies associated with the registration
mechanism. However, the objective would be to generate a sustained provocation to professional
conversation within the early childhood sector, through those who participate inviting others to join into
the evolving narrative within a community of practice.
References
ACECQA. (2013). Early childhood teaching qualifications [webpage]. From:
http://www.acecqa.gov.au/Early-childhood-teaching-qualifications
ACU. (2014). Part A – Policy: Recognition of Prior Learning. Australian Catholic University. From:
http://students.acu.edu.au/administration_and_enrolment/handbooks/handbook_2014/general_informa
tion/recognition_of_prior_learning/part_a_-_policy
Benedict, S. (2010). Regulation by markets and the Bradley Review of Australian higher education.
Australian Universities’ Review, 52(1), 60-68. From:
http://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=180616;res=AEIPT
Billsberry, J. (2013). MOOCs: Fad or revolution? Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 739-746.
From: http://jme.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/content/37/6/739
Dwyer, N. (2013). Newsletter 62: Talking about practice: Recognition of Prior Learning pathways.
National Quality Standard Professional Learning Program e-Newsletter. From:
http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/nqsplp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/NQS_PLP_ENewsletter_No62.pdf
Flores, M.A. & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multiperspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 219-232. From:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0742051X05001228
Garrett, N. (2011). An e-portfolio design supporting ownership, social learning, and ease of use. In the
Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 14(1), 187-202. From:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2013.14.2.127
Gibson, M. (2013). “I Want To Educate School-Age Children”: Producing early childhood teacher
professional identities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14(2), 127-137. From:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2013.14.2.127
Hamer, J. (2013). Love, rights and solidarity in the recognition of prior learning (RPL). International
Journal of Lifelong Learning, 32(4), 481-500. From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.778074
Horsley, M.W. & Bauer, K.A. (2010). Preparing early childhood educators for global education: the
implications of prior learning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 421-436. From:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.509427
Lanigan, J. (2011). Family child care providers’ perspectives regarding effective professional
development and their role in the child care system: A qualitative study. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 38(6), 399 -409. From: http://link.springer.com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/article/10.1007/s10643010-0420-2#
Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (2005). Making literacy real: Theories and practices for learning and teaching.
Sage: London.
Ley, S. (2014). Labor’s EYQF under examination by Auditor-General [media release]. Department of
Page 275 of 487
Education. From: http://ministers.education.gov.au/ley/labors-eyqf-under-examination-auditor-general
Lopes, A. & Pereira, F. (2012). Everyday life and everyday learning: the ways in which pre-service
teacher education curriculum can encourage personal dimensions of teacher identity. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 17-38. From:
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/10.1080/02619768.2011.633995
Meier, D.R. & Stremmel, A.J. (2010). Reflection through narrative: The power of narrative inquiry in
early childhood teacher education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31(3), 249-257.
From: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.500538
Niemi, R., Heikkinen, H.L.T. & Kannas, K. (2010). Polyphony in the classroom: reporting narrative
action research reflexively. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 137-149. From:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650791003740485
Pitman, T. & Vidovich, L. (2013) Converting RPL into academic capital: Lessons from Australian
universities. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4), 501-517. From:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.778075
Pokorny, H. (2013). Portfolios and meaning-making in the assessment of prior learning. International
Journal of Lifelong Education, 32(4), 518-534. From:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2013.778076
Sutherland, L, Howard, S. & Markauskaite, L. (2010). Professional identity creation: Examining the
development of beginning preservice teachers’ understanding of their work as teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(3), 455-465. From:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0742051X09001267
TQI. (2013). Framework for progression to full registration: Teacher assessment and support guide
for ACT schools and Provisionally Registered Teachers. Teacher Quality Institute. ACT Government
Publishers
Williams, R.T., Karousou, R. & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in web
2.0. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 40-59. From:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/883/1824
Page 276 of 487
ETHICS OF TEACHING WITH SOCIAL MEDIA
Michael Henderson
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne
Glenn Auld
School of Education, Deakin University, Melbourne
Nicola F. Johnson
School of Education, Federation University Australia, Gippsland
Abstract
This paper goes beyond the commonly held concerns of Internet safety, such as
cyberbullying. Instead, it explores the ethical dilemmas we face as teachers when using social
media, in particular social networks, in the classroom. We believe old ideas of respect and
culture of care for children and young people need to be reconstructed around new media.
This paper draws on the authors’ experience in teaching with, and researching students’ use
of, social media in the classroom. In this paper we explore the ethical issues of consent,
traceability, and public/private boundaries. We tackle the complex issue of the rights around
virtual identities of the students followed by a discussion on the ethics of engaging students
in public performance of curriculum and their lives. Finally we discuss the ethical dilemma
involved in recognising and responding to illicit activity. While we reflect on our own
response to these dilemmas and propose a dialogic process as the way forward, we also
return to the argument that these ethical choices are dilemmas in which most, if not all,
options are unpalatable or impracticable.
Introduction
Social media offer spaces for innovative teaching in classrooms. However they also pose a number of
ethical dilemmas for teachers. While this paper pays particular attention to the concerns raised by social
networking features of social media (such as epitomised by social networking services like Facebook),
it also includes other web based media that mediate interactions between people, such as blogs (e.g.,
Blogspot), microblogs (e.g., Twitter), wikis (e.g., wiktionary.org), forums (e.g., minecraftforum.net),
video sharing (e.g., YouTube), and image sharing (e.g., Flickr). Social media can also include virtual
worlds (e.g., SecondLife) and massive multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG) such as
World of Warcraft as well as other Internet based games. In addition, many apps (applications) for
mobile phone and personal devices (e.g., iPad) also fit the definition of social media, for instance,
Localmind (an IOS app that connects people in geographic areas).
An important feature of social media is the way the texts are collaboratively constructed. A Facebook
“wall” or Twitter profile page is not only made up of images, text and other media from the individual
but also from those friends or followers who comment. Unlike early forms of digital word processing
that supported a high degree of individual authorship, social media facilitates the joint production of
texts. Due to the nature of the texts in social media, many of the texts are constructed by people with a
particular sense of purpose and audience. Just as social media was not designed for classroom use to
support curriculum and assessment, the content of most social networking sites was not designed to be
used in the classroom. This does not preclude their use in classroom contexts, as demonstrated by the
growing number of studies (Snyder, Henderson, & Beale, 2012; Wong & Hew, 2010), but it does raise
ethical issues for teachers when (a) they use texts designed for different purposes and audiences other
than their classroom, and (b) they encourage the creation of texts that extend beyond the control of the
Page 277 of 487
authors. Indeed, the ethical issues are largely founded on the understanding that both students and
teachers have lifeworlds outside of school that are characterized by complex identities, social practices,
and discourse that influence how they engage or disengage with each other and with social media texts
such as Facebook.
Furthermore, social media, particularly social networking sites, have been the subject of considerable
negative media focus in terms of cyberbullying and predatory behaviour that has stimulated a moral
panic beyond issues of documented risk contexts (Green & Hannon, 2007; Merchant, 2011). This stigma
has inevitably resulted in a tension when planning to use social media in a classroom. Nevertheless,
there is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates, despite the risks, social media have a valued role
in communication and the management of interpersonal relations, identity building, creative activities,
and for learning (ACMA, 2009; Byron, 2008; FCC, 2009). As a consequence teachers are left in a
difficult position of trying to innovate in their classroom using social media while at the same time being
conscious of the risks. However, we argue that while risks such as cyberbullying have been well
documented, and are addressed through numerous cybersafety initiatives, there are a range of other
professional dilemmas in using social media in the classroom which have not been explored in detail.
While well-established guiding principles of ethical conduct in research such as justice, beneficence and
respect (NHMRC, 2007) are relevant and valuable, we argue that there needs to be a more nuanced
understanding of how they apply in new and complex technology-mediated social spaces. The choices
and consequences are easier to identify in well-trodden fields. When social media is involved, available
guidelines for our moral deliberation can be unclear, such as: who are participants, whose data is it, what
is private, and what are the consequences for now and in the future (Henderson, Johnson, & Auld, 2013).
In the context of teaching with social media we need to draw on a broader, and less defined, set of ethical
guidelines. We argue that from an ethical perspective classrooms are synonymous with the culture of
care the teacher brings to the classroom. A useful guide is given by Nias (1999) who identifies six
aspects of the culture of care in a primary classroom: affectivity, responsibility for learners,
responsibility for relationships in the school, self-sacrifice, over-conscientiousness and identity. Lévinas
(1979) also provides a useful frame for ethical practice in the classroom: he argued that all people depend
on more than just themselves for life, sustenance, and education and we are continuously in an ethical
relationship with the “other”. While this construct of “other” reinforces our notion of duty of care in the
teaching profession, it is also relevant when trying to understand our ethical response to those others
who have participated in the construction of the text, such as a Facebook page. For example, the texts
the students access or bring to class might be a montage of authors that include different people in
different places who have not provided permission for their texts to be unpacked in a classroom
environment. In addition, social networking sites blur the boundaries between professional/school and
personal lives, thus there has been considerable caution on the part of teachers and institutions.
We argue that there are four ethical dilemmas that need to be considered by teachers who are using
social media content or services with their students, or who are planning on researching/documenting
the use of social media in the classroom. In this context, we define ethics as a moral choice, which means
that teachers have to ultimately decide their own response to the dilemmas, according to their sociocultural and professional contexts. These are represented in Table 1 and have been organized according
to well established ethical practice (consent, traceability/confidentiality, boundaries, and dealing with
illicit activity).
Page 278 of 487
Table 1
Ethical concerns for teachers using social media in the classroom or in research
Ethical issue
Consent
Confidentiality
(Traceability)
Boundaries
Recognizing
and
responding to
illicit activity
Ethical questions
Teaching with social media
Teacher as researcher
(adapted from Auld & Henderson, (adapted from Henderson et al.,
2014)
2013)
Do we have the right to colonise
When and how should we seek
or marginalise students’ out of
informed consent in an
school social networking
environment that promotes
practices in the classroom?
socially mediated and coShould we access students’ out of constructed texts, a sense of
classroom virtual identities from privacy in the crowd, anonymity
their social media in a classroom through avatars, and in which
context?
personal data are increasingly
leaving the control of the
individual?
Should we be engaging students’
The loss of confidentiality - how
social networking in public
can we de-identify participation
performances of the curriculum? in an increasingly networked,
pervasive and ultimately
searchable dataverse?
Am I prepared for the
Am I prepared for the
inhabitation of my social media
inhabitation of my social media
by students as a reciprocal
by students as a reciprocal
response to my teaching?
response to my research
activity?
How will I negotiate any illicit
What is illicit activity that
activity associated with the
requires intervention when in a
student’s use of social media?
socially mediated environment?
By raising these issues we do not want to dissuade teachers from using social media. Rather
we are hoping to construct a space in which teachers are empowered to engage with the
dialogue and implications surrounding the ethical dilemmas they encounter in their changing
professional practice.
Consent – the right to colonise?
Consent concerns the respectful way to gain permission from people to engage with them in current or
new practices and in gaining access to their data. There are a number of issues concerning consent that
teachers face when using social media with their students. One issue with consent is what constitutes
public data. While this appears straightforward when teaching young people, there is a debate about
what constitutes private and public data. Rosenberg (2010) considers what is publically available on the
Internet and what is perceived as public by the participants could be quite different. For example, if a
young person publishes a video on YouTube for friends, they would not expect the same video to be
shown in the classroom. Teachers need to ask what kinds of social media resources should they be using
in the classroom when their producers potentially did not want, expect or perceive them as something
for public consumption? To further complicate the issue of consent, Boyd and Marwick (2011) suggest
that young people do not have a full understanding of the long term implications of posting to social
Page 279 of 487
media. Obviously teachers need to consider the original purpose and audience of the intended text when
asking consent to use these texts in class.
Another issue with consent involves the possible decontextualisation of the text in a classroom
environment. Bakardijeva and Feenberg (2000) argue for a concept of ‘non-alienation’, where the
content of online communication is not taken out of context of the original occurrence without explicit
permission. When teachers use social media alienated from the context where is it is produced, the
students in the class are not provided with the postings or comments that have gone before and after
these texts were made. The narratives that teachers make about the use of social media in the class could
be rather different to the comments that have surrounded the production of the texts in the original form
produced in the social networking sites. Teachers should unpack whether it is ethical to participate in,
or expect access to their students’ identities that they use in their social media as part of their learning
process in the classroom. The use of social media in the classroom means that teachers need to extend
Nias’s (1999) construct of care, with reference to being responsible for relationships in the school.
Teachers using social media are responsible for relationships with students and ‘friends’ outside of
school mediated in the digital environment. When students do give consent for their images, texts and
identities to be used in the classroom, teachers should be aware that this consent might need to be
renegotiated at regular intervals. There is a real issue in determining participants’ understandings of how
their private information and interactions can be transformed into public data.
By including social media in the classroom context, we are implicitly requiring students to draw on their
funds of knowledge around social media in order to succeed in the curriculum. While Moll, Amanti,
Neff, and González (1992) have suggested that utilizing the home practices of students in the classroom
can lead to successful pedagogy, we need to also consider if we are colonizing a classroom with illmatched and poorly understood use of social media that may lead to unintended consequences and which
amount to an invasion of the out-of-school technological practices and identities of students. A review
of the literature reveals that despite students’ familiarity with social media, they are not experienced in,
or necessarily enthusiastic about, using social media for collaborative curriculum based activity (Snyder
et al., 2012). Certainly, students’ propensity to use co-authored texts from social media in their personal
lives is not a sufficient foundation in itself to use the technology, no matter the guise of “authenticity”.
Traceability – the ethics of public performance
When we ask our students to tweet, blog, post, share, or co-construct their texts with the rest of the class,
we are asking them to perform in public or semi-public arenas. In this situation we are faced with the
ethical question of whether this practice is caring for the identity of our students. How can we promise
students that their digital footprint (online conversations, interactions, personal details) will be confined
to the classroom context? A significant feature of social media is that they create an archive of profile
that persists over time. This is made all the more problematic as more powerful search capabilities make
it possible to search out and collect the profile data of an individual across a variety of social media
platforms, thereby making public a very different and potentially unwanted profile of a student that they
have little or no control over. In addition, the way in which social media, particularly social networking
sites, record, trace, connect, and publish with a degree of autonomy from that of the individual whose
information is being used has led the International Council on Human Rights Policy to note, “Today,
the ‘private man’ is a public entity... that he controls only partly” (2011, p. 65).
It appears that nowadays search engines are so powerful that almost every digital phrase is traceable.
The International Council on Human Rights Policy (2011) consider we are all part of a ‘dataverse’
referring to the ubiquitous nature of the data surrounding our everyday lives and the access people have
to this data. Teachers who quote people anonymously from social networking sites in a class may find
students plugging extracts of the quote into search engines to see if they can find the author of the text.
Even more worrying is that by encouraging students to use social media for learning purposes, in which
we expect and celebrate student’s taking intellectually creative risks, we are potentially reifying the
students’ identity for years to come.
Page 280 of 487
Boundaries – teacher becoming public
A dilemma arises when the regulatory codes of conduct meet emerging technologies that redefine
heretofore well-established boundaries between private and public, personal and professional/student,
and even leisure and school/work. Teachers need to consider what the implications are for co-inhabiting
spaces that are designed to connect people and share information. The two most obvious ethical concerns
of social media co-habitation are (a) teachers sharing their private (out-of-school) identities and practices
in their profiles with their students that might not be congruent with the expectations placed on them as
professionals, and (b) students actively seeking contact with teachers on the networks and, in doing so,
building a profile of the teachers that may be incongruent with expectations, or even place the teacher
in a compromising position. These ethical concerns are valid both in and out of social media. However,
the unique characteristics of social media such as anonymity of the browser, persistence of data
including histories of social interactions, and simplicity of searching across networks have increased the
potential risk for teachers
Whether teachers are using social media for personal or professional (i.e., to enable teaching and
learning) reasons there is a risk of public scrutiny of their profiles, including students observing aspects
of what may be considered private lives. Furthermore, the definition of communication becomes
problematic in this regard since social networking applications are usually historical, providing archives
of activity that, in effect, are being communicated to students by the simple measure of allowing student
access to their profile.
Social networking applications expose teachers’ out-of-school identities and their networks to a greater
degree of scrutiny by their students, colleagues, and school communities. An obvious answer to this
problem is for teachers to choose to only engage with social networking applications that offer a higher
degree of privacy and control. However, this is not always feasible, nor is it necessarily desirable, as it
reduces the authentic context to a staged pretext. Another strategy is for teachers to create a social
networking profile specifically for their professional work. While this resolves some immediate
concerns, it still requires considerable thought and considerable maintenance (eg. removing “friended”
students at the end of each year, cleaning out histories of interactions, including photos, etc.).
Recognizing and responding to illicit activity
If a teacher came across a piece of student’s work which used an image of a well-known movie star or
popular cartoon character, should the teacher consider this as illicit behaviour? Even though the risk of
being sued is minimal, many teachers would dismiss these concerns and treat the process as a positive
expression of identity (Henderson, De Zwart, Lindsay, & Phillips, 2010). The issue here is the publishing
of material online, the extent of the readership and the student understanding of copyright that is
promoted in the classroom environment. Before the teacher can respond to illicit activity, the teacher
needs to recognize it. In the above example, how is the teacher supposed to know all the copyrighted
images the students could be using in their classroom learning?
When dealing with social media it is not always easy to identify the key players (perpetrators, victims,
regulatory or reporting bodies) or even the illicit nature of the activity itself (Auld & Henderson, 2014).
For example, social media that allows the joint creation and editing of texts (such as in a wiki) can make
it hard to identify the perpetrator. Moreover, there is a question of degree of illicit participation, for
instance, if someone only edits the grammar are they participating in the illicit activity? The joint design,
production, and distribution of social media texts makes identifying authorship problematic, let alone
intervening.
Teachers will also come across students’ work that are a montage of other texts. Does a teacher ask the
students if any of the sounds from songs or video from movies have been illegally downloaded? If the
students admit to the teacher they have illegally downloaded material, what should the teacher do? There
are implications of reporting this to the school management as the act of reporting would undermine the
Page 281 of 487
respectful relationship between teacher and student. If the teacher does not report such activity, what is
the student learning from the teacher about making moral choices about following the law? Students
will learn understandings about the law and morality from the actions teachers do and do not take
associated with social media in the classroom.
Concluding Comments
Drawing on our own experience, as teachers and as researchers of our own teaching practice, we have
outlined four complex ethical issues associated with the use of social media in a classroom context. We
have offered dilemmas surrounding ownership, use, and archiving of texts and images by teachers as
they introduce social media in schools. Guidelines for teaching practice nor codes of conduct are wholly
adequate in addressing these issues. This is partly due to the continually changing landscape of social
media, and partly due to the fact that some of the issues, such as the ethics of colonizing student social
spaces, are simply not directly addressed. We suggest that teachers (and students) should go beyond
reference to guidelines, but consider their ethical relationship with the “other” (Lévinas, 1979) including
those beyond the classroom such as ‘friend’ networks.
Although we argue that students’ choice about sharing texts should be respected, we also subscribe to
the notion that we can engage in dialogue with students about those choices. The very nature of
technology, especially that of social media, continuously decontextualises and recontextualises personal
information, leaving it “out of context” and available to misinterpretation (Mayer-Schönberger, 2009,
p. 13). However, when students are encouraged to examine and critique their use of social media, such
as Facebook, when interacting with the teacher or with fellow students, they are being asked to behave,
converse, share, and self-regulate in ways that are different to their already established practices (Auld
& Henderson, 2014). Merchant (2011) suggested that effective use of social media in a classroom
context will involve learning from, about, and with social media so teachers have a better understanding
of the practices associated with these texts. We argue that underpinning these practices are a set of
ontological approaches that are motived by respecting the other. Where teachers foster a dialogue
amongst students and between teacher and student, they will have a strong foundation in their planning
for social media in their classrooms.
References
ACMA. (2009). Click and connect: Young Australians’ use of online social media. Canberra:
Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Auld, G., & Henderson, M. (2014). The ethical dilemmas of social networking sites in
classroom contexts. In G. Mallia (Ed.), The Social Classroom: Integrating Social Network Use
in Education (pp. 192-207). The Netherlands: Information Science Reference.
Bakardjieva, M., & Feenberg, A. (2000). Involving the virtual subject. Ethics and Information
Technology, 2, 233-240.
Boyd, d., & Marwick, A. E. (2011). Social Privacy in Networked Publics: Teens’ Attitudes,
Practices, and Strategies. Paper presented at the A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on
the Dynamics of the Internet and Society (September 2011), University of Oxford.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1925128
Byron, T. (2008). Safer Children in a Digital World, The Report of the Byron Review.
FCC. (2009). In the Matter of Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving
Media
Landscape.
Federal
Communications
Commission
Retrieved
from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-11-24/html/E9-27664.htm.
Page 282 of 487
Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Their Space: Education for a digital generation. Retrieved
31 October 2012, from http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Their%20space%20-%20web.pdf
Henderson, M., De Zwart, M., Lindsay, D. F., & Phillips, M. (2010). Legal risks for students
using social networking sites. Australian Educational Computing, 25(1), 3-7.
Henderson, M., Johnson, N. F., & Auld, G. (2013). Silences of ethical practice: dilemmas for
researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(6), 546-560.
International Council on Human Rights Policy. (2011). Navigating the dataverse: Privacy,
technology, human rights (pp. 100). Geneva, Switzerland.
Lévinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity : an essay on exteriority. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Merchant, G. (2011). Unravelling the social network: theory and research. Learning, Media and
Technology, 37(1), 4-19. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.567992
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2),
132-141.
NHMRC. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research.
Commonwealth
of
Australia
Retrieved
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm.
Canberra:
from
Nias, J. (1999). Primary teaching as a culture of care,. In J. Prosser (Ed.), School culture (pp.
66-81). London: Paul Chapman.
Rosenberg, A. (2010). Applying the "contextual integrity" model of privacy to personal blogs
in the blogosphere. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 3(1), 38-47.
Snyder, I., Henderson, M., & Beale, D. (2012). Social media for social learning: A horizon
scan. Commissioned Report for the Department of Education & Early Childhood Development
(DEECD). Melbourne: Faculty of Education, Monash University.
Webber, S., & Mitchell, C. (1999). Teacher identity in popular culture. In J. Prosser (Ed.),
School culture (pp. 145-160). London: Paul Chapman.
Wong, R., & Hew, K. (2010). The impact of blogging and scaffolding on primary school pupils’
narrative writing: A case study. International Journal of Web-based Learning and Teaching
Technologies, 5(2), 1-17.
Page 283 of 487
TECHNOLOGY ENHANCED FEEDBACK ON ASSESSMENT
Michael Henderson
Michael Phillips
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne
Abstract
The two most common forms of providing assessment feedback to students have been written
comments on the assignment or face to face discussions. However research reveals that
written comments are often limited in depth and marred by ambiguity while face to face
discussions are often impractical and dependent on student memory. In contrast over recent
years we have witnessed an increase in technology enhanced modes of feedback delivery. At
its simplest this involves annotating documents with written comments. However, there are a
variety of other options. This paper will outline the limited but growing empirical research
on the design and impact of video, audio, screencast and other annotation feedback
mechanisms. Drawing on this literature and the presenters' own research we propose a series
of design principles for the creation of effective technology enhanced feedback.
Introduction
Research has illustrated that feedback is both a broad term that incorporates a range of contexts (for
example, see: Hattie & Timperley, 2007; McConnell, 2006) as well as being a valuable component of
the learning process (Orsmond & Merry, 2011), with some authors indicating that feedback could be
the most influential single factor affecting student achievement (Brown & Knight, 1994; Hattie &
Timperley, 2007). Despite a number of papers reporting on feedback, it is somewhat surprising to find
that there is no clear agreement of how feedback, including summative assessment feedback, should be
designed or delivered.
Although video and other media being available for more than two decades in schools and universities,
there has been very little research investigating the design and delivery of technology enhanced
assessment feedback. Within this context, we provide a synthesis of effective principles when creating
assessment feedback artefacts (e.g., text, video), offer a comprehensive review of research on technology
enhanced individualised feedback and then report on how we have been designing such artefacts in our
own research.
Assessment feedback
Feedback provided to students about their performance on assessment tasks is different from other forms
of feedback provided during the learning process (for example, see: Biggs, 2003; Boud, 2000; Costello
& Crane, 2010; Crook et al., 2012; McConnell, 2006) as effective assessment feedback provides more
than a number or letter grade to students (Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC], 2010). Despite
the literature confirming the importance of assessment feedback as part of the learning process, the same
body of literature also points out that many students do not value the feedback comments but simply
skip to the grade (for example, see: Bailey & Garner, 2010; Crisp, 2007; Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton,
2001; Orsmond & Merry, 2011).
Page 284 of 487
With such student dissatisfaction, many researchers have turned their attention to feedback design
characteristics in an attempt to improve the quality of feedback being provided by teachers. Notable
examples are Evan (2013) and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) who separately outline general
principles of effective feedback. However, the recommendations of these and other researchers do not
always fit easily with each other, nor are they all relevant to the concern of this paper: educators creating
feedback artefacts for summative assessment. Consequently, a guiding set of principles relating to the
design of teacher created feedback artefacts on summative assessment has been synthesised from key
texts in the literature (see Table 1).
Table 1
Principles for the Design of Teacher Created Assessment Feedback Artefacts
Principle
be timely
Description
Give feedback while details are still fresh, and in
time to assist the student in future task performance.
be clear
(unambiguous)
It is important to be unambiguous in
communication. For example, do not assume
students have the same understanding of academic
language or discourse. Similarly phrases such as
“good work” are unclear due to lack of specificity.
Indicating something as incorrect is not as helpful
as suggesting how it could be corrected or
improved. It is also valuable to focus on
strengthening, developing and extending what has
been done well.
More time should be spent providing feedback on
the more significant goals of the assessment task.
be educative
(and not just
evaluative)
be
proportionate to
criteria/goals
locate student
performance
emphasise task
performance
be phrased as
an ongoing
dialogue rather
than an
endpoint
be sensitive to
the individual
in relation to:
 the goals of the task (feed-up)
 clarifying what they did well and not so
well (feedback)
 and as a result what they can most
productively work on in the future (feed
forward)
More emphasis should be placed on feed forward.
Feedback to students should be focused on the task
rather than self or attributes of the learner. In
particular the feedback should provide guidance on
the process and metacognition (self-regulation)
level.
Instead of an end-point in the teaching and learning
processes, feedback should be seen as an invitation
and a starting point for reciprocal communication
that allows students to continue developing skills
and ideas through conversations with their teachers.
Feedback should reflect the individual student’s:
 context and history
 emotional investment and needs
 power
 identity
 access to discourse
It should encourage positive self-esteem and
motivation.
Page 285 of 487
Reference
Bailey and Garner (2010); Costello
and Crane (2010); Evans (2013);
Glover and Brown (2006); RodwayDyer, Knight, and Dunne (2010)
Brockbank and McGill (1998);
Chanock (2000); Duncan (2007);
Evans (2013); Glover and Brown
(2006); Higgins et al. (2001); Lillis
and Turner (2001); Weaver (2006)
Costello and Crane (2010); Evans
(2013); Lizzio and Wilson (2008)
Boud (2000); Davies (2003); Hattie
and Timperley (2007); Nicol and
Macfarlane-Dick (2006); Stefani
(1994)
Bailey and Garner (2010); Boud
(2000); Crook et al. (2012); Duncan
(2007); Evans (2013); Hattie
(2009); Hattie and Timperley
(2007)
Boud and Molloy (2013); Evans
(2013); Hattie and Timperley
(2007); Higgins et al. (2001); Nicol
and Macfarlane-Dick (2006)
Bailey and Garner (2010); Blair and
McGinty (2013); Crisp (2007);
Evans (2013); Higgins et al. (2001);
Nicol (2010); Nicol and
Macfarlane-Dick (2006); Orsmond
and Merry (2011)
Bailey and Garner (2010); Costello
and Crane (2010); Crisp (2007);
Higgins et al. (2001); Jonsson
(2013); Lea and Stierer (2000);
Lizzio and Wilson (2008); Orsmond
and Merry (2011); Reid, Francis,
and Robson (2005); Whitington,
Glover, and Harley (2004)
While these principles provide helpful guidance, trying to apply them all at the same time through text
based feedback, while not impossible, would be complicated and time consuming, particularly in large
classes. As a result of the tension between the desire to provide effective feedback and our own
limitations in time, the authors intuited the potential of digital based multimedia (e.g., video) as an
alternative to text based feedback.
Video-based assessment feedback
In contrast with the considerable body of literature dealing with feedback, little attention has been paid
to the ways or medium in which assessment feedback is delivered to students. Very little literature is
available that deals with the use of video-based feedback in relation to assessment tasks. Hattie and
Timperley’s (2007) meta-analysis noted that “video or audio” feedback had an average positive effect
size of 0.64 yet they failed to explain what they mean by video feedback or identify the source of the
meta analysis. Personal correspondence with Hattie (16th Nov 2012) clarified that the results in their
meta-analysis were drawn from studies of Computer Assisted Learning. As such, the results are not
directly relevant to this investigation since we are dealing with videos recorded by educators in response
to student assessment, as opposed to typical CAL applications of video cues in response to student
actions.
A literature review on the use of technology in feedback by Hepplestone, Holden, Irwin, Parkin, and
Thorpe (2011) made no reference to video-based feedback. However, in a similar review of technologies
for learner-centred feedback, Costello and Crane (2010) identified video having some benefits, but their
conclusion is based on two sources, only one of which was based on empirical evidence (Parton, CrainDorough, & Hancock, 2010), while the other (Denton, Madden, Roberts, & Rowe, 2008) is itself making
a passing reference to a much older article from 1997 (Hase & Saenger, 1997).
After a significant search of the literature only a small number of journal articles were found that
reported empirical research about video-based assessment feedback. Over a decade ago, Hase and
Saenger’s (1997) study of recording assessment feedback on analogue videotape and posting the video
to students found that the “videomail” was “an extremely valuable and personalised method of obtaining
feedback by learners” as the lecturers were able to use “a wide variety of communication techniques
such as self‐disclosure and reflection, for example, not available to them using written feedback only”
(p.362). However, they concluded that video feedback is a means of enhancing, not replacing, written
feedback. Inglis (1998) discussed the technical feasibility of providing digital video via email for
assessment feedback, concluding that while it was possible at that time, it would be more feasible as
bandwidth and computer processing increased. Despite Inglis’ prediction being correct, there is a gap of
almost 10 years before researchers looked again at digital video as a means of assessment feedback.
When comparing podcasting (audio) and video used for weekly generic (i.e., whole class) feedback on
students’ performance in the previous week’s assessment, Cann (2007) notes that the video files were
downloaded over five times more than the podcasts, indicating the students’ strong preference for the
medium. However, no explanation for this preference was offered other than the suggestion that while
video is widely accepted by younger learners, podcasting is considered to be too restrictive. A slightly
more detailed case study is offered by Abrahamson (2010) in which 10 generic short videos were created
to supplement written feedback on assignment drafts. The videos were numbered and referred to as and
when appropriate in the written feedback, thus offering a degree of personalisation that was particularly
valued by the students. Abrahamson (2010) also noted that the video-based feedback provided staff with
“greater freedom in expressing feedback as a learning process and not simply as a product of learning”
(p.4). Cann’s and Abrahamson’s conclusions reflect those of studies conducted a decade earlier: students
valued the video; the video was useful as a supplementary aid to text based feedback; and video offered
educators new opportunity for richer communication.
Crook et al. (2012; 2010) report on a much larger project spanning several universities (8 staff and 105
students completing the post-video questionnaire) in which an online platform was created to host
generic videos in response to student formative assessment. As with the previous studies, all of the
Page 286 of 487
teachers and a majority of students responded positively to the use of video-based feedback with 80%
in favour of it being used the following year. The students reportedly took more notice of the videos,
with the main advantage being that the content was easier and clearer to understand, and that it was
“more extensive, informative, the key points were better emphasised and that it aided their visualisation
of the task through demonstrations and/or diagrams” (Crook et al., 2012, p. 391). However, a minority
of students noted the disadvantage of technical difficulties (12%) and particularly that the feedback was
too generic (17%), and de-personalises the feedback experience (12%). From the staff perspective, the
majority felt that using video positively changed their approach to feedback. However Crook et al.
(2012; 2010) do not provide detail as to how the content of the videos were designed other than the staff
were encouraged to adopt a feed forward perspective. They conclude that the approach can enhance staff
and student feedback experiences and that, while video was used as a generic response in their project,
it could be used for individual feedback dependent on small class size.
Research from the last decade has only produced one paper related to individualised video-based
assessment feedback. Parton et al. (2010) conducted a study in which an instructor provided 12 graduate
level students with written feedback on their first assignment, a combination of written feedback and a
video explaining the remarks made on the hardcopy of the second assignment, and only video-based
feedback on the third. The videos were approximately five minutes in length, and created through the
use of a Flipcamera (video camera with USB connection). However no further detail was provided about
the design of the video-based feedback. The instructor reported the students found the video feedback
easier to understand. The most striking outcome of the project was the clear indication that the videobased feedback resulted in the students feeling they had a closer connection with their instructor. As a
consequence Parton et al. (2010) conclude that the “primary benefit of the videos appears to be in
developing the bond between instructors and students” (p.5). However they note that the small number
of participants is a major limitation to the study.
Audio recording and screencasting assessment feedback
Since there has been little research in video-based assessment feedback, the authors extended their
literature review to other digital modes of feedback delivery, namely audio recordings and screencasting.
Hepplestone et al. (2011) noted that audio based feedback is a “recent innovation” (p.121), with Jonsson
(2013) reporting on a small but “growing number of studies investigating digital audio feedback” (p.65).
The research is characterised as small case study or quasi-experimental designs with unique contexts
and small numbers of participants. However, there is enough evidence of benefits to learners to
recommend further research and suggest that video-based feedback may not only share in these benefits
but also be able to strengthen them. The reported benefits of audio based are listed as part of Table 2.
Page 287 of 487
Table 2
Benefits of Audio and Screencasting Feedback
Benefits
Greater detail in feedback
Faster or just as efficient to create
feedback (in comparison with text
feedback)
Clearer meaning (audio visual
cues such as tone perceived as
conveying meaning easier)
Feedback is perceived as more
individualised
Students feel a stronger
connection with their teachers, or
stronger social presence of
teachers
Audio feedback
Hepplestone et al. (2011); Jonsson
(2013); Lunt and Curran (2009);
Merry and Orsmond (2008);
Rodway-Dyer et al. (2010);
Rotheram (2009)
Jonsson (2013); Lunt and Curran
(2009); Rotheram (2009)
Sceencasting feedback
Hyde (2013); Marriott and Teoh
(2012); Mathieson (2012);
Thompson and Lee (2012)
Bourgault, Mundy, and Joshua
(2013); Ice, Curtis, Phillips, and
Wells (2007); Merry and Orsmond
(2008); Rodway-Dyer et al. (2010)
Bourgault et al. (2013); Rotheram
(2009)
Edwards et al. (2012); Marriott
and Teoh (2012); Thompson and
Lee (2012)
Ice et al. (2007); Johnson and Keil
(2002)
Edwards, Dujardin, and Williams
(2012)
Edwards et al. (2012); Hyde
(2013); Marriott and Teoh (2012);
Mathieson (2012)
Thompson and Lee (2012)
Screencasting is also increasingly appearing in the literature as a mode of feedback delivery. Screencasts
typically include a video recording of the computer screen while the marker uses the cursor to point to
examples, makes edits, highlights or annotates sections of the individual student’s work while
simultaneously audio recording the marker’s voice as they talked about the student’s work. In the
literature search, there were only a relatively small number of publications based on empirical research.
In these examples, there were no video recordings of the marker’s face although that is an option in
some screencasting software.
As in the case of audio recordings, the literature on screencasting is dominated by small case study and
quasi-experimental designs. While keeping these limitations in mind, it is interesting to note that the
findings are not only similarly positive but repeat the same themes as shown in Table 2.
The benefits of audio visual feedback could be explained, at least in part, by the affordances of the
media: namely, the speed of talking in comparison with writing and the richer communication cues,
such as tone. In turn, it is plausible that such a detailed and richly communicative response would
increase clarity of message, as well as a sense of individualisation and social presence leading to stronger
connections or rapport. However, while the literature reviewed to date agrees that students are largely
in favour of audio visual feedback, the same literature also calls for further research. The following
section explains the method by which we have successfully implemented video based feedback and how
the same principles can be generally applied to all multimedia feedback artefacts.
Implementation of technology enhanced feedback
This research has evolved out of a scholarship of teaching practice. In contrast to a planned research
project, our use of video-based feedback resulted from a feeling that this approach had the potential to
increase student understanding and satisfaction in graduate and postgraduate classes in an Education
faculty. This approach has now also been used in secondary schools with equally positive results.
Research findings are briefly mentioned in the conclusion of this paper and will be presented in detail
in future publications. The goal of this paper is to describe how video-based assessment feedback (and
by extension other digital modalities such as audio, screencasting, and portfolio) have been effectively
constructed in our own teaching and research.
Page 288 of 487
The design of video-based feedback
In producing the videos we have used different hardware and software including a webcam coupled with
video recording software, and even an iPhone (propped up to reduce camera movement). These methods
mean that the videos are immediately available and in a format ready for uploading without any editing
or post-production work. The simplicity of the process meant that we could easily record the videos
wherever we marked the assignment, at work or home.
As shown in Figure 1, the camera was focussed on the heads and shoulders of the teachers with enough
space in the frame to allow some movement and capturing of hand gestures. Consequently, there is no
need for high quality video resolution so long as the student can see the facial expressions and clearly
hear the teacher. Keeping video files sizes small enough to upload quickly and even email is an important
consideration. We have found that five minutes is sufficient to provide detailed feedback while also
maintaining manageable file sizes for uploading and downloading.
Figure 1. Frames from a feedback video
The videos were generally recorded immediately after the assignment was read which allowed teachers
to provide specific comments with a sense of immediacy as no ‘scripts’ were written with comments
based on notes made while reading the assignments. We rarely re-recorded and never edited videos as
this would make the process too time consuming; however, this meant that the videos often contained
pauses, ums, and even moments where we had to rephrase our comments because we realised we had
not been clear enough or were momentarily distracted. The recorded videos along with the grades were
then uploaded to an LMS (Moodle). We chose not to use public hosting services such as YouTube due
to the (at the time) concerns over privacy.
In comparison to text-based feedback from the same teachers it was found that the video-based feedback
gave more time to establishing and building on relationships with students and emphasised students
future performance. The structure of the video-based feedback is elaborated in Table 3.
Page 289 of 487
Table 3
Structure for technology enhanced feedback artefacts
Structural element
Salutation
Relational work
Evaluative summary
Textual issues
Commenting on the
substance of the
assignment with an
emphasis on feed
forward.
Valediction and
invitation
Description
Conversational/ informal salutation: “Hi Lee.”
Recognition and valuing of the student including personal circumstance and
history. This both draws on and reinforces the pedagogical relationship between
teacher and student. This might include a sympathetic comment (e.g., “I know you
have been quite ill lately and I am truly impressed that...”), appreciation of effort of
previous drafts (e.g., “I can see you have made a lot of changes to your
introduction”), reaction to quality or other aspect of submission (e.g., “Thank you
for submitting... I can see how much effort...”).
General statement of evaluation not necessarily the grade or mark. Very few of the
videos specifically stated the grade which was indicated to the student before they
opened the video. A general evaluative statement here provided a chance to
highlight the overall strength and weakness of the assignment before dealing with
the more specific issues. For instance, “The essay is very strong in its theoretical
approach... need work in...” and “I thoroughly enjoyed... but there are some issues
we need to talk about, namely...”
Briefly describing the nature, patterns and extent of textual issues in this
assignment, occasionally with one or two specific examples. This segment of the
feedback is short but generally included the same volume of comments about
textual issues as the final evaluative notes in the text-based feedback (but not the
specificity of the in-text edits).
Engaging with the conclusions, arguments, logic, justification, and literature
included in the assignment. Commenting on strengths, weaknesses, flaws, gaps,
creativity and insights. Importantly, comments were phrased to emphasise how
students can improve their grades in future work and how they can extend their
thinking about the substance of the assignment. This might include examples of
alternative arguments, additional literature and different ways to think or approach
the topic. Usually 2 to 3 issues were discussed in detail, regardless of result.
This is largely relational work. Usually involving use of student name, coupled
with congratulations or commiseration over result or other interpersonal validation,
such as, best wishes for future studies / holiday.
Importantly, this structural component included an invitation to contact the lecturer
to “continue the discussion” of this feedback and future work.
While these guidelines were originally developed and evaluated in relation to video-based feedback, the
same guidelines have been applied to other technology enhanced feedback, primarily digital audio and
screencasting. The media, combined with the structure of the feedback (Table 3) has resulted in positive
responses from students and teachers in higher education and secondary contexts. In brief, students
reported five main strengths (perceived as more personalised than text; increased clarity; more
supportive and caring; prompting reflection; constructive and useful) and two potential weaknesses
(initial anxiety about receiving feedback and a degree of difficulty in matching feedback to specific parts
of the assignment). These findings relating to impact will be presented in future publications.
Conclusion
There is a growing interest in technology enhanced feedback on assessment. However there is a need
for guidance about how to design and implement such feedback. This paper has presented a synthesis
of the literature relating to the design of teacher created feedback artefacts (e.g., text, video). The
resulting principles are: be timely; be clear (unambiguous); be educative and not just evaluative; be
proportionate to criteria/goals; locate student performance; emphasise task performance; be phrased as
an ongoing dialogue rather than an endpoint; and be sensitive to the individual.
This article has also offered guidelines about the creation and structure of technology enhanced
assessment feedback, including framing, length, and unscripted nature of the content. The structure is
much the same as what may be found in text based feedback but places a greater emphasis on relational
Page 290 of 487
work, invitational work, and feed forward (see Table 3), all of which are aided by the richness of the
media.
References
Abrahamson, E. (2010). Enhancing Students’ Understanding of Formative Assessment through Videofeedback
on
an
Undergraduate
Sports
Rehabilitation
Programme.
from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/case_studies/147_abrahamson_video-feedback.pdf
Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is
written on? Teachers' reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198.
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead,
UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Blair, A., & McGinty, S. (2013). Feedback dialogues: exploring the student perspective. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 466-476.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for a learning society. Studies in
Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in Higher and Professional Education. New York: Routledge.
Bourgault, A. M., Mundy, C., & Joshua, T. (2013). Comparison of Audio vs. Written Feedback on
Clinical Assignments of Nursing Students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 34(1), 43-46. doi:
10.5480/1536-5026-34.1.43
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Buckingham:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University.
Brown, S., & Knight, P. (Eds.). (1994). Assessing Learners in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Cann, A. J. (2007). Podcasting is Dead. Long Live Video! Bioscience Education, 10.
Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher
Education, 5(1), 95-105.
Costello, J., & Crane, D. (2010). Providing Learner-centered Feedback Using a Variety of Technologies.
Paper presented at the International Conference on the Liberal Arts, St. Thomas University, Fredericton,
New Brunswick. http://w3.stu.ca/stu/academic/departments/social_work/pdfs/CostelloandCrane.pdf
Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of
assessable work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571-581.
Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Mawc, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., . . . Park, J. (2012).
The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience
for staff and students? Computers and Education, 58(1), 386-396.
Crook, A., Park, J., Lawson, C., Lundqvist, K., Drinkwater, R., Walsh, J., . . . Maw, S. (2010). ASSET:
Moving Forward Through Feedback (pp. 1-20): Univeristy of Reading.
Davies, P. (2003). Closing the communications loop on the computerized peer-assessment of essays.
ALT-J, 11(1), 41-54.
Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M., & Rowe, P. (2008). Students' response to traditional and computer-
Page 291 of 487
assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(3), 486-500. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00745.x
Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed-forward’: improving students' use of tutors' comments. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271.
Edwards, K., Dujardin, A.-F., & Williams, N. (2012). Screencast Feedback for Essays on a Distance
Learning MA in Professional Communication: An Action Research Project. Journal of Academic
Writing, 2(1), 95-126.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education. Review of Educational
Research, 83(1), 70-120.
Glover, C., & Brown, E. (2006). Written feedback for students: too much, too detailed or too
incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education, 7(3).
Hase, S., & Saenger, H. (1997). Videomail-a personalised approach to providing feedback on assessment
to distance learners. Distance Education, 18, 362-369.
Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement.
London: Routledge.
Hattie, J. A., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1),
81-112.
Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage
student engagement with feedback: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117127.
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2001). Getting the Message Across: The problem of
communicating assessment feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 269-274.
Hyde, E. (2013). Talking Results-trialing an audio-visual feedback method for e-submissions.
Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 1(3).
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance
teaching presence and student’s sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
11(2), 3-25.
Inglis, A. (1998). Video email: a method of speeding up assignment feedback for visual arts subjects in
distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 343-354.
Johnson, R., & Keil, M. (2002). Internet-enabled audio communication: a richer medium for students
feedback? Paper presented at the International Academy for Information Management Annual
Conference, Barcelona, Spain.
Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC]. (2010). Effective assessment in a digital age. Retrieved
19
September,
2012,
from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassass_eada.pdf
Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 14(1), 63-76.
Lea, M., & Stierer, B. (2000). Student writing in higher education: New contexts. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Page 292 of 487
Lillis, T., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: contemporary confusion, traditional
concerns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 57-68.
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: students’ perceptions of quality and
effectiveness Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.
Lunt, T., & Curran, J. (2009). ‘Are you listening please?’ The advantages of electronic audio feedback
compared to written feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(7), 759-769. doi:
10.1080/02602930902977772
Marriott, P., & Teoh, L. K. (2012). Using Screencasts to Enhance Assessment Feedback: Students’
Perceptions
and
Preferences.
Accounting
Education,
21(6),
583-598.
doi:
10.1080/09639284.2012.725637
Mathieson, K. (2012). Exploring Student Perceptions of Audiovisual Feedback via Screencasting in
Online Courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 26(3), 143-156. doi:
10.1080/08923647.2012.689166
McConnell, D. (2006). Chapter four: Assessing learning in e-groups and communities. In D. McConnell
(Ed.), E-Learning Groups and communities. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ Attitudes to and Usage of Academic Feedback Provided Via
Audio Files. Bioscience Education, 11, 1-11.
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher
education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model
and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors’
and students’ understanding of coursework feedback Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
36(2), 125-136.
Parton, B. S., Crain-Dorough, M., & Hancock, R. (2010). Using flip camcorders to create video
feedback: Is it realistic for professors and beneficial to students? International Journal of Instructional
Technology & Distance Learning, 7(1), 15-23.
Reid, B., Francis, B., & Robson, J. (2005). Gender, bias, assessment and feedback: Analysing the written
assessment of undergraduate history essays. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(3),
241-260.
Rodway-Dyer, S., Knight, J., & Dunne, E. (2010). A Case Study on Audio Feedback with Geography
Undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35(2), 217-231. doi:
10.1080/03098265.2010.524197
Rotheram, B. (Producer). (2009). Sounds good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback.
JISCfunded project. Retrieved from http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads
Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher
Education, 19(1), 69-75.
Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with Students through Screencasting: Experimentations
with Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning. Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy,
1(1), 1-16.
Page 293 of 487
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379-394.
Whitington, V., Glover, A., & Harley, F. (2004). Preservice early childhood students’ perceptions of
written feedback on their essays. Early Child Development and Care, 174, 321-337.
Page 294 of 487
HIGH POSSIBILITY CLASSROOMS: IL IN ACTION
Jane L Hunter
School of Education, University of Western Sydney
Abstract
Providing school students with an experience of learning that is both important and
relevant to their social futures is a significant education issue. Better education
cannot be more of the same: the focus of Innovative Learning (IL) is about the
personal, the cognitive, the aesthetic and the moral, and the interplay among these
elements. In this paper I focus on IL from the perspective of these four elements and
some others in the actions of a group of exemplary teachers in New South Wales
(NSW) government schools in Australia. The paper draws on snapshots of findings
from a purposive sample of teachers and how they conceptualized their knowledge of
technology integration in education contexts. The research was a series of case
studies of teachers in classrooms (approximate ages of the students: 6-16 years)
conducted in four phases across two years. Practice in the classrooms of Gabby, Gina,
Nina and Kitty encompass many IL elements and as such act as potent scaffolds for
the creation of what are termed ‘High Possibility Classrooms’ in schools. Such
findings add to what is known about technology integration in IL and are of
theoretical and practical significance to leaders, teachers, academics and policy
makers in education jurisdictions.
Studies of technology integration in teaching and learning underpinned by theoretical constructs in the
Australian context are scant; however, teaching with technology in classrooms in Australian schools is
ubiquitous. New research (Hunter, 2013) presented in this paper is both significant and timely, given
the current education context and the large financial commitments by governments both in Australia,
and around the world, to increase technology capability in schools. Studying a group of exemplary
teachers, who are extraordinary users of technology and detailing how they conceptualize their
knowledge of technology integration in innovative ways using the TPACK or Technological
Pedagogical and Content Knowledge framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), provides considerable
insight into the phenomenon. The teachers play the ‘game of school’ in the morning and then get on
with ‘real learning’ after that. Such examples of practice show how some classrooms can focus on
Innovative Learning (IL) where students ‘get into flow’ and produce rich digital narratives to
demonstrate their literacy capabilities. Such spaces can traverse the political and ‘data hungry’
expectations of some education policies.
The TPACK framework was used as the study’s theoretical starting point and what emerged from the
research builds on what we now understand about particular teachers’ knowledge of technology
integration. Teachers in the study demonstrated the seven TPACK components in their daily practice.
However, on closer examination there were other aspects of their knowledge of technology integration
at play. This paper focuses on a new model for technology integration known as HPC or High Possibility
Classrooms as a robust example of IL in action; the TPACK components of the teachers’ practices can
be referred to in full in the dissertation (Hunter, 2013).
The HPC model has five core conceptions of technology integration that form practices that can be
considered IL: theory, creativity, public learning, life preparation and contextual accommodations with
22 underpinning themes of pedagogical practices and student learning processes. This paper features
Gabby, Gina, Nina and Kitty, the four teachers in the study, whose Stage 1- 5 classrooms (approximate
ages of the students: 6-16 years) feature the conceptions and themes of the HPC model. The classrooms
are highly inventive and engaging and as such, arguably fit with more contemporary visions of what IL
in schools can look like in action when technology integration is effective.
Page 295 of 487
Methodology
The research framework for the study was qualitative in nature and used case methodology to uncover
the teachers’ technology integration conceptions. It used a purposive sample of four exemplary teachers
drawn from Australian government schools in a major metropolitan education jurisdiction. The
exemplary teachers had to satisfy six criteria that arose from findings in an earlier pilot study (Hunter,
2007) on teacher professional learning integrating technology.
The central research question of how particular teachers conceptualized their knowledge of technology
integration was addressed through interviews, observations, document analysis, focus groups with
students and a day of cross case analysis with all teachers in the research.
Data for the study was collected in four phases over a two-year period. The data sets were analysed for
commonalities and differences using NVivo 9 software. The staggered nature of the data collection
period was a clear advantage, as there was opportunity to analyse each case intensely prior to starting
the next, drawing out individual themes and comparing them to subsequent uses and to the TPACK
framework. Cross case analysis was conducted to determine commonalities/differences in their
practices.
Collections of cases like the ones in this research locate themselves in an interpretive frame within a
socially constructed world view (Kamberlis & Dimitriadis, 2011). Using more than one case in a study
of teachers’ knowledge of technology integration “offers the researcher an even deeper understanding
of process and outcomes of cases, the chance to test (not just develop) hypotheses and a good picture of
locally grounded causality” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p.26). This strengthens one of the key arguments
for case study methodology in that it enables ‘closing in’ on real situations, allowing the research to test
views directly in relation to phenomena as they unfold in practice (Flyvbjerg, 2011). Each context was
distinctive, and there was adaptation or accommodation by the teacher to the unique school setting. The
following section describes features from each of the case studies.
Results
In the snapshots below, taken from the full cases in the dissertation, five main conceptions and some of
the themes of the teachers’ knowledge of technology integration are highlighted. Brief detail of the
teacher’s professional background and the school contexts are given together with common conceptions
and themes in their technology integration practices. These are presented in summary form at the end of
each case. The first case of Gabby, the Stage 1 teacher, follows.
Case 1: Gabby’s early year’s classroom
Gabby taught a composite class of 28 students in a relatively middle-class school in a major city. Her
foray into teaching began more than 20 years ago, and commenced with Teaching English as a Second
Language (TESOL). The classroom was set up with an interactive whiteboard (it was a tool for the
students to use), digital cameras and scanners, projectors, microphones, laptops and an iPhone. Gabby
considered herself an early year’s specialist and in her classroom student learning was made public
through performance.
The classroom was a place where active engagement, better quality outcomes and audience were
important in technology integration. These practices added to Gabby’s beliefs about creativity and
involved the continuous co-creation of products, defined by peer support and modelled and guided
practice. Of significance were the importance of differentiation and negotiation, and her actions
supported students’ experimentation and a sense of ‘unfinishedness’. For example, students had
multiple pieces of writing in production at any one time. Promoting experimentation and ‘getting into
flow’ is tied to her view that producing ‘beautiful generic things’ for assessment tasks is not the aim of
learning:
If everyone produces the same item then it’s easier to gauge which product is better, but this
is not what innovative learning is. Learning should flow and teachers should go with the flow.
Seeing what is important to each student is better revealed without everyone producing the
same thing at the same time. If teachers control how students use technology and what they
produce, they are acting as gatekeepers and that’s why I pulled away from encouraging
Page 296 of 487
teachers to use technology creatively … many didn’t know how to do it …. [the teachers]
have to live with a sense of unfinishedness when technology is integrated.
Her students prepared rich narratives that were highly original and replete with complex, sophisticated
language. Students played in the classroom and so did Gabby. They made movies, podcasts and digital
games. It was the kind of ‘thick play’ that Mackey (2009) refers to, and in this classroom play was linked
to life preparation, where a sense of fun enabled story-telling, dressing up and developing students’
mathematical thinking.
Furthermore, extended learning time supported students to deepen their thoughts by consciously giving
them more time to develop imagination, expand and complete class work. Table 1 provides a summary
of the conceptions and themes of her knowledge of technology integration coded within the data.
Table 1: Conceptions and themes of Gabby’s knowledge of technology integration
Gabby
Learning
made public
through
performance
Creativity
Differentiation
and
negotiation
Continuous
Better quality
co-creation Experimentation
outcomes
of products
Play and fun
Extended
learning
time
Dressing up
Imagination
Length of
session
time
Audience
Peer
support
Going with the
flow
Story telling
Active
engagement
Modeled
and guided
practice
Unfinishedness
Mathematical
thinking
Case 2: Gina in the primary years
Gina taught 28 students in a Stage 2 primary year’s classroom. She was also appointed to a position of
technology consultant for the region and this meant she was available to work with hundreds of teachers
to enhance their technology integration practices by ‘working at their elbow’. She liked to teach Science,
this included the unit Model Car Challenge – Alternative Energy, where students constructed selfpropelled model cars that were either balloon or rubber band powered.
Her classroom was quite traditional in its layout and there was no interactive whiteboard, instead Gina
used her own computer, her iPhone and a projector screen. Students had access to computer lab. Gina
was one of two teachers in the study who spoke about the importance of students learning how to write
computer programming code: “It teaches you how to think” she said. For Gina, this idea was crucial in
21st Century learning contexts and spoke to notions of logic and problem solving skills. Knowledge of
technology integration centred on a belief that purposeful teaching was crucial. Every lesson had clear
and well defined goals, comprehensive planning and connections to larger concepts and this could be
achieved through extending language and conversation with students.
In terms of theory driving practice, constructivist teaching was key and Gina used a pedagogical
framework for Quality Teaching (NSWDET, 2003) to support her aim; the framework used is built on
being clear about what the teacher wants the students to learn, why the learning mattered, how the
students demonstrated their deep understanding and how well she expected them to do their work. She
deliberately built a sustained and deliberate questioning environment; often saying “Questions are more
important than answers”.
The conception of creativity stemmed from her idea that teachers needed to use narratives to explain
complex ideas, and such ideas could be better articulated using various technology programs like
Page 297 of 487
Stopmotion, iMovie and other apps like Popplet and Linouet. Technology gave students opportunities
to perform. The real world application of technology was about preparing students for life, giving them
a ‘voice’ and a sense of ownership and responsibility. In her knowledge of terms of professional identity
Gina explained that the multiple roles teachers naturally take on when teaching in a school provided
opportunity for professional growth. The role of technology consultant gave Gina license to work
alongside education colleagues beyond her own classroom. Actions of modelling practice and shifting
teachers’ ideas about classroom control are critical in her conception of how school systems should
support professional development for technology integration. Gina gave the teachers she worked with
options of how to approach technology integration, she argued:
Teachers are very worried and have strong concerns. Perhaps there is a problem in their
teaching practice to start with? I might start by asking them about how they believe they
control students. Technology is blamed as the issue … maybe it requires teachers to be too
liberal? They have to shift their sense of control.
Closely aligned to this theme is the role of teachers and learning communities in schools. Gina describes:
“A community of learners includes the teacher”. She gave reasons why conversations about technology
had to go beyond mere process:
Teachers must be willing to learn and know how texts work in technology mediums, and
know what makes an effective text. Technologies have literacies themselves, which will
increasingly need to be addressed.
The importance of a willingness to learn by both the individual teacher, and more broadly the education
system, are repeated themes in Gina’s conceptions of technology integration. Professional identity
affirmed through support for teacher roles and learning communities are the preferred means to enhance
teacher knowledge of technology integration. Table 2 provides a summary of the conceptions and
themes of her knowledge of technology integration coded within the data.
Table 2: Conceptions and themes of Gina’s knowledge of technology integration
Gina
Purposeful
teaching
Theorydriven
practice
Creativity
Real world
application
Professional
identity
Purpose
Constructivist
teaching
Narratives in
action
Preparation
for life
Teacher
roles
Planning
Teaching for
quality
Creating
learning
products
Student
voice
Learning
communities
Connections
through
language and
conversation
Building a
questioning
environment
Performance
Ownership
Case 3: Nina’s middle year’s classroom
It was a 1:1 classroom, and the laptop program added to the variety of technology programs students at
the school accessed. The first computer mediated classroom was established by Nina at the school in
2000 when she set up the server. The school is a designated “Apple School of Excellence” because of
its recognized technology focus. Her 28 students have been schooled together since their early years.
Nina talked frequently about the importance of community in the school. She believed this phenomenon
was supported by continuous class groupings of students’ right across the whole school.
Page 298 of 487
The first conception that explains Nina’s knowledge of technology integration in this class of ‘gifted
and talented students’ is built from praxis with a focus on active construction of student learning using
a model she developed from her own doctoral work QUEST (Question, Uncover, Explain, and Share
Together). This model was a type of inquiry learning scaffold. When students used QUEST they would
research a topic that they were interested in finding out more about, explain it in their own words and
then share their understandings with peers in the classroom. At the same time while students’ worked
on QUEST projects she relentlessly probed and questioned them about what they were learning.
There was a focus on meta-cognitive learning through technology in the second conception and this was
embraced in Nina’s technology philosophy. She was a devotee of the ideas of Papert, and philosophers
Ihde (1990) and Bronowski (1974). To Nina it was the pace of learning that mattered in the classroom
and it was effective technology integration that more rapid learning possible. Nina said: “Students have
to study robust subject matter, and be able to access content quickly otherwise learning is a waste of
time”.
Technology integration promoted creativity through the values of joy, celebration and preparation for
life in the third conception. Following on from that conception in the fourth, the moral purpose of
effective technology integration was central to Nina’s classroom practices. Establishing a community
of learners to fulfil the moral purpose of school led through technology integration involved shared
ownership and self regulation for students.
In the fifth conception, Nina believed a redefinition of the ‘game of school’ was necessary, at both the
personal and system level. Conflicting demands of current education approaches didn’t have the students
learning interests centre stage. Table 3 provides a summary of the conceptions and themes of Nina’s
knowledge of technology integration coded within the data.
Table 3: Conceptions and themes of Nina’s knowledge of technology integration
Nina
Praxis
Metacognitive
learning
through
technology
Creativity
Community
of learners
Redefining
the game
QUEST
Technology
philosophy
Values of joy
and
celebration
Shared
ownership
Personal
context
Pace of
learning
Preparation
for life
Selfregulation in
learning
Conflicting
system
demands
Theorybased with a
focus on
active
construction
Relentless
probing and
questioning
Robust subject
matter
Case 4: Kitty’s high school classrooms
Kitty taught in a large, ethnically diverse, high school in a large city precinct. She was a qualified
filmmaker before embarking on her teaching career. At this site, Kitty taught Visual Arts, and was the
school’s leading technology advocate. In addition to teaching her own subject, Kitty supported other
teachers’ technology integration in History and English curriculum. She conducted competitive digital
media programs for students in the senior years. In this context, it was surprising to find Kitty’s
classroom practices shared commonalities with Gabby’s early year’s methods but there were also key
differences in their pedagogical styles.
Page 299 of 487
Flexibility in her knowledge of technology integration was strengthened by planning and organization,
a focus on self-regulation and differentiation. Kitty used a simple ‘3 x 3 rule’ with the Netbook devices
where students either worked online, offline, or on paper. This meant if they had left their computer at
home they had no excuse to not get on with learning.
Secondly, experiential learning relied on authentic experiences and developing students’ subject matter
knowledge through video and art. In her popular digital media projects students made short films for
state-wide competitions. For Kitty, creativity was about its aesthetic significance and enabling student
learning to be made public using technology. In one example, she used bonsai to create images and
outlines in shade and light for students who struggled with creating the visual form. Public learning
increased the quality of their work especially when they knew it had a ‘peer or public’ audience.
Kitty’s knowledge of technology integration stemmed from a belief that she was preparing students for
life beyond school. She wanted her students to take risks with their learning and technology was the
perfect medium to do it. To her, developing students’ sense of personal agency dominated. It was John
Dewey (1934) who famously said: “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself” (p.12).
Kitty paralleled this well-known quote when she said:
I am preparing students for life beyond school … for life. Visual Arts may be the only subject
where some students experience success in their learning, and can walk out of school with a
sense of how the world is.
The conception of preparation for life was pursued daily, both inside and outside, the classroom. It was
the way education happened. This message was given by Kitty to her students through classroom
conversations and the manner in which she encouraged students to take risks with their learning. They
had the ability to complete tasks and reach personal goals.
Kitty acted to develop a whole school culture of technology integration at the school and this meant all
teachers had to take professional responsibility for engaging and using technology in their daily teaching
and learning practices in classrooms. She kept up with the pace of technology change by co-teaching
with colleagues as a means of encouraging them to keep learning too. Table 4 provides a summary of
the conceptions and themes of her knowledge of technology integration coded within the data.
Table 4: Conceptions and themes of Kitty’s knowledge of technology integration
Kitty
Flexibility
Experiential
learning
Creativity
Preparation
for a life of
learning
Whole
school
culture
Planning and
organisation
Authentic
experience
Aesthetic
significance
Risk-taking
Professional
responsibility
Self-regulation
Developing
subject
matter
knowledge
Learning
made public
Self-efficacy
Enacting a
role
Differentiation
Data analysis
The case studies describe particular conceptions of four ‘exemplary’ teachers’ knowledge of technology
integration in classrooms of Australian school students in Stages 1-5. Each case featured data analysed
into pedagogical themes, comprising diverse teaching strategies and student learning processes. The
conceptions and pedagogical themes from Tables 1-4 were validated and further refined during a
rigorous process of cross-case analysis where all teachers came together to validate the emergent model.
Page 300 of 487
This step produced clear similarities and points of divergence in their knowledge of technology
integration, and these are presented in final form in 22 themes under the conceptions in Table 5 below.
The five main conceptions in the HPC model are shown in Figure 1 on page 8.
Table 5: Conceptions and themes from the four cases detailing pedagogical strategies and innovative student
learning processes
Moreover, analysis of data in the study showed that the pedagogical approaches in all classrooms varied,
as did the technology tools and pathways teachers and students used to create and explore technology
integration. What was interesting was that although the teachers believed their outcomes were similar,
and their pedagogies were different: “I think we might have adopted different pedagogies but we end up
in the same place” said Kitty.
For example, common to all of the teachers in the study is their understanding of learning driven by
theory. The teachers take risks with the technology they use; all are confident users, and exhibit trust in
students as thinkers. They know and value students as learners, and believe the ‘voice’ of their students
is important. Technology is the learning enabler and all four teachers also see themselves as ‘expert
learners’. Creativity was about providing opportunities for students to produce or make things, and in
so doing the potential for ‘play’ in learning occurs. Such action allows particular learning values to be
upheld along with easier differentiation or personalisation of the act of learning. If learning is made
public in the classroom it serves to better scaffold how students can learn. How and what they write
about, or perform in a task, often results in work of higher quality as opposed to work that is just recorded
in a book or on paper. Private work has no audience, or perhaps only the teacher or parents, as its
audience. Using technology prepares students for life beyond school; it is what people do in the ‘real
world’ in workplaces, in higher education settings and at home. Technology drives ownership and
responsibility and what it means to be an effective learner in today’s world. Each school context was
able to accommodate what these teachers did at the personal and professional level in their technology
integration practices. The teachers created longer blocks of learning time across the school day to allow
students to ‘get into flow’. The classroom was about a ‘community of learners on a learning mission’
and it was technology that drove learning. Technology integration is a fundamental ‘game changer’ for
all teachers and school leaders in all education jurisdictions must embrace its potential to change how
learning is conducted in all classrooms.
Page 301 of 487
Figure 1: High Possibility Classrooms or the HPC model
:
Discussion and conclusion
New research that forms the HPC model I argue is an example of IL in action and forms what I denote
is Action Knowledge (AK). Others have referred to this notion as knowledge-of-practice, knowledgefor-practice and knowledge-in-practice (Neiss & Gillow-Wiles, 2014). Such knowledge surfaced
through deliberate study is significant for three reasons. Firstly, because it is drawn from a collection of
case studies of ‘exemplary’ teachers’ knowledge of technology integration, where each serves as a
motivational exemplar of IL in action and demonstrates what can be achieved using technology in
today’s classrooms. Secondly, the research is a clear response to persistent calls in education literature
for more case studies of teachers’ practice in technology integration in both Australian (Finger et al,
2007; Jordan & Dinh, 2012) and international contexts (Schrum, 2011). Previous studies of technology
integration have, for the main part, revolved around studies of graduate or experienced teachers’ contexts
using particular technology devices, like laptops and desk-top computers. And thirdly, the study fills a
noted gap in the research literatures, in what is known about knowledge of technology integration in
practice from teachers’ perspectives. It is highly personal. Therefore, together this distinctive
examination of data from a group of ‘exemplary’ teachers’ knowledge of technology integration in
Australian classrooms gives critical, fresh insights to what is now known.
The research shows that high level theory driven technology practice, inclusive of the cognitive aspects
of learning can counteract pressures some teachers may feel to ‘simply teach to tests’ and disrupt the
adoption of more narrow views of learning. Across some education literature there is frequent
provocation to resist performative cultures of standardized tests (Chen, 2010; Gardner, 2012,
Richardson, 2012), which thinly veil learning in schools in narrow terms, and evidence is provided that
such ‘testing regimes’ will not fulfil what students need to lead successful adult lives into the future
(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Zhao, 2012). All teachers in the study took the view that technology
integration was about opening up learning possibilities, and their practices call on school systems to
really imagine education by including the aesthetic and encouraging students to take learning risks.
Futures in education in such classrooms are much more about visions of students as empowered learners
and the teacher’s seamless integration of technology is the critical driver that enacts students’ autonomy.
This kind of vision for classrooms has implications for current education policy agendas in schools.
Education policy that recognizes the importance of teachers continually renewing their exposure to
education theories also emerges from the study findings. The teachers had continued their professional
Page 302 of 487
learning beyond initial teaching qualifications and had integrated what was learned from ongoing
professional development into practice. They could readily identify theoretical and pedagogical
frameworks. One example where this concern was most apparent was creativity. This idea is on the
current education policy agenda in many countries and in Australia it has manifested most recently in a
new policy on Creative Australia (Australian Government, 2013). The attention is on workforces skilled
with people who know ‘how to be flexible, think and create’. Therefore, teachers in schools have a
crucial role in preparing young people for future jobs in creative and innovative industries (Robinson,
2013). When teachers have a central role in defining education in their own context it means they can
deepen the focus on learning. When there is less pressure to ‘teach to tests’ and accountability measures
in schools places greater value on the professionalism and judgment of teachers, then opportunities for
quality teaching expand. Opening up the current limitations of school education policy is important, and
will assist more effective personalization, and customization of learning, that is more relevant and more
significant for students. Continuing to play the current ‘education game’ is arguably not the answer.
Case studies that demonstrate particular teachers’ technology integration in action offer strong
arguments for considering the HPC model as an example of IL more broadly. The TPACK framework
laid the valuable groundwork for the research. From that sound foundation it was possible to identify
the new model for technology integration known as High Possibility Classrooms comprised of theory,
creativity, public learning, life preparation and contextual accommodations. This fresh vision provides
an original and exciting scaffold for teachers to create the kinds of classrooms that all students need to
inhabit in the future.
References
Australian Government. (2013). Creative Australia: National cultural policy. Retrieved from
http://creativeaustralia.arts.gov.au/assets/Creative-Australia-PDF-20130417.pdf
Bronowski, J. (1974). Ascent of man. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Chen, M. (2010). Education nation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equip will
determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. (1980 ed.). New York: Perigee.
Finger, G. Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming learning with ICT:
Making IT happen. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
Flyvberg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) The Sage handbook of
qualitative research. (4th ed.), 301-316.Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Gardner, H. (2012, December 11) Reframing education: Talk at Nesta. Retrieved from
http://www.nesta.org.uk/assets/events/reframing_education_a_talk_from_professor_howard_gardner
Hunter, J.L. (2013). Exploring technology integration in teachers' classrooms in NSW public schools.
Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Western Sydney.
Hunter, J. (2007). Fresh equation: quality digital resources + interactive whiteboards + collaborative
tools = engaging pedagogy for the classroom. Learning, media and technology, 32(3), 245-260.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Page 303 of 487
Jordan, K., & Dinh, H. (2012). TPACK: Trends in current research. Paper presented at the ACEC,
October 2-5, Perth, WA.
Kamberlis, G., & Dimitriadis,G. (2011). Focus groups: Contingent articulations of pedagogy, politics
and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds) The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
(4th Ed) (pp 545-561). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Mackey, M. (2009). Exciting yet safe: The appeal of thick play and big worlds. In R. Willett, M.
Robinson, & J. Marsh , (Eds). (2009). Play, creativity and digital cultures. New York:
Routledge.
Miles, A.M., & Huberman, M.B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A new framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Neiss, M.L. & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2014). Knowledge of Practice for Teaching with Technologies:
Pedagogically-focussed experiences and reflections. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa
(Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference 2014 (pp. 1890-1920). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Richardson, W. (2012). Why school? How education must change when learning and informationare
everywhere. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Robinson, K. (2013).How to escape education’s death valley, Retrieved January 2, 2014, from
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_death_valley.html
Schrum, L. (2011). Revisioning a proactive approach to an educational technology research agenda. In
L. Schrum (Ed.), Considerations on educational technology integration: The best of JRTE.
Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Page 304 of 487
FLOWCHARTS: A TOOL FOR COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
Cruz Izu and Amali Weerasinghe
School of Computer Science, The University of Adelaide
Abstract
New curricula in UK, US and Australia aim to introduce computational thinking into every
school. Computational Thinking (CT) teaches how to solve problems by borrowing
techniques used in computer science to design programs: problem decomposition, pattern
recognition, pattern generalization to define abstractions or models and algorithm design.
An algorithm is a sequence of steps, decisions and repetitions to complete a task. A common
approach to introduce CT and algorithms is by exposing primary students to visual programs
such as Scratch or Kodu. These tools are engaging and they successfully teach students to
develop simple algorithms. However, not all primary school teachers are familiar with them,
and they may have constraints both in the access to school computers and the lack of time to
upskill. Thus, we propose to support/complement visual programming with flowcharts, as
they use plain English, require only pen and paper and can be applied to multiple subjects of
the primary school curriculum.
Flowcharts are a good introduction to CT, as you could start with simple step-by-step
procedures, and gradually introduce decisions, branches and repetition. In this paper we will
review ways to incorporate CT with flowcharts into the primary school curriculum that is
aligned with the ACARA Digital Technologies curriculum’s content descriptions for
algorithms at years F-6.
Introduction
Most primary school students regularly use computers, and produce their own digital documents such
as multimedia presentations or reports. Thus, ICT is embedded in the curriculum but recently there has
been a significant drive to extend and/or replace ICT with a basic understanding of computer science
concepts. According to Guzdial (Shein, 2014),
“If someone is going to become a knowledge worker, or take on any job, that requires an
undergraduate degree, they should know how to read a piece of code that is useful to them
and be able to make changes to it.” (p 16)
Following this recent trend, a curriculum that aims to teach some introductory Computer Science (CS)
at F-10 level has been drafted in Australia (ACARA, 2013). Even though this is a noble goal, that has
the potential to provide better opportunities to students in a knowledge economy, it poses pedagogical
challenges. It is not enough to repackage existing CS curricula and teach them at early stages.
One of the major issues is how much programming should be included as basic computer science?
Programming is a core skill in computer science and involves abstract reasoning. Children typically
develop the ability for abstract reasoning around the age of 12. Furthermore, writing descriptions in an
unfamiliar programing language will be difficult for a student who does not yet have a good
understanding of the processes that these descriptions are aimed to capture (Lu, 2009).
Two approaches to deal with this challenge are
 Using visual programming languages, which enable leaners to avoid dealing with syntax,
that often distracts them from process of learning. Besides, by producing visual outputs
(animations or pictures) it both motivates the students and provides instant feedback.
 Introducing algorithmic thinking and problem-solving skills that are the backbone of the
program creation using examples from everyday life such as writing a recipe or giving
directions.
Page 305 of 487
In regards to the second approach, Jeannette Wing (2006) coined the term computational thinking (CT)
which she later defined as follows (Wing, 2010):
“The thought processes involved in formulating problems and their solutions so that the
solutions are represented in a form that can be effectively carried out by an informationprocessing agent” (page 1)
In other words, computational thinking is what comes before writing the program, and is a core skill
that should be taught to every student (Shein, 2014). CT focuses on learning problem-solving skills in
computer science, similar to learning problem-solving skills in mathematics. From now on, we will
refer to CT to cover in depth the second approach, including algorithmic thinking.
Visual programming has gained popularity in upper primary and middle schools in the last 5 years, and
as a consequence there are many teaching materials available for it. Scratch
(http://www.scratch.mit.edu), which has been around since 2003 is the most popular visual program,
but in the last few years other variations of visual programming this such as Tynker
(http://www.tynker.com) and Kodu (http://www.kodugamelab.com) have also been used at primary
level and in many extra-curriculum activities such as CS clubs and holiday camps. A YouTube search
for “Scratch games” returns 704,000 videos, many posted by primary students and/or teachers while a
similar search on “computational thinking” returns 5,450 videos, most of them posted by
academics/industry to promote the need to teach CT, and only a handful involving primary teachers or
students. However the second approach is started to gain momentum due to curriculum changes in US
(CSTA, 2012), UK (Computing at School, 2012) and Australia (ACARA, 2013), that aim to teach
computer science concepts to every student.
Introducing the basic concepts of CT (sequential algorithms, conditions and decomposition) will
improve the student’s critical thinking skills and encourage in-depth learning. We believe having prior
experience in CT will enable primary level students to easier understand the fundamentals of visual
programming. Furthermore, not all primary school teachers are familiar with visual programming
languages, and they may have constraints both in the access to school computers and the lack of time to
upskill. Thus, we propose to support/complement visual programming with flowcharts, as a tool to
introduce CT at primary level.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: firstly we will review the scope of CT and its place in the
Digital Technologies curriculum. Then we will introduce flowcharts, their notation and explain why they
are a good fit to support CT at years F-4. We will also show a range of examples of embedding
flowcharts and CT in primary lesson plans, followed by some conclusions.
Computational Thinking in the Australian Curriculum
In this section we will present the key concepts and practices of computational thinking, discuss how
CT fits inside Bloom’s revised taxonomy of learning (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and see how CT
fits in the new Australian curriculum.
There are many definitions of Computational thinking (Lu, 2009; Google, 2012; Wing, 2006), all
capturing key concepts such as abstraction, algorithmic thinking and efficiency, but with difference
emphasis or terminology depending on their target audience. The definition quoted next is published by
the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers
Association (CSTA) (http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf) and is
aimed at school teachers and educators.
Page 306 of 487
“Computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving process that includes (but is not limited to)
the following characteristics:
1. Formulating problems in a way that enables us to use a computer and other tools to
help solve them.
2. Logically organizing and analyzing data
3. Representing data through abstractions such as models and simulations
4. Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking (a series of ordered steps)
5. Identifying, analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving
the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources
6. Generalizing and transferring this problem solving process to a wide variety of
problems”
Abstraction is a key principle in CT, which is crucial to deal with complexity of problems that require
computational thinking skills. Algorithmic design also provides opportunities to learn abstraction,
decomposition, iterative and conditional thinking. Other definitions (Google, 2012) use the terms pattern
recognition and generalization, which are implicitly included in points 4 to 6 in the list above. Pattern
recognition looks for similarities in the problem cases that can be use to design efficient algorithms;
pattern generalization and abstraction allows us to represent an idea or a process in general terms (e.g.,
variables) so that we can use it to solve other problems that are similar in nature.
Computational thinking requires students to develop higher order thinking skills in Bloom’s pyramid:
applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. For example, the CT activity described in Figure 3 later
in this paper asks students first to apply a simple grammar rule to a list of words, analyse the result and
create an improved version of the rule to accommodate the exceptions they found. They are also
expected to evaluate the modified rule with a larger set of words. This approach will deepen their
understanding of English grammar compared with the standard approach of the teacher providing the
complete rule with exceptions to start with, and ask the students only to understand and apply the rule.
The Australian Digital Technologies curriculum has two inter-related strands: (i) Digital technologies
knowledge and understanding and (ii) Digital Technologies processes and production skills. The second
strand includes both “Managing and analyzing data” and “Specification, algorithm and implementation”
as key components, which covers most of the CT characte